Liberalism in its modern guise only took hold in the American academic circles in the 1960s, although it's a very fuzzy event of course. Prior to that the idea that there were fundamental differences wasn't toxic, but I fully agree that it was also often taken too far. I consider the current stance a massive overreaction, but there was something to react to. I don't think the facts have ever justified current academic orthodoxy and rather fully expect it to be looked back on as something as bizarre as pholistigon, but as we sit here in the middle of it, it's much harder to see how bizarre it is.

So to me, the revolutionary bit has nothing to do with "new facts"... the revolutionary bit is if it established to the point where current orthodoxy can no longer resist it.

And in the meantime, as someone who truly enjoys science in its real form as a permanent, ongoing intellectual revolution rather than a servant of the orthodoxy, the staggering vista of quantitative research this opens up into the diversity (the real diversity, not the political kind) of the human experience is incredibly exciting. There's rich veins of knowledge to be mined here with modern technology and techniques.

And I'd make that meta-reply in general to a lot of the other comments... yes, frankly the general gist of this has long been obvious to anyone with an independent mind who takes a look out at the world around us, but if it's so obvious, why has the scientific orthodoxy not matched that? The surprise expressed in this article is real. And I mean that as a true question for thought and examination, not mere snark. It's a rich question, about science, about how science works, about history, all sorts of things. Books could be written on it, and probably will be.

Actually, exceptionalism is a mainstay of the self-perception of a great many (if not all) cultures.

Considering the world is usually divided into the West and the Rest, that's not unsurprising.