On Jan. 14, 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers ignited the firestorm that eventually cost him his job.

How did he bring the wrath of academia cascading down upon his head? The distinguished economist and former Treasury Secretary transgressed social acceptability by citing "research in behavioral genetics showing that things people attributed to socialization" might in fact have a biological basis. In other words, the reason women are underrepresented in university math and science departments could be that more men than women excel in these fields.

Predictably, denizens of the ivory tower responded by shooting the messenger. Did it matter that throughout Scandinavia, the world's most progressive gender-neutral policies had produced the seeming paradox of more, not less, gender inequality? Of course not.

Some psychologists have argued that deep-rooted gender prejudice is to blame for the failure of gender-neutral initiatives. Others, however, including Dr. Jordan Peterson, argue back that there is no paradox here at all.

As controversial as it sounds to progressive ears, both ancient wisdom and common sense attest that men and women are, in fact, different. In general, women are more interested in people, which inclines them toward careers in education and social care; men are more interested in things, which steers them toward executive positions in the private sector. We should find it unsurprising that, left to their own devices, both men and women choose those vocations most aligned with their respective natures.

Of course, this does not imply that women cannot excel in science or math. It simply means that, statistically, more men are likely to occupy the top tier than women, just as more men serve time in federal prison for violent crimes. Should we try to achieve gender-neutral incarceration rates as well?

Our topic here, however, is not social justice but the tension between intention and outcome. And a most useful model for illustrating that tension is this week's entry into the Ethical Lexicon:

Schrodinger's Cat | noun

The quantum paradox of an indeterminate state in which a cat in a sealed box can be considered simultaneously alive and dead.

History provides countless examples of good ideas that caused more harm than good. Capital gains tax sounds fair, redirecting income from the wealthiest to the poorest. But statistics prove that tax revenue declines as those taxes rise. The intentionally alive cat appears dead on arrival.

The 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Act promised to curtail the influence of big money on political campaigns. Instead, it drove donations away from the party mainstreams and into the hands of unaccountable Super PACs. Rather than empowering individual voters, it helped fuel a culture of virulent hyper-partisanship so many now lament.

Often, consequences are not merely unintended but utterly unpredictable. Only after putting plans into effect will we discover whether they produce the expected results. That is why, as long as we keep our ideas locked in the box of the hypothetical, they remain simultaneously alive and dead.

Erwin Schrodinger himself argued vehemently against the notion that the cat is half-dead and half-alive; it must be one or the other. But until we can determine which, we need to account for both. And that is precisely the mindset needed to resolve the tension between intentions and outcomes.

The appearance of fairness cannot be ignored, since perception influences reality. Once people conclude that a seemingly fair solution is the right one, they will refuse to accept any facts to the contrary. And even the most beneficial outcome, when perceived as unjust, will fail to win the support necessary for long-term success.

Perception, however, is no substitute for reality. Everyone knows the famous road paved with good intentions and where it leads.

Our polarized culture emboldens binary thinking, which suppresses ethical clarity by stifling our capacity for both complexity and nuance. Few things in life are black and white, and only by grappling with the gray can we navigate the moral paradoxes of the human condition.

Authentic wisdom calls on us to reject the false binary of intentions vs. outcomes, thereby empowering us to bridge the ideological divide and resolve the contradiction of heart and mind. That is the road that leads to building a better world.

See more by Yonason Goldson and features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists; visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Elena Mozhvilo at Unsplash