AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (107 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    These days being called a racist is rather like being called a Commie back in the 50′s. Not to be taken literally, it’s just a convenient way of dismissing you so that they don’t actually have to address your arguments.

    1. Well, one slight difference. A good many of those called communist were in fact communists, some of them were even Communists.

  2. Really? The 1-star reviews are quite coherent.

    1. samuel beckwith

      Your comment exposes your weakness. Those 1 star reviews are only coherent to the incoherent.

    2. Sigivald

      I don’t see a word in his statement accusing negative reviews of incoherence (or even of their being wrong).

      I see a claim that accusations of racism are not backed by direct quotes from his writings – and certainly Mr. Murray’s self-quotation of what he claims (I haven’t read the book, so cannot evaluate the claim fairly) to be his thesis does not contain even the seed of bigotry.

      A sober analysis would seem to say it denies the very basis of racism based on “race intelligence”, in fact.

      I don’t have a dog in this fight, but you seem to be rebutting a straw man here.

      1. “It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.”

        That magical sentence certainly infers it that certain races aren’t as intelligent as others. I suppose the whole world is proof of this because some places clearly consistently thrive while others are barely surviving. One of the book’s big statement is that intelligence has a genetic component and therefore immutable. That is to say you can’t do much for low-I.Q. people and they’ll generally be mired in poverty because they’re doomed to make poor life choices.

        However there’s also the problem that I.Q. is a sure predictor of success. Smarter people generally do better but there’s no ironclad rule that everyone who’s successful has an I.Q. well above average.

        1. Cognition

          Amazing.

          Tell me what averages are.

      2. sojournanon

        Murray’s statements within this response to the criticisms of his work are patently false and, worse, he knows that — he merely hopes the audience doesn’t know the literature. Each and every one of his works has been torn apart as less than scholarly, full of inaccurate and, at best, misleading data, based on, primarily, racist eugenic discourse and pseudo science of the 1800s and early 1900s… and, yes, not only was his literature (direct quotes) used to demonstrate this but also a wide variety of solid research to demonstrate the falseness of his claims within his work. Murray is upset because he’s been called out, yet again, for his less-than-scholarly, incredibly unintelligent and racist discourse. No one is rehashing this about his work in the media now because: a. he’s a third party that was used, yet again, to propagate stereotypes and racist doctrine; b. the work has been done before by a wide variety of scholars; and c. anyone who questions the criticism or wishes to know more can and should look up and read any and/or all of this literature. It’s not hard to find; it’s in this thing called a library.

        1. Curious that you decide not to provide a single reference.

          Flynn has this to say about Jensen, who Murray quotes heavily:

          “James R. Flynn, an authority on IQ tests who gained prominence with his discovery of the worldwide increase in IQ scores known as the “Flynn effect,” said in an interview this week that Jensen made “landmark contributions” to psychology, most of which had nothing to do with questions of race.”

          What’s more here is what Nature, the pre-eminent, peer-reviewed journal (not Mother) has to say about the debate:

          “Nobel prizewinner William Shockley became a subject of controversy in the 1970s, after his work turned to racial differences in intelligence. In recent decades, the writings, statements and teachings of Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin and John Philippe Rushton, also on racial differences in intelligence, have met variously with acclaim, outcries and demands for job termination. So have writings of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray on the differential distribution of IQ by race. And Frank Ellis, a lecturer at the University of Leeds, UK, took early retirement in the face of an ethical storm that developed after he suggested in a student newspaper that intelligence levels were related to ethnicity. The list goes on. Many have been dissuaded from even looking at the research topic for fear of condemnation.

          [emphasis]

          The outcries against those who speak of racial and gender gaps in IQ have become deafening, at times resembling Lysenkoism in language if not in deed.

          [emphasis]

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html

          Now, try again. You can wave your hands and make snarky comments about the library, but how about actually substantiating your claims?

          1. sojournanon

            Nature is not a peer-reviewed journal and certainly not “highly acclaimed” or regarded within academic circles because it is not peer-reviewed. It is made up of individuals who are not in any field who have any knowledge/background in sociology, education, etc. that actually do work related to intelligence but, rather, do work in areas that have nothing to do with the subject matter (aeronautical engineering, chemistry and molecular biology, for example, are not related to the subject matter of race and/or poverty and/or intelligence and/or I.Q. exams — neither do the fields of genetics, biology, etc.). As they point to within their own description of their magazine, Nature commissions articles, videos and so forth; academic peer-reviewed journals do not do this. As for me citing literature, try looking up anything within the fields of sociology, education, psychology, and, yes, critical race theory around six months to a year after Losing Ground came out, six months to a year after the Bell Curve to find just a few examples… No, I’m not doing your homework for you; I’ve given you more than enough information to do your own work — which you clearly have not done given the fact that you don’t even know the difference between a magazine and a peer-reviewed journal.

          2. [email protected]

            Hmmm.

            “PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH…”

            http://www.nature.com/nature/about/

        2. Cognition

          I would love to see some direct quotes and citations from the relevant peer-reviewed literature that back up what you just asserted.

          Seriously, “solid research” that vindicates his critics? Dream on :-)

          http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

          http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2013197a.html

          Charles Murray has the science on his side, while the obstructionists in every humanities department continue to build their interpretations of the world on pillars of sand. :-D

          1. [email protected]

            Hmmm.

            “PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH…”

            http://www.nature.com/nature/about/

        3. Hi sojournanon,

          You really must work on your arguments — the ones offered are simply embarrassing. The gist of the hereditarian position, which Murray entertains, is:

          1. African and European Americans differ in psychometric intelligence. This has been established; the psychometric bias hypothesis is no longer tenable.

          2. The Differences between groups — call these what you will — have an external validity comparable to those within groups.

          3. Longitudinal analyses show that many adult outcome differences are consequent of intelligence differences both within and between populations. This is why, in sociology, there is such emphasis on “closing the gaps”.

          4. Within both groups, genes explain a large portion of intelligence differences. (And yes, a couple of well replicated specific genes have been identified.)

          5. Intelligence proxies (education, income, occupational status) correlate with European genotype ancestry in the African American population; intelligence subtest differences correlate with the genetic influences on tests; the only well replicated means of substantially reducing the difference is miscegenation; and this doesn’t reduces the difference by more than a hereditarian hypothesis would predict. So on.

          Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the difference has a partial genetic basis. And, in fact, a recent (2014) survey of intelligence researchers showed that the majority agreed with a hereditarian hypothesis.

          (References on request.)

          And what are your arguments?

          1. Murray’s statistical findings have been debunked. [The existence of socially important IQ/skill/achievement/cognitive ability differences between the groups under discussion is established. What is still debated is the cause.]

          2. Race is a social construct, therefore there can be no hereditarian differences. [How does "social construction" possibly preclude genetic differences -- Why can't one socially construct groups around genetic differences? Many philosophers of science argue that species are social constructs. Does it follow that all inter-species differences are environmental? Regarding the groups under question, would you make this same argument with regards to skin color? If not, why with other traits?]

          3. The boundaries of ethnic/Racial groups are malleable and subject to redefinitions. [Why would this matter? If tomorrow, "Whites" were called "Blacks" and vice versa, we would still be left with differences and an explanandum. Sociologists would still make much of group differences and hereditarians would still offer their explanation.]

          4. No one in medicine, etc. believes in genetic differences between ethnic/racial groups. [In medical genetics, the genetic basis of health related group differences is commonly investigated using a technique called admixture mapping. In other fields, no one doubts the existence of between group morphological and physiological differences. What is debated is only whether and to what extent there are socially significant differences in socially valued behavioral traits such as intelligence, time preference, and criminality.]

          5. There are no “real” genetic differences between races. [Here, you presumably mean continental races. Yet the level of genetic differentiation between these biogeographic populations is somewhere between moderate and large per population genetic standards -- Fst 0.05-0.15 loci depending; cf. Sewall Wright's interpretation guideline. Whatever the case, this refers of total genetic diversity and so doesn't speak about specific traits; moreover, as you noted, one can not assume that groups called races in the U.S. are representative of global biogeographic populations; as such, this consideration is largely irrelevant.]

          These are all silly arguments on your part. It’s difficult to believe that you take them seriously.

          1. John F: You are a patient & tolerant person. I stopped making rational, fact-based arguments with our friend several weeks ago. A basic Liberal/Progressive fallacy seems to be consistently present in that Mr. s seems to believe that repetition & volume are eventually convincing. And never admit intellectual defeat, even when the case is overwhelming. Nice summary of the issues! Charles David Edinger

          2. John F,

            Murray, in his book, states that only one in sixteen black Americans has the intelligence of the average white, and that “many are not capable of tradional education”. But he is wrong about it. Black kids are very easily taught to write the alphabet fluently, and therefore to become literate in K-1, proving that race doesn’t matter, and that poor teaching is the blame for the “achievement gap”.

          3. There is a well established 1 standard deviation (SD) psychometric intelligence difference between self identified non-Hispanic Black and White Americans. This difference has been fairly stable for the last 100 years. The magnitude of it means that the Black 50th percentile is located at the White lower 16th or, alternatively, that only one in six American Blacks has the intelligence of the average White individual. You must have misread Murray regarding the differences, since in TBC and elsewhere he discussed this degree of difference. Whether or not many Blacks “are not capable of traditional education” depends on one’s expectations for this institution! For example, everyone could be made capable of tertiary education simply by lowering the standards enough. The point about literacy is a non sequitur. When “literacy” is measured as a continuous variable and when this measure is also a good one of cognitive ability, one sees the 1 SD difference. You can take a look at the ” National Assessment of Adult Literacy” results: nces.ed.gov/NAAL/kf_demographics.asp When literacy is crudely measured as a discrete variable that doesn’t index within population variance in cognitive ability the measure, of course, fails to discriminate. As for ability differences at young ages e.g., 3, these are large: humanvarieties.org/2013/05/26/the-onset-and-development-of-b-w-ability-differences-early-infancy-to-age-3-part-1/ School is a poor explanation for a number of reasons.

          4. John F.:

            I don’t think I misread Murray, and I don’t think you have to lower standards to educate all black students very well. There will be no black “dyslexics” if you have them practice writing the alphabet in K-1 until they can write the whole thing in 40 seconds. If you don’t think this possible, just try it, as we have, and you shall see.

    3. Yet again, going for low jabs. No actual argument.
      You’ll never be serious about this issue, because you don’t want anyone to remove the monopoly you have in your hands.

      1. sojournanon

        If one knows what a peer-reviewed journal is then one knows that just because a magazine claims to be peer reviewed does not mean that it is. One can clearly see that Nature is not peer reviewed because it does several things peer reviewed journals do not: 1. it has a closed group of editors that decide what gets published (the peer reviewed process takes a wide variety of scholars to do peer review for an interdisciplinary journal — scholars from psychology, for example, peer review scholarship within that field because an aeronautical engineer does not have the capability to do the work — and it takes a large pool of scholars because this is all done in professor’s spare time (we don’t get paid to peer review)); 2. a peer reviewed journal does not commission any work whatsoever (i.e. one does not get paid to write for a peer reviewed journal nor does one get approached to write for the journal — although one may get asked if one wishes to edit a special edition); and, 3. a peer reviewed journal does not have an opinion page (like the one linked as proof that the criticisms of Murray’s work are somehow a conspiracy of liberals or some other nonsense). In short, if one knows academe, one would recognize that this is not a peer reviewed journal at all but wishes to masquerade as such and, clearly, fools the foolish. Now, according the literature published by them, the audience that believes this is peer reviewed work would fall under the eugenically/inherently intellectually inferior category; I’d prefer the term, “ignorant” but that’s just me.

        Be that as it may, if one bothered to know that biological psychiatry, in this day and age, is a field that studies the chemical reasons for psycho-pathologies (i.e. neurological conditions and psychiatric disorders related to brain chemistry that require pharmaceuticals), one would know that the article one referred to is suspect because it is: a. published by Nature; and, b. a form of biological psychiatry that hasn’t been recognized in the world as methodologically sound or scientific work since, at least, the end of World War II.

        As I stated before, I’ll not do your homework for you. If one chooses not to read that is no one’s fault but one’s own. I will say this to make it rather simplistic for you to understand that the base premise for all this work is historically unsound, if nothing else. I say historically unsound, because “race” is a social construct that has changed over time, space and place. Within the U.S. alone, the definition of who is “white” and who is “black,” for example, have changed drastically making the notions that Murray and these other pseudo-scientists contend humorous, at best. One knows this if one knows, for example, the history of citizenship law within this country. Until about the end of the Civil War, only “whites” could be citizens. However, who was defined as “white” is not the same as who is defined as “white” today. Chinese were defined as “white,” for example, until about 1850, and could gain citizenship. However, people from Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain, Poland, Italy and well over half of Europe (as well as other commonly considered today “white” countries outside of Europe) could not. The Chinese were then considered “black” as of about Reconstruction until approximately 1955. Now, all of this is verifiable by looking up the law and history, gentlemen. And, based strictly on this alone, these notions that race is or may have hereditary qualities such as intelligence is, quite frankly, stupid since “race” doesn’t exist beyond our belief in it and our actions related to this belief structure.

        1. [email protected]

          Tell me, how does greater susceptibility to sickle cell and countless other physical and biological differences result from a “sociological construct?’

          Crazy talk, I know but humor me. I find you amusing.

          1. Mr. Bond: The whole issue of NATURE’s peer review practices is a red herring at best. NATURE, like several other respected journals, reprints peer reviewed articles from more technical publications, allowing non-scientists who follow scientific developments to stay current in a number of fields without subscribing to more specialized and often arcane journals, which I for one would be unlikely to do.

            Hence to the question, “Are the articles in NATURE subject to a peer-review process?”, the clear answer is yes. To the question, “Does NATURE conduct its own peer-review of its articles?”, the answer is no. What does that mean? Anyone bright enough to understand the nature of the general peer review process will accept that NATURE articles reflect the current research being carried out in the various fields that NATURE follows regularly. People who wish to marginalize a specific article appearing in NATURE will obfuscate what NATURE is all about. This is both clear and very straightforward. Charles David Edinger

          2. [email protected]

            I expected as much. He or she revealed themselves a fraud the second I saw the words, “critical race theory.”

          3. sojournanon

            The propensity of a particular group of people to carry a particular characteristic that relates to a specific physical condition has to do with the body’s adaptation to a particular environment over time. Sickle cell anemia, for example, makes one more likely to survive malaria; therefore, in areas of the world where malaria is common, one will find people who’s family members who come from there fairly recently will likely have the genetic characteristic. Please note: many groups of people we do not consider “black” within this society have sickle cell, for example (which we both know you were attempting to suggest is a proof of race), have a propensity to have sickle cell anemia — and that includes those who are considered “white” within this society…. and we haven’t even discussed that other countries don’t have the same definitions of who is what race as the U.S. making the argument that Murray makes even less logical and, in this day and age, certainly not based in anything that is considered science.

            As for Nature, my commentary about Nature was simply because someone decided to use its opinion page as a source/proof that Murray’s work is somehow supported within scientific circles when it is not. When I pointed out that it was not peer reviewed and then had to explain why I knew it was not peer reviewed suddenly I get called the fraud? Really gentlemen? Is that the evidence you have? Is that the best you can do to support your claims — that because I explained that your source is not what you claim it is that I must be the fraud because I exposed the flaw in your perception of the world?

            Yes, it is correct to say that Nature does sometimes reprint some peer reviewed journal articles not all are reprints — most are not. What Nature obscures by its misinformation about being peer reviewed, as well as suggesting that all articles are accepted within the scientific community as methodologically sound research is that it misleads non-scientists into believing things that are no longer and have not for a very long time considered scientifically sound ideas or research. If one is worried about obfuscation then one would be concerned about Nature’s publishing practices.

            As for those “non-scientists” who wish to follow scientific developments to stay current in a number of fields, one does not have to subscribe (and anyone who really wished to stay current with any given field or a multiplicity of them would know this), one can simply go to any one of a number of libraries that subscribe to these journals and read them there (some even have the online subscription version that one can access from home). If one believes that academic journals are “arcane” then one cannot believe that science that academe produces/develops worth knowing; so, one’s assertion that one is a non-scientist who wishes to follow scientific developments within multiple fields without reading “arcane journals” seems a bit questionable behavior. It becomes even more questionable that one is being honest about one’s intent in avoiding actual scientific peer reviewed journals when one claims that Nature’s articles are reprints of peer reviewed articles from these same “arcane” texts one clearly despises.

            As for my knowledge base, I do interdisciplinary work; it’s my job to know a wide range of fields — both within the social sciences (an area Murray professes to fall within — he claims psychology after all) as well as some of the hard sciences. If this bothers one’s sensibilities, one is merely demonstrating one’s lack of knowledge of the subject matter being discussed… but, then again, one has been demonstrating that all along.

          4. sojournanon: As a recovering academic with a specialization in applied economics, I can say without hesitation that the peer review process in most disciplines is worthless as an indicator of the quality and veracity of the “research” behind the article. Most academic research is done to advance the career prospects of the researcher rather than to advance the pursuit of truth or add to the real insights within the discipline. Given that most academics are herd animals, very little academic research results in breakthrough thinking or innovation. If you are an academic you know this to be true, whether or not you choose to acknowledge this unfortunate state of affairs.

            Innovative and insightful ideas are based on truth and the credentials of the researcher or the stamp of the peer reviewers is not the arbiter of actual value. In my own discipline, I read constantly and I can recognize the wheat from the chaff, but the wonderful explosion of information and knowledge of recent decades makes keeping up with developments in applied economics and related fields a challenge. I also utilize a number of filters in the form of websites and recognized publications like NATURE to scan developments in the natural sciences, where I will typically drill down to original sources in areas where I see relevance and solid methodology. My pattern is typical of many of my academic and practicing colleagues in economics. By the way, what is your field or fields of study as I don’t think I have seen that question answered in this thread.

            This line of argument has been an extended diversion from the scurrilous attack advanced by Krugman, the sometime economist, that Dr. Murray is ipso facto a racist because his analysis of various data sets reveals irrefutable patterns that Krugman cannot allow himself to acknowledge. It is patently obvious to any thinking person who has read Dr. Murray’s work that it is methodologically flawless and that Murray’s analysis identifies trends that need to be addressed, since they are intergenerational in their scope. Rather than addressing the critical issue of how these issues can be mitigated in America society, Liberal/Progressives like Krugman and you seem to view attempting to marginalize the messenger as a better approach than finding ways to address the issues requiring solutions. That is a typically unproductive strategy of the type I have often seen emerge from the faculty lounges of America’s finer universities and from Obama’s White House. I’ve always seen this approach as a form of intellectual masturbation…it feels good but accomplishes nothing of enduring value. Charles David Edinger

          5. sojournanon

            Charles, I do not dispute that peer review is more about advancing one’s career than advancing knowledge. Nor, will I dispute that peer reviewed automatically means quality work; I’m sure we’ve both seen our fair share of work that does not represent solid work within the particular academic field it purports to represent. However, the notion that Nature is a peer reviewed journal is a misnomer that was being discussed as fact — that you appeared to support. You then claimed that you couldn’t access other journals that had the original articles — when, as an academic, you know better.

            Murray says he does psychology and plays in the areas of public policy, sociology, and education with a serious lack of knowledge of any of these subjects and does so with no knowledge of previous works that have already been discounted his eugenics assertions decades ago (starting around 1930). My field is sociology; my specific research deals with public policy, law, medicine and history.

            I’m not discussing this as a political issue because, for me, it isn’t one; it’s an academic one. Murray has misrepresented the facts. He concentrates, for example, on the urban poor and their supposed propensity to remain poor and unemployed when, in reality, the rural poor (a predominantly “white” population) are far more likely to remain in poverty and out of work than anyone within urban settings. What sociologists as well as those within the field of history (not to mention a few others) have pointed out is that there appears to be a clear correlation between a lack of living wage work in both of these environments and the level of poverty within these environments regardless of “race.” What those within the fields of sociology and education (among others) have shown is that when one pays for schools based on property taxes; poor communities have poor schools and this leads to poorly educated people within poor communities regardless of race. What we know about I.Q. tests (based on a wide variety of studies within education) is that they are based on a specific set of knowledge that one is presumed to have been exposed to within one’s childhood (via school, familial setting, church, etc.). And, what has been demonstrated is that in environments where there is a consistent lack of educated people (because of things like poorly funded schools), one does not have the ability to do well on an I.Q. test — again, regardless of race. These I.Q. studies, in particular, have been done and replicated since about 1960 and Murray doesn’t mention them in any of his work. Nor, does he mention how medicine and the grand majority of other fields (including but certainly not limited to psychology, sociology, genetics, education, anthropology, etc.) all have discounted and set aside his question of “race” as a connection to poverty or intelligence because there is no basis in fact to this conjecture and plenty of evidence to the contrary. But, somehow you find his work well researched…. What disturbs me is his lack of intellectual rigor which is exactly what many criticized him for in the past and still criticize him for today. Now, if one does not wish to call him racist, that’s fine. I have not been discussing his racism or lack thereof (you appear to have presumed this); I am and have been discussing his lack of academic rigor and the notion that one would ever call his work sound research means one needs to learn a bit more about the field before declaring whether any piece of work in the area is sound or not.

        2. Cognition

          You’re a sociologist?

          No wonder you are so skeptical of science!

          http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/#.UhebrhusjlN

          I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’ve decided to dismiss a book that draws on evidence published in some of the leading peer-reviewed journals in the fields they address.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772900/

          1. sojournanon

            Murray doesn’t draw from the fields that actually do the research that pertains to the material he claims to be discussing. Like I said, if one knows the material — and I’m talking about the fields of both the hard sciences and social sciences, one knows that what Murray is discussing was discredited ages ago…. Oh, and for those who wish to discuss this as a political topic (and somehow claim this is a liberal/progressive agenda thing)…. those who originally criticized the eugenics movement Murray follows were conservatives from the Republican party; one can see this being critiqued within Republican newspapers starting circa 1895, scientific peer reviewed articles debunking these notions around 1930 (see various medical journals of the period for examples) and it goes on from there. I realize that you, Cognition, probably have no idea what you’ve linked and why it isn’t pertinent to the conversation; so, let me try to explain it to you.

            The first link is a blog by someone who admits they don’t know what they are talking about talking about two guys who aren’t really involved in an academic discussion about the topic. The second link is to a study that is about mortality and a possible correlation to intelligence as defined by the armed forces aptitude test (not the same as the I.Q. test that Murray is working with in his work). Please note: 1. this study had nothing to do with genetics or race and their relationship to I.Q.; 2. there is a distinct difference between correlation and causation (please learn the difference because it’s important to understanding these types of studies and their findings); 3. the methodology did not factor into the study things like diet, environmental factors, etc. that might also impact the data — this work was, btw, done later and found that these factors greatly impacted morbidity rates as well as depression (do your homework); and, 4. if one bothered to know the litany of material related to this specific research (both within the hard sciences and outside of it), all have concluded that there is no causative relationship between intelligence and morbidity rates only a correlative one. Now, I could explain quite a bit more about what you clearly don’t understand within the academic work you chose to link but I think you’d first need to get better reading comprehension skills.

            Now, if you’d care to actually produce some work that demonstrates that you have some grounds to base your opinion upon (rather than demonstrate your inability to comprehend what you read), by all means, produce it.

        3. Cognition

          It’s a shame a reply link doesn’t exist for the last comment you made in response to me.

          But anyways…

          -

          “Murray doesn’t draw from the fields that actually do the research that pertains to the material he claims to be discussing”

          For sake of being charitable, I will assume that is a serious comment despite the choice of day in which you made it.

          Psychometricians aren’t qualified to discuss measurements of psychological characteristics? What’s next? Claiming physicists have no special merit in discussing the validity of string theory?

          -

          “one knows that what Murray is discussing was discredited ages ago”

          Strangely enough, you seem to be in short supply of references to the scientific literature that dispute any of the fundamental claims of the book itself.

          -

          “those who originally criticized the eugenics movement Murray follows”

          Do not make bizarre accusations like that on April Fool’s day. Seriously.

          -

          “The first link is a blog by someone who admits they don’t know what they are talking about…”

          Specific quotes please.

          -

          “The second link is to a study that is about mortality and a possible correlation to intelligence as defined by the armed forces aptitude test (not the same as the I.Q. test that Murray is working with in his work).”

          In that case, stop ignoring the scientific literature that shows that the AFQT subset correlates almost perfectly with standard IQ tests (Stanford-Binet and Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale) and thus serve as the perfect longitudinal metric for what the consequences of various cognitive abilities are.

          Seriously, the title of the paper itself makes it *pretty clear* that it’s an analysis of IQ and life outcome.

          -

          ” 1. this study had nothing to do with genetics or race and their relationship to I.Q.”

          Falsely implying that this is entirely what the book was about. Seriously, the subtitle of the book itself makes it’s subject matter pretty clear.

          If you want the latest on genetics and IQ (which wasn’t even the subject of the book) as well as what various ethnic groups

          -

          “2. there is a distinct difference between correlation and causation”

          Indeed, the sum of the evidence at hand strongly indicates that IQ falls into the latter category.

          -

          “3. the methodology did not factor into the study things like diet, environmental factors, etc.”

          Strange. If you can demonstrate a variable that had more predictive validity than IQ, you just might be onto something. For now I refuse to hold my breath.

          -

          “this work was, btw, done later and found that these factors greatly impacted morbidity rates as well as depression (do your homework)”

          By all means, show me a peer-reviewed multivariate analysis indicating that IQ is irrelevant after those are taken into account.

          -

          “…if one bothered to know the litany of material related to this specific research (both within the hard sciences and outside of it), all have concluded that there is no causative relationship between intelligence and morbidity rates only a correlative one.”

          So you’re putting money on the idea that intelligence can’t possibly hold predictive value in gauging the odds of various morbidity outcomes?

          -

          “I think you’d first need to get better reading comprehension skills.”

          Sir, given the fact that you went so far as to ignore the very title of the paper itself (the one with “IQ” in the title which you claimed was irrelevant to that metric) I think you should take your own advice first.

          I am more than happy to have an honest discussion about this in light of the fact that I happen to be working on a 20th anniversary project that relates to the Bell Curve (it was twenty years ago this fall that the book came out).

          Drop me a line sometime if you feel like discussing these matters further. As with any other subject, I would like to be familiar with whatever I’m criticizing before doing so.

          [email protected]

          1. sojournanon

            Cognition,
            While it is accurate to state that psychometrics does do work in the field of creating and critiquing aptitude and I.Q. tests (they are not the same thing), psychometrics is not the only field that is related to his research (ex. genetics, medicine, sociology, education, etc.) AND he ignores aspects of the field of psychometrics that have questioned the validity of measurements of I.Q. because of the way they are constructed (these critiques have existed within the field since, at least, the 1970s).

            As I stated to Charles, I’m not doing your homework for you. If you wish to claim to know what you’re talking about, go look up the literature pertaining to the topic; there’s plenty of it starting around 1930 forward…. yes, this means you actually will have to go to a library. However, even the human genome project refutes (via statistical data on the lack of genetic differences between supposed “races”) Murray’s claims of genetics being linked intelligence; if it were linked, based on the statistical data on a lack of differences, everyone would be stupid or smart due to the inherent fact of being homo sapien sapien. Sooo, if you want a single source to read (please read the entire research project not the summary), there’s one. However, if one wishes to be taken seriously, one should read the various articles and studies written within, for example, American Psychology, American Journal of Medicine and so forth.

            As for the blog link, try reading the first paragraph, but if you need a specific quote and explanation of the meaning of the sentence fine, “My own inclination has been to not get bogged down in the latest race and IQ controversy because I don’t have that much time, and the core readership here is probably not going to get any new information from me, since this is not an area of hot novel research.” When admits one chooses to “not get bogged down” in something that means one hasn’t bothered to know about the thing; hence, he is admitting he doesn’t know.

            The sub-title of a book (or article) merely narrows, in some form or fashion, the subject matter in one particular way; it does not indicate what is included or excluded from that more narrowly defined topic. If one reads the book, Murray is discussing intelligence and class structure in relationship to race; in fact, race becomes a key part of his discussion within that text. So, while the word “race” is not within the title, this does not mean that the book does not revolve around a discussion of race. Just as, for example, the title of Hugh Gregory Gallagher’s book By Trust Betrayed: Patients, Physicians, and the License to Kill in the Third Reich does not have within the title anything about public policy or disability or eugenics and, yet, within the work, the book discusses the things as key aspects of this history text. Titles of work have more to do with selling a book (getting the largest readership) than giving a complete description of what is within it.

            Actually, the sum of the evidence does not fall under causation because, quite frankly, it can’t. As Kenneth Kidd and others have pointed out, no genetic marker has been found that is connected to intelligence. As has been discussed by geneticists and, for example, the Human Genome Project, there is no real genetic difference between “races.” Since there is no intelligence gene and no real genetic difference amongst people (particularly in relationship to “race”) the causation argument falls flat. There is, as several studies have noted, a correlation that exists; however, correlation is not and is far from causation.

            As stated before, I’m not doing your homework for you; clearly you have no real desire to be informed. You merely wish to read things that validate a preformed position. And, before you suggest that I’m doing the same thing, I thought, at one time, some of the things you do… and then I did my homework on the subject because I was willing to recognize that I did not have a background in genetics or medicine, etc. and, as any scholar worth anything does, I looked up all the relevant data, studies/research and became more informed.

            I’m not putting money on anything; what I am stating is that studies and research demonstrate that there is no causative relationship between intelligence and morbidity; there is a correlative one but not a causative one. Again, learn the difference.

            It is amazing that one assumes gender when none has been suggested or discussed — very telling. Be that as it may, as I stated previously, titles do not necessarily reflect what is within the work. The title “Man Bites Dog” is probably not about a man biting a dog; however, according to your assertion, it must be just that. If so, The Bell Curve (since that is the primary rather than sub title) would be about a bell curve related to the normal distribution of a thing. Given the actual discussion within the book, Murray is hardly discussing a normal curve of any sort. Like other titles, it is intended to be a catchy title (one that is short and memorable, bears significations of varying degrees, and plays into the interests of a particular readership without turning off any). If one knows the publishing industry, one knows that the publisher has the final say in the title of the book and it has more to do with marketing than anything else.

            I’m not particularly interested in your endeavor — although I’m sure some will be. Murray’s book is old, tired and been critiqued right out of academic discussions; he’s a non-starter — except, perhaps, as a lesson of what not to do (kind of like the Tuskegee Study, Tearoom Sex Study, etc.).

          2. [email protected]

            Hey sojourn, how about my kid’s homework, will you do that for me?

            Since this is about the umpteenth time you’ve used that deflection when pressed for a damn citation!

        4. Cognition

          The deflections. The straw men. The failure to site anything within the scientific literature.

          This truly is the behavior of a sociologist alright.

          “While it is accurate to state that psychometrics does do work in the field of creating and critiquing aptitude and I.Q. tests (they are not the same thing)”

          Tell me how you think aptitude and IQ tests differ and how that’s relevant to The Bell Curve.

          “psychometrics is not the only field that is related to his research (ex. genetics, medicine, sociology, education, etc.)”

          No one ever said it was. I was pointing out the fact that psychometrics is the key field for IQ research and Hernnstein/Murray cite plenty of them both in references and in the selected bibliography. Read the book for yourself.

          “AND he ignores aspects of the field of psychometrics that have questioned the validity of measurements of I.Q. because of the way they are constructed”

          Which would be???

          “(these critiques have existed within the field since, at least, the 1970s).”

          And yet it’s too hard for you to actually provide a direct reference to any of these. How impressive.

          “As I stated to Charles, I’m not doing your homework for you.”

          I already have. Now it’s your turn.

          “If you wish to claim to know what you’re talking about, go look up the literature pertaining to the topic; there’s plenty of it starting around 1930 forward….yes, this means you actually will have to go to a library.”

          I regularly read the latest papers on the subject thanks to the advent of open access journals. You have to be pretty sheltered to think a library is the only way to get this information, as well as assume that research as far back as 1930 is equally relevant to H&M’s book.

          “However, even the human genome project refutes (via statistical data on the lack of genetic differences between supposed “races”)”

          Is this a joke? Let’s start here: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

          “Murray’s claims of genetics being linked intelligence”

          This alone shows you didn’t even read the blog post above.

          “if it were linked, based on the statistical data on a lack of differences, everyone would be stupid or smart due to the inherent fact of being homo sapien sapien.”

          Can you find a single scientist or peer-reviewed paper ANYWHERE that would endorse something as stupid as what you just said??

          “Sooo, if you want a single source to read (please read the entire research project not the summary), there’s one.”

          See the above link. And for anyone else reading this who likes science as much as I do: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264712001542

          “When admits one chooses to “not get bogged down” in something that means one hasn’t bothered to know about the thing; hence, he is admitting he doesn’t know.”

          Great, now you need a dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bogged

          Razib Khan is telling his readers that he doesn’t want to spend more time on the subject matter at hand than is necessary.

          “The sub-title of a book (or article) merely narrows, in some form or fashion, the subject matter in one particular way; it does not indicate what is included or excluded from that more narrowly defined topic.”

          Since you lack the time, patience, or ability to actually read the book, I thought I would make it easy for you to understand what the book is about by giving you the shortest route possible. You continue claiming the book is primarily about race. Stop lying about something you haven’t read.

          “If one reads the book, Murray is discussing intelligence and class structure in relationship to race”

          Two chapters. Out of a total of 22 in the entire book itself. Teach yourself what the fallacy of composition is.

          “in fact, race becomes a key part of his discussion within that text.”

          Again, two chapters.

          “So, while the word “race” is not within the title, this does not mean that the book does not revolve around a discussion of race.”

          It bears repeating: two chapters. And could your analogy be any more impotent?

          “Actually, the sum of the evidence does not fall under causation because, quite frankly, it can’t.”

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

          In addition, you’ve also changed the subject *away* from the question of whether IQ affects life outcome or vice versa.

          “As Kenneth Kidd and others have pointed out, no genetic marker has been found that is connected to intelligence.”

          It’s amazing how thick-skulled you are to continue thinking this is relevant to anything Hernnstein and Murray claimed.

          But even if it were, you have hoards of longitudinal adoption studies to deal with, and if we really want to get specific to genetics…

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10631319/Is-intelligence-written-in-the-genes.html

          http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/08/the-debate-about-heritability-of-general-intelligence-radically-narrows/

          “As has been discussed by geneticists and, for example, the Human Genome Project, there is no real genetic difference between “races.””

          No additional comment on this is necessary. See previous points.

          “Since there is no intelligence gene…”

          No one ever said there was, current GWAS research is looking at *aggregate* effects of multiple genes. Not that it’s even relevant to anything Murray claimed.

          “There is, as several studies have noted, a correlation that exists; however, correlation is not and is far from causation.”

          Since you’ve spent the last several paragraphs pontificating about something totally irrelevant to anything I or Murray claimed, this statement remains invalid.

          “As stated before, I’m not doing your homework for you”

          As stated before, I already have. Time for you to pump out some citations of your own.

          “…clearly you have no real desire to be informed.”

          Correction: clearly I have no desire to accept bad arguments.

          “You merely wish to read things that validate a preformed position.”

          Your hypocrisy is showing.

          “And, before you suggest that I’m doing the same thing, I thought, at one time, some of the things you do… and then I did my homework on the subject because I was willing to recognize that I did not have a background in genetics or medicine, etc. and, as any scholar worth anything does, I looked up all the relevant data, studies/research and became more informed.”

          And for some strange reason you don’t seem to have the capacity to actually cite anything relevant or specific. I guess the time you spent looking up the *relevant data* was pretty brisk.

          “I’m not putting money on anything; what I am stating is that studies and research demonstrate that there is no causative relationship between intelligence and morbidity;”

          Wow, now we’re back on topic. Now if only you could cite these specific studies that demonstrate that IQ is not a causative factor in life outcome we just might get somewhere.

          “It is amazing that one assumes gender when none has been suggested or discussed — very telling.”

          Spooky ain’t it?

          “Be that as it may, as I stated previously, titles do not necessarily reflect what is within the work.”

          No need to address what you said as a whole following that sentence. Pontification about a book’s title misses the point altogether about why I encouraged you to read the subtitle of the book itself.

          “I’m not particularly interested in your endeavor — although I’m sure some will be.”

          That sentence is especially true on many levels.

          “Murray’s book is old, tired and been critiqued right out of academic discussions;”

          Yet there appears to be some kind of law in physics, or maybe just laziness on your part to cite anything of substance in this area.

          “he’s a non-starter — except, perhaps, as a lesson of what not to do (kind of like the Tuskegee Study, Tearoom Sex Study, etc.).”

          He truly is the most consequential social scientist alive. You on the other hand are as much in denial as John Money was when he put feminist ideology over science, leading to the suicide of two twins.

          Cheers.

          1. cognition: About a week ago I realized that our friend here is of a type of Liberal/Progressive pseudo intellectual who began with the certainty that Dr. Murray’s work, and especially THE BELL CURVE, poses an existential threat to his or her Procrustean worldview and so must be marginalized in a rather quaint but pathetic series of attacks. We have yet to see a substantive critique of either Dr. Murray’s methodologies or analyses. Do you really expect one to emerge after multiple inane and unsupported arguments? I don’t, which is why I have heeded the words of Jesus of Nazareth and ceased to cast my words before intellectual swine. I suggest you consider a similar approach.

            Mr. or Ms. Sojourner will never acknowledge that Charles Murray continues to be the most insightful social scientist since De Tocqueville, that his work is the gold standard of social science research methodology or that his analyses have revealed the dangerous ideological blindness that has rendered most contemporary “research” into the areas
            Murray has examined meaningless and counter-productive. “Scientists” who approach a topic by ruling out possible research findings in advance are not scientists at all…they are usually well paid apologists for a particular worldview, and American academic circles are dominated by these hacks. Of course reading Murray’s work would have been a good place to start, but choosing to approach serious issues Dr. Murray examines without preconceptions would have been essential to have made any reading worthwhile. And for our friend here, that continues to be impossible!!! Reality can be a bitch!!! Charles David Edinger

  3. Lemmy caution

    Environmental contributions to some disparity are not susceptible to changes in the environment? That seems like some uncalled for pessimism.

    1. RobertEngler

      Only if you think all change is good, but it’s not. For instance, the federal government has spent who-knows-how-much money since the 60s to alleviate poverty and managed to create in aggregate a culture of dependency.

  4. Dr. Murray…Your work being attacked by an intellectual lightweight like Paul Krugman brings to mind one of Winston Churchill’s classic retorts when asked to respond to a silly but ardently expressed accusation from an opposition back-bencher. Asked how he felt about the extremely hostile attack, the Prime Minister responded that he rather thought it felt a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!

    Being accused of “racism” in America today has become a badge of intellectual integrity. I have long viewed you as the most important social scientist since Alexis de Tocqueville, and THE BELL CURVE is a book I often give to students and friends who are trying to learn to think critically. Had Mr. Krugman read your book and been capable of understanding its arguments, he might have reached a different conclusion than what he apparently holds in his ignorance…probably not!!! Charles David Edinger

    1. MP Willis

      I believe you mean Alex de Tocqueville.

      1. Actually, I’ve never heard him referred to as “Alex,” but then I don’t know him personally. My copy of DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, both volumes, list him as “Alexis.” Is there a story behind the “Alex” version of de Tocqueville’s name??? Charles David Edinger

        1. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument, eh..?
          Actually it was the then British Chancellor Denis Healey who, in 1978, claimed that an attack from the mild-mannered, Conservative Shadow Chancellor Geoffrey Howe was “like being savaged by a dead sheep”. It was a general comment about the man, rather than a response to some particular “silly but ardently expressed accusation”.
          Chruchill had been dead for more than twelve years at that point.

          1. Rod: Silly discussion to continue, but if you care to research Sir Winston’s many quotable phrases you’ll find that Mr. Healey used one of Churchill’s best without attribution. I believe Churchill is still dead, but you may want to fact check that as well!!! BTW, I assume you have no response to the substance of my comments? Cheers, CDE

  5. Robert puharic

    Much of what Ryan mentioned had NOTHING to do with Murray. He used the typical right wing code words for blacks and it’s about time the right realized no one is gonna play in their sandbox by their rules on language. The right wants to blame poverty on lazy shiftless blacks?

    Expect to be called on it.

    1. Frank Cook

      “…code words, play in sandbox, lazy, shiftless”. just listen you yourself Robert. This is not argumentation. This is to stop conversation. You can’t think, you can’t defend, you attack! Boogy Boogy Boogy! Look out Robert, there’s the boogy man hiding over there!

      1. William Manuel

        Culture is the sum of attitudes, behaviors and processes of a people as they move through their environment. US Black culture, particularly urban, is a disaster for those in it and a disaster for those who live around it. In a country whose opportunity is the envy (and goal) of millions worldwide, black culture produces inordinate amounts of dysfunctional people. The truth may hurt. Get over it.

    2. Kate Pitrone

      Those Right Wing code words for blacks seems only to be deciphered as such by the Left.

      1. David Harper

        “It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.” The author just gave up the ghost. Here is saying that GENETICS has something to do with African-Americans being poor and under-educated.

        1. [email protected]

          And???

          Very few of even the most fervent adherents to the “blank slate” theory asserts that there is ZERO
          impact of genetics on human outcomes!

          Is this really what you guys have been reduced to? Turning what is one of the most uncontroversial statement in science – namely that one’s lot in life is determined by some combination of nature and nurture – into closet racism?

          Get a life.

          1. Seeing a racist behind every bush is the exact same thing that libs accused conservatives of in the 50s, only it was a communist behind every bush. Since actual words can’t be construed as racist, they must be re-interpreted to be something they are not. So code words are what they claim they use. If you can’t get someone on something real you have to make up imaginary things.

          2. Only sexual orientation is allowed to have any genetic basis. Of course nobody has proved that either.

        2. No, he didn’t. You clearly didn’t read the very article in which you allow yourself to comment.

        3. John Stevens

          We’ve reached the point where accusations of racism, especially by leftists of conservatives, are evidence more of clinical paranoia than anything substantive.

          Sadly, we don’t have enough professionals to treat that many paranoids, so we have to deal with it on a cultural basis. Smile, pat them on the head, and assure them that there really is no “code words” or “structural racism” and that it’s all in their heads.

      2. WalkingHorse

        Their tin foil hats are specially tuned to receive such signals. The rationale for all this Stalinist behavior goes back to a charming little piece by Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance*. Read it, but not soon after a meal.

        * http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

    3. Robert Puharic: I’m always fascinated to hear Liberal/Progressives tell libertarians about our secret “code words” on all sorts of subjects. It is as if the Progs had stolen our “ENIGMA” machine that none of us were aware even existed…who knew???

      While the enormous problem of intergenerational poverty and government dependence would seem to be a problem requiring actual solutions, Progressives prefer expanding the Federal welfare programs that are one of its major causes and attempting to marginalize those serious about finding solutions. It almost appears that Liberal/Progressives prefer to maintain a permanent economic and social underclass that they can sustain with welfare payments coerced from productive Americans and that they can count on for reliable votes, rather than helping the poor to escape their poverty! What a cynical, racist strategy that would be, if it existed…and by following the same failed approach to dealing with poverty and economic mobility, the Liberal/Progressives create the impression that it does!!!

      The accusation that American Conservatives and libertarians utilize some secret code to shift the responsibility for poverty to those who are trapped in it does evoke a certain gallows humor. Liberal/Progressive Federal welfare programs are the primary causes of intergenerational poverty and government dependence in America today…no secret language is required on that issue. African Americans and others stuck in a demotivating, sentimentalized web of feel good Liberalism are quite capable of improving their economic circumstances if their Liberal/Progressive political masters would stop doing the very things that keep them dependent. To not understand that reality is to choose to remain ideologically blinded. Charles David Edinger

    4. Seattle Sam

      You know, since those who are priced out of the job market by wage floors are disproportionately black and other minority races, Minimum Wage must be a racial code word.

      1. awfulorv

        The idea that Patrick Ewing and Dana Perino are from a common ancestor is folly. What has happened is, like climate change, scientists have declared the issue decided, and have stopped looking further.

    5. [email protected]

      “Much of what Ryan mentioned had NOTHING to do with Murray.”

      Indeed. Which sort of raises the question why nearly to a person every liberal took Murray’s use of the word “lazy” from a 14 y/o interview and stuffed it into Ryan’s mouth, asserting the Ryan himself spoke of “lazy blacks!”

      http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/12/paul-ryan-claims-black-men-lazy-poverty-country.html

      This is really a sweet gig you folks on the Left have set up for yourselves. If we don’t speak about the plight of blacks and how our policies might help, we are “racist” on grounds of neglect. If speak up from the Jack Kemp school of free markets and “enterprise zones” – which Ryan hails from – as a means of revitalizing inner cities, while acknowledging the well-documented pathologies and work disincentives present in them, we are “racist” for our use of “code words!”

      The bottom line is the Left feels, perhaps correctly, that they OWN the black community as absolutely as any plantation owner ever owned their captive laborers. And ANY attempt to solicit black support is going to be met with derision, accusations of insincerity and bull***t about “code words.”

      This is pretty much all this approach ever bought Kemp, so why should Ryan be any different?

    6. Chris Bolts Sr

      I see you’re the same as you were when you were commenting at NRO. Is your purpose of going to conservative websites solely to antagonize people?

    7. You’re now coming up with silly conspiracy theories to try and further discredit the work at hands.

      Did you read the book?

      It’s funny how it’s the white liberals who are more racist than the most racist out there.

    8. You’re not “calling on it.” You’re simply making baseless smears. There are no “typical right wing code words for blacks.” There’s a left-wing inability to find right-wing racism, and so resorting to fantasies about code words and dog whistles and insinuations.

      You seem to understand ordinary language as racist code words. That’s because you are a racist, as established by your racist reference to “lazy shiftless blacks.”

      No one is going to play by your rules on language. You’re the racist, and it doesn’t take a decoder ring to see that.

  6. John Webster

    For those of us with experience in the real world with people of all races, it’s a plain fact that some poverty is the result of lazy, shiftless blacks. Some poverty is also the result of lazy shiftless whites, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, men, women, and every other demographic. There’s a percentage of the able-bodied American population that has no intention of EVER working at paid jobs, period. There are also other reasons for poverty, a major one being the massive decline in well-paying industrial jobs.

    1. “There are also other reasons for poverty, a major one being the massive decline in well-paying industrial jobs.”
      Mr. Webster,
      The “small business job creator” is not required to create employment for his/her fellow Americans.
      Instead, the “small business job creator” is entrusted solely with creating the maximum rate of return on investment for his/her shareholders and providing adequate compensation, both in money and benefits, inline with “small business job creators” of the sector in question.
      Also, the “small business job creator” must deploy resources, both in finances and personnel, to reduce taxation and regulation that serve as impediments to maximizing the rate of return on investment for his/her investors and offering compensation that matches the standards set forth by the “small business job creators” in said industry.

  7. I have read both “Losing Ground” and “Coming Apart, and liked them both. I’ve had “Bell Curve” sitting on the shelf for perhaps 20 years. I suppose I should finally read it.

    1. While you’re at it, find and read “In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government” from the mid 1980s. Also a gem.

    2. Vinnie…THE BELL CURVE could serve as the model for solid, quantitatively oriented social science research. Dr. Murray merely unpacked what had been known, but could not be acknowledged in the social science academic community for decades. The study is a great read, and I view it as still the most important of Dr. Murray’s many excellent works. You’ll enjoy it. Charles David Edinger

  8. Chuck,
    You made your Conservative “bones” with the Whites Only shtick in The Bell Curve. Common sense only dictates that Paulie Ryan’s recent screed-and-retreat requires you to restate your position.
    Besides, anyone who’s taken Econ 101 knows its good for marketing. Get your book back into circulation and introduce your (ahem) effort to Paulie Ryan’s Ayn Rand youngsters and the Tea Party’s hang ‘em high Gadsden flaggers. It’s just good business (offshore, of course) for you to back up Paulie. Besides, everyone at AEI, Heritage, and in Kochland enjoys a good shot at Paul Krugman or The Times – and you just gave ‘em both.
    Ought to mean at least 80,000 additional book sales for your Cayman Islands accounts – 60,000 courtesy of the buy-and-dump think tankers alone.
    Bully for you!

    1. Bob Harper

      This is precisely the kind of ad hominem ‘argument’ that is stock in trade for today’s ‘Progressives.’ Put more simply, it’s a lie, and you are either a liar (because you know your ‘argument’ is bogus) or an ignoramus (on the off chance that you don’t).

    2. malwords

      “I’ll be happy to respond at more length to allegations of racism made by anyone who can buttress them with a direct quote from anything I’ve written. I’ll leave you with this thought: in all the critiques of The Bell Curve in particular and my work more generally, no one ever accompanies their charges with direct quotes of what I’ve actually said. There’s a reason for that.” So says Charles Murray.

      “You made your Conservative “bones” with the Whites Only shtick in The Bell Curve.” And so, Mark calls Charles a racist without quoting any of his work.

      My Lord: I thought prescience was limited to the fictional “Dune” universe.

    3. Sigivald

      Please provide specific quotes from The Bell Curve that show us this “Whites Only shtick”?

      Can you?

      (Are the paragraphs Mr. Murray quoted simple cover for Wicked Bigotry? That would be powerful stuff! Maybe you can show it to us?

      I mean, you can say “Chuck” and “Paulie” (because pet names are for serious discourse) all day long. And you know, Koch. Because.

      And “Cayman Islands accounts” – because the political Other plainly has nefarious tax dodge bank accounts, because they just do, right?

      Oh, the sheer power of the arguments you aren’t even trying to make!)

      1. Gents and/or Ladies,
        Why are you treating Chuck with such disrespect. The man is a “small business job creator” who’s simply and wisely taking advantage of an opening in the market to increase his sales and then stash the dinero offshore to avoid Big Government and its many ills.
        Chuck’s tactics should be celebrated, not denigrated. Chuck uses Ryan to get his old book back into the mainstream CINO flow, teach the Ayn Randian acolytes and Tea Party hang ‘em high Gadsden flag loyalists a shtick or three, and get an appearance or three courtesy of Mr. Ailes and talk radio. Heritage, AEI, and the Kochs buy the book en masse and, like always, dump it off at 99 cents a pop in a month or two – then take the entire purchase as a tax write-off. Maybe Chuck even writes another afterward to the book, up to and including the horrid Obama years. That’s additional scratch for Chuck.
        Why do you scorn such brilliance on Chuck’s part? He’s merely a “small market jobs creator” excelling in the world of Adam Smith and Uncle Miltie of Chicago U.
        As I typed before, Bully for Chuck!

      2. hmitchell3rd

        Koch, Rove, Halliburton!! White Male Oppression! Stop, stop, I’m being oppressed!

        This level of stupidity should be criminal. But it inhabits the leadership suites of the Senate and Presidency. I tell you what “shtick” is really old and cold–the “racial shtick.” It’s so cold, you need to go ahead and bury it, before its stink clings to you. Talk about dog whistles, the Krugman dog pack came hauling ass around the corner, tongues hanging out, when he called “racist!”

    4. “Mark”…Since you follow the Liberal/Progressive tradition of hiding your really stupid insults in anonymity, I can’t address you in the proper manner for someone I have never met, but I assume you have some sort of relationship with Dr. Murray or else your feigned familiarity is consistent with the general incoherence of all your posts on this blog. Have you ever read any of Dr. Murray’s groundbreaking studies or even his lighter pieces? You exhibit no evidence of any familiarity with his impeccable scholarship and it may be you lack the basic cognitive capacity to recognize the value of shining the bright light of reality into so many dark corners of the Liberal/Progressives’ unintended consequences.

      If your comments are intended as mockery of a great thinker, they fail to achieve your goal, largely because your inability to write a coherent sentence or to complete an actual thought is constantly in evidence. Why not deal with the substance of Dr. Murray’s work? Maybe because you lack both contrary arguments and the ability to express them if they did exist? Hard to determine…why not jump over to THE DAILY KOZ or THE HUFFINGTON POST, where your snarky ignorance is always welcome!!! Just an idea, “Mark.” Charles David Edinger

    5. William Manuel

      The Bell Curve is about 600 pages. The part which looks at the data divided into racial groups is about 90 pages. That seems the only part that anyone cares about. So to characterize the work as “white only shtick” simply means Marky hasn’t read it.

      1. It is hilarious how the Liberal/Progressive trolls here think they are playing to an audience that for some reason will accept innuendo as a substitute for reality and facts. If Dr. Murray’s groundbreaking study, THE BELL CURVE, is actually a sloppy racist diatribe, why not quote Dr. Murray’s racist words, rather than a hack writer from SALON, which is not exactly a credible source for information on Michelle Obama’s new shoes, let alone a “review” of the most important assessment of important trends in American society of the last fifty years.

        As I often offer to Liberal/Progressives when discussing any serious issue, show us the facts and where the alleged offensive language occurs in Dr. Murray’s 600-page work. As an applied economist myself, I was extremely impressed with the methodological soundness and strict neutrality of Dr. Murray’s study the first time I read it long ago, and I have yet to hear a single, solitary factual dispute put forward by the intellectual Lilliputians of the Liberal/Progressive hate chorus. I make that offer here…and suggest that the buffoons quoting other buffoons make their case by quoting Dr. Murray’s words. Your opportunity is here to correct your intellectual better…why not strike while my challenge stands??? Maybe because you have nothing to say??? Then stop boring us with your tedious and baseless whining. Charles David Edinger

        1. Charlie
          Your allegiance to Chuck Murray is inspiring, dare I write rather Addington-like or Scooter-ish.
          Expected, of course, but inspiring nonetheless. Onward, soldier, onward.

          1. “Mark”…I don’t go by “Charlie,” Mainly because I am the sixth Charles Edinger in my family, and my first son is the seventh…all different middle names, so I’ve used “Charles David” for decades. How about I call you “Mark” and you call me “Charles,” since we’ve never met and don’t seem to have much in common. Also not certain what the “soldier” reference is all about, although I suspect it is another attempt at what passes for Liberal/Progressive disdain or maybe even a feeble effort at humor. I could reply by a reference to “sheep,” but that would have the potential to escalate into a political version of the Dozens, and I’ve generally sworn off that type of entertainment.

            Dr. Murray is one of the truly creative thinkers of his generation and as a recovering academic I have have examined both his methodologies and analyses in his several interesting publications and concluded they are unusually sound and insightful. My own social science research has also always been rigorous, but I discovered decades ago that most of my colleagues had an unfortunate pattern of “finding” whatever results their financial sponsors wanted to have found, usually by the use of a carefully concealed variable known as the “slush factor.” Mr. Murray has never employed a bogus variable in his work that I have discovered, hence he has been that rare creature, an academic with integrity who pursues actual research rather than merely cooking the books. BTW, my own experience with the Procrustean nature of most academic research caused me decades ago to shift my interests to research projects related to business decision making, where actual findings are critical since finding what you think is true can be economically disastrous.

            Dr. Murray is one of a small group of brilliant researchers and thinkers of our period whose works are worth reading and thinking about. I place Richard Epstein, Matt Ridley, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, Robert Nozick, George Gilder, Robert Fogel, and Daniel Kahneman in the same category in terms of the value of their work in economics, politics and social science. I have comparable sets for other disciplines I follow for professional reasons. I also read the rantings and delusions of people like Krugman, but find deception and intellectual dishonesty to be their consistent approaches, and as a popular salesman of Keynesian fantasies Krugman has no equal.

            So, “Mark,” that’s how I arrive at my admiration for Dr. Murray and his vast contributions to our knowledge of trends in American society, trends whose very existence is denied by the clownish, pseudo intellectual denizens of the Liberal/Progressive movement and the current occupant of the White House. My rule of thumb is that when one’s position requires misrepresentation in order to generate support, its popularity is an illusion and ephemeral at best. Whereas real scholarship withstands the silly hectoring of lightweight pseudo intellectuals. Yes, I admire Dr. Murray’s work…you should try reading some of it!!! Charles David Edinger

  9. Lucy Tucker

    I love you Charles and everybody else at AEI. Your “Losing Ground” and “The Pursuit of Happiness & Good Government” had a huge impact on me! Keep on fighting the good fight.

    Truth.

    Let’s face it, the race card is pretty much all the Left has.. .left.

  10. I hope this was written tongue in cheek–you know, parodying a troll. Otherwise, it’s plain nonsense, of course.

    1. [email protected]

      Yes, cuz as we all know, when anyone on the left, anywhere, for any reason, accuses someone of (Shudder! Cue 1950s monster movie music now!) “racism,” we must – I am now furrowing my brow and wringing my hands with all the somberness this demands – we must, must, MUST take it seriously!

      Ye Gods.

  11. Tracy Lightcap

    Mr. Murray is quite right that he avoided any overt racism in The Bell Curve. But see:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1994/dec/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/

    Yes. He was careful. But the sources he used in the book to buttress his positions and the interpretation of those sources really doesn’t leave much doubt. Alan Ryan’s review of the book is also instructive. See:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1994/nov/17/apocalypse-now/?page=3

    Those first impressions haven’t been effectively refuted by Murray since they have been written. His sin wasn’t bringing up the topic. It was using sloppy and doubtful research to reinforce his policy prejudices.

    1. Using using sloppy and doubtful research to reinforce his policy prejudices is not what Murray is being accused of doing today. Instead, he is being accused of racism by people like Paul Krugman. Do you detect the difference between those two accusations? One accusation can be made against just about everyone who advances a detailed argument. We all suffer from blind spots and confirmation bias (Krugman included). But when you accuse someone of racism, you are basically saying “I am holier than thou, but you are a wretched sinner.” That’s what progressive do today, and that’s why I am a little embarrassed to have once considered myself to be a progressive (and to have once engaged in hair-trigger accusations of racism myself).

    2. Cognition

      I love asking people this when they use this kind of fallacious reasoning and bring up the Pioneer Fund:

      Is the Ford Foundation anti-semitic?

      “Those first impressions haven’t been effectively refuted by Murray since they have been written.”

      Perhaps you need to read the book, especially the afterword in the paperback edition where he specifically addresses the faulty reasoning you just engaged in.

      “His sin wasn’t bringing up the topic. It was using sloppy and doubtful research to reinforce his policy prejudices.”

      Sloppy and doubtful how? And what policy prejudices?

  12. “We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate.”

    Cowards.

    Phenotype is the result of the interaction between genetics and the environment.

    Put 10,000 Swedes on Haiti and see what happens in 150 years.

    1. A lot of melanoma?

  13. Bill Haywood

    Regarding the claim that critics never use actual quotes from Murray, Joan Walsh at Salon replies: “I’ve written about Murray’s work extensively, and with lavish documentation and direct quotes (and I’m not the only one). Since I debated Murray on WBUR in 2012, I know he knows my work. So he’s a liar when he says ‘no one ever accompanies their charges with direct quotes of what I’ve actually said.’”
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/paul_krugman_demolishes_charles_murrays_stunning_racist_dishonesty/

    1. [email protected]

      Lets see, Bill. You seem to answer Murray’s protest that no one is actually quoting Murray by linking to a piece by Joan Walsh, who is well known as a hysterical bomb thrower on all things “racist,” which … doesn’t quote Murray either! Not only that, she doesn’t even bother to link to any of her supposed “extensive” writing she claims does quote him.

      To answer her idiotic rhetorical question about “In what universe does (Murray’s work) not count as ‘racist?’” Try reality, honey! Where facts speak for themselves and aren’t the target of ideological book-burnings when they point to something that makes you uncomfortable!

      1. Bill Haywood

        Since your google is broke, here’s Walsh, with quotes.
        http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/charles_murray_does_it_again/

        And lots of long quotes from David Frum: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-murray-book-review.html

        Don’t forget that the fact you do not like Frum/Walsh opinions is not evidence that critics never quote Murray.

        1. [email protected]

          Yeah, Bill, I’m sorry I wasn’t more painstakingly precise in my challenge.

          The criticism was that you anti-Murray folks haven’t produced a RELEVANT quote, which would support your charge that Murray is a pure genetic determinist, or believes that races are intrinsically or genetically inferior or superior. Neither this additional screed by Walsh or the longer one by Frum, do this either.

          (Incidentally, if you imply that evidence for your assertion lies in the first link you posted, it should be there. The other person’s “broken Google” shouldn’t be necessary, since you are the one making the claim, hence the burden is on you to produce the evidence.)

          Oh, sure, there are QUOTES in these additional links, so I guess that’s what led you to believe you’d satisfied the challenge. But they do not support your smear. See, I’m looking for quotes to SUPPORT what Walsh says about Murray’s alleged “racism,” not simply Walsh giving a quote that lends no support, but nonetheless arguing that he’s a “racist” anyway.

          Understand? I’ll be patiently waiting for your revised assignment to be turned in. But I won’t be holding my breath.

  14. Here are some direct quotes from Charles Murray:

    “The topic is poverty and the underclass.

    “The reasons for hopelessness are everywhere, but they are most obvious and most depressing in the inner city…[T]he reports from case workers and a few clear-eyed journalists reveal a world in which some substantial proportion of women play their role of mother appallingly badly, leaving the children unnurtured, undisciplined, sometimes unfed and unwashed. Children grow in a world where cause and effect are meaningless — where, for the same behavior, they are one occasion ignored, on another laughed at indulgently, and on yet another cursed and beaten…The drug dealer is lionized, the man who mops floors is scorned. The school girl who gets pregnant is envied, the school girl who studies hard is taunted.

    “The numbers are often secondary. What proportion of inner city adults is addicted to crack? Nobody really knows…”

    From the Preface to “The Tragedy of American Compassion” by Marvin Olasky, 1992.

    1. Jeremy: Is there a point you are attempting to make with this quotation. As someone who has done extensive work as a volunteer and mentor for troubled urban kids, Murray’s description is extremely and unfortunately accurate. Our urban centers are in crisis, originating from many factors, but a major one has been the Federal welfare programs that encourage fatherless homes and unwed mothers and allow families to live in comfortable squalor for generations without anyone engaged in meaningful legal employment.

      Although you may not be aware, social scientists like Dr. Murray study the dysfunctional aspects of our society in order to formulate potential solutions and alleviate root causes. One of the major tools for addressing social disfunction is to create actual awareness of the problems among the largely insulated and ignorant general public. Although I have lived in very comfortable safe suburban towns for decades, I grew up in an Irish ghetto in Philadelphia and I and my children have been involved in volunteer work in various inner cities for years. We have a surface knowledge of the situation Dr. Murray describes in your quote…most of my suburban neighbors and friends have no clue, which may be true of you as well. I don’t know that, but your seeming shock at Dr. Murray’s writings on the topic may indicate a lack of familiarity with the issues involved.

      To address a problem or issue one must first understand and acknowledge its existence. Few Liberal/Progressives have ever experienced the devastation and the cost in human lives that their well-intentioned, but sentimentalized Federal welfare programs have caused, especially in urban communities. I have seen the effects first hand, and Charles Murray describes them accurately in your chosen quote. That is the first step in a long, intergenerational process that has no guaranty of success. Charles David Edinger

      1. [email protected]

        Sadly, no, he probably doesn’t have a point. He took our challenge to quote Murray as saying that human outcomes re: race – that they are entirely genetic, that there is intrinsic superiority/inferiority, etc – and took that to mean that they could produce ANY quote they find ideologically disagreeable to satisfy the challenge.

        He probably thought to himself, “So, THERE!” as he posted it.

        We erred, apparently, in not specifying that it needed to be a RELEVANT quote to support their smear, not just any old quote.

      2. Thanks, Charles. I too have worked in low-income urban areas, as a camp counselor in New York City, as a social worker in Dallas, and as volunteer with Sudanese and Liberian refugees. That’s how I know that Dr. Murray paints with far too broad a brush. The passage above plays into the worst stereotypes of black and brown people living in poverty. It suggests that virtually all of them may be addicted to crack — “the numbers are often secondary” says this social scientist.

        When Rep. Ryan offered his analysis of urban culture earlier this month, I was reminded of Dr. Murray’s words, which I first read when I was assigned Dr. Olasky’s book at a small conservative school in Texas in the 1990s. I’ve never forgotten them.

        1. Cognition

          Care to explain why you think “inner-city” automatically means Blacks?

        2. Jeremy…Having read all of Dr. Murray’s books published to date, as I have with other researchers and thinkers I find interesting and helpful, I don’t see how Murray “paints” at all, which illustrates how different Liberal/Progressive ideological thinking differs from fact-based research. For marginal intellects like Krugman, research must always be filtered through a political or ideological lense, and reality is optional, as I believe Thomas Sowell and others have observed. Actual social science research, of the variety Charles Murray has been conducting for decades, does not begin with the result already known, but rather with a falsifiable thesis that the fact pattern eventually confirms as false or possibly true.

          Krugman, who is supposed to be an economist, still pushes the many times disproved and fanciful theories of J.M. Keynes, and provides free form stupidity by trying to double as a social critic and Liberal/Progressive political strategist. Obamacare is a classic Krugman-esque program, which has already destroyed the world’s most successful and innovative healthcare system in order to provide taxpayer funded “free health insurance” for what was supposed to be a group of 40MM uninsured Americans. It has turned out most of the uninsured have no interest in Obamacare insurance.

          Politics trumps the good of the American people every time for clowns like Obama and Krugman, and those who discuss our nation’s actual problems are accused of “racism” by people whose whole approach to life is racist and fascist to the core. Charles Murray’s research over the course of his distinguished career has been devoted to improving our understanding of the dysfunctional aspects of American society. Our political leaders would do well to recognize the reality of our blighted urban centers, rather than painting a smiley face on inter-generational decay!!! Charles David Edinger

  15. I am a great admirer of IQ hereditarians including Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray, however I think that in actual truth they are both racist in terms of their viewpoints on race and IQ (albeit because expressing the truth about human racial group differences in IQ is unavoidably RACIST because of the definition of racism–see below).

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism

    rac·ism (rā′sĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    According to above definition “1.” Jensen and Murray are indeed racists because they ascribe to “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability [namely IQ or general intelligence] and that a particular race [Asians or Whites] is superior to others [Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans, Aborigines]. So by definition Charles Murray you are indeed a racist!! Welcome to the society of race realists (AKA Scientific Racists or HBD believers).

    It is sort of okay to claim to be “nonracist” and accept that racial groups differ in IQ but only if one insists that the racial IQ differences are because of non-innate environmental factors. But Murray above claims that he believes that “It seems highly likely… that …genes …have something to do with racial differences.” Sorry Charles Murray but that puts you pretty squarely in the RACIST CAMP. Remember that if racial genetic differences in IQ are even moderately significant, then as society becomes more and more equal in terms of environmental factors the genetic factors inevitably become more and more salient until they become the overwhelmingly important cause in determining IQ differences. So it is imperative to deny any role at all for genetics in racial IQ differences if you want to remain a bona fide NONRACIST.

    1. Roy: I hope you will confirm that your post is a parody of the ideologically driven, anti-scientific “academics” who are tucked away in the comfortable, tenured ranks of America’s better universities, and in the Obama White House. To fail to speak the truth is an intellectual crime of the highest order, and to fail to recognize the growing body of the evidence on heritable traits is to choose to disconnect with reality. We know now that women are on average smarter than men and that men’s general intelligence exhibits greater variability than women’s, meaning there are a higher percentage of both male geniuses and idiots. We know that racial groupings are not particularly meaningful, since the human genome project has shown that ethnic groupings, rather than skin color, are the most helpful connections. We also know that with notable exceptions, the genetic make-up of Americans has become increasingly polyglot with time. If one were to award a meaningless prize for the highest IQ among ethnic groups, said prize would go the Asian tribe, which of course has never been one tribe.

      The incredibly interesting and methodologically sound research carried out by Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen reported on objective realities and did not begin or end with any claims of the racial superiority of any identifiable group. I know that because I have read both gentleman’s work, in Murray’s case repeatedly and I began with a concern that it might have been ideologically driven. It is not!!! If one were to assign a racist motivation to the findings of Jensen’s and Murray’s groundbreaking works, one would be reduced to blaming the Supreme Being of one’s own preference, or the evolutionary process, if one harbors materialistic superstitions as to the creation and evolution of our known reality. So, Roy, please tell me your comment was a hoax and I will retire for the evening a less aggrieved man, except that I will still need to walk my dog on a cold, rainy New England night, which will likely reduce any warm feelings your confession can provide. Charles David Edinger

      1. Cognition

        Charles, if only you and I could meet and person so I can have a new best friend that reads high doses of total awesomeness (Nozick? Sowell? Murray? Why can’t there be more people like you???).

        Seriously, is there a way I can get in touch with you directly? There’s a project I’m working on that is related to “The Bell Curve” as well as a handful of other things in the nature/nurture debate. It’s in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the book’s publication.

        Let me know what works for you! :-)

        1. Cognition: Always looking for new friends, as I have my share of non-friends, which I find quite entertaining! My address is [email protected], and I would welcome getting together, especially since your project sounds interesting. I’m out for a day of business meetings, but will look forward to connecting! Charles David

          1. Cognition

            Thank you!

            I’ll send you an email with details on the project in the near future. :-)

  16. From a social policy perspective I don’t see the need to categorise by race – we can be race blind. We can just focus on clever and dumb people etc, and deal with people like that – from those categories. If most of the people who fall into the “dumb” block are Black, then who cares…we don’t need to know the racial mix to engineer policy for the dumb group.

    1. …furthermore, making it a race thing could inadvertently help to close down the discussion that we really need to have, that relates directly to public policy and differing human abilities. In the same way that the Nazi horror show shut down the conversation on eugenics.

    2. Cognition

      I think your comment was spot-on.

      My only wish is that this same level of rationality were also applied to other metrics done with race as part of the picture (eg, income differences). People truly need to appreciate what an *average* actually is and how looking at average race differences in ANY context can fail to see the forest for the trees.

  17. Qui s’excuse, s’accuse. Please, Mr Murray, don’t. The allegation of racism is a tool, so fight back always–all else is futile, there’s no mercy any which way.

  18. CBrowne

    Murray’s claim that acceptance of the “limitations” of certain races should not result in disparate treatment ignores the reality that the slave trade, Jim Crow laws, and much of of the discrimination at present is rooted in the belief in the corrolary – white superiority. The belief that one race is superior to another is, by definition, racist….even if true. As a black man, I am commited to the belief that any data supporting such a conclusion can/should be contextualized, resulting in an alternative construct that is race neutral.

    1. [email protected]

      ” The belief that one race is superior to another is, by definition, racist….even if true.”

      So, what you’re saying is the major premises of “racism” (meaning measurable physical, intellectual and behavioral differences) are … true?

      “As a black man, I am commited to the belief that any data supporting such a conclusion can/should be contextualized,”

      “Contextualize” how? Is such data accurate, or not? If not, why not?

      “(R)esulting in an alternative construct that is race neutral.”

      What does this even mean?

      What you’re essentially saying is all the evidence supports Murray, but we should pretend that it doesn’t?

  19. Carl Sanders

    Actually, CBrowne has a point that I believe Murray himself would agree with with regards to his contextualize comment. Murray comments that even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cognitive differences in the races were 100% traceable to genetics, that it would or should not affect our treatment of individuals. Likewise if we find that the differences are 100% environmental, that none of our current policies would change one iota. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with putting evidence in a social context–this is what good social policy does. Assuming that intelligence–no matter the cause, is a predictor of success in work, we could as a society use such a test to use our resources in a constructive and more efficient way to help the poor, regardless of their color.
    That this will occur in my lifetime, I would not bet on. The left and the Democratic Party have too much invested in keeping people in their current station in life so that they may procure votes in exchange for handing out subsistence monies that they steal from others by forcing their morality down others throats.
    This explains why liberal blacks attack blacks who do not believe they way they do. It’s not primarily about race, it’s about them keeping power.

    1. I believe you are 100% right, Carl Sanders!

    2. “Likewise if we find that the differences are 100% environmental, that none of our current policies would change one iota”

      Many of the policies might not change, but they should or, at least, a new rational for policies such as affirmative action, adverse impact, and enforced diversity should be developed, given that these policies are largely still justified on the speculation that the relevant group differences are due to discrimination, past or present. Ginsburg just restated the reasoning:

      “I have several times explained why government actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of an overtly discriminatory past, the legacy of ‘centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.
      (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks of the importance of diversity and acknowledges America’s enduring structural racism in her lone dissenting opinion of the Affirmative Action case (Abigail Fisher vs UT Austin))

      Intelligence differences, taking into account group — not just individual — level effects, can more than explain most present outcome differentials. This was pointed out by John Hopkins sociologists Robert Gordon. So if we grant that the intelligence differences are 100% genetic in origin, then we just granted away the rational for these many policies aimed at reducing the differences.

      It’s as if Carl Sanders was utterly oblivious to the issue being discussed. 20 years ago Murray noted that group differences could be explained by IQ differences and offered a race neutral libertarian societal approach: from a legal perspective, treat individuals as individual. He was vilified for this, for daring to argue that group differences were not due to unjust discrimination in need of extensive governmental intervention.

  20. I don’t believe that “Central Auditory Processing Disorder” is actually a genetic condition at all. Marilyn Jager Adams, in her new book “ABC Foundations For Young Children” writes that most American kids finishing first-grade still can’t name and write all of the alphabet letters. If they had been fluent in handwriting in K-1, no such children would have been “dyslexic”.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content