I have not read Murray’s book, and all that I know about it is based on Glenn’s interview with him and this talk with John. I start from the assumption that John and Glenn are right: this data presented about IQ is robust and significant, if also deeply troubling. As to whether Murray is a racist or not—not really the most interesting or important question in my mind. Given how many ways people define “racist” the term is becoming less useful in this moment. I AM concerned about how this data could be used in ways that end up harming people of all skin colors and the fabric of our society. John points out that while the data about IQ tests is painstakingly footnoted, that when it comes to the policy implications, the book lacks footnotes and is more like cocktail party chatter. That is troubling.
I do not believe we should be rushing to make policy changes based on this data. It may be nearly “irrefutable:” but given how poisonous culturally it would be to alter policies (such as hiring policies) somehow based on it, I believe the priority should be to continue to study this phenomenon about IQ. If there is a genuine concern about affirmative action policies resulting in unqualified hires (and from what John says, this assertion was not backed up by footnotes in the book), there can be reasonable resolutions to those concerns, even without entirely ditching affirmative action policies. It is reasonable to expect people to pass tests at established minimum levels that are relevant to particular jobs. So, in some cases, a black applicant who passes a minimum test with flying colors but who tests slightly lower than a white applicant might be offered the position, if affirmative action policies are in place. (I am not arguing for or against affirmative action, just acknowledging that it is part of the landscape.) Tests are not the only indicator of success, and some people just do not do well on tests.
I know that John and Glenn and many of you may disagree with me here, but I also believe that there ARE multiple ways that humans are “intelligent.” I believe it is limiting and untrue to categorize this kind of analytical ability in humans as the only real or meaningful kind of intelligence. Not that it is not special and important and worth measuring and valuing: I just do not believe that IQ is the only measure of intelligence. It could be argued that intelligence is whatever helps us survive. Some of the sharpest tools in the shed can also be some of the cruelest monsters, creating pain and misery for others and not helping humanity solve problems intelligently. Some of the kindest people I have known do not possess the best critical thinking skills, but their loving kindness results in harmonious families and communities. Kindness helps us survive as much as advanced engineering.
I also believe that systems thinking presents a powerful lens through which to view intelligence. Systems thinking in ecology views all of life and the ecosystems within it as interconnected. All parts of the system influence one another within a whole. In human culture, we can see the skills, talents, and abilities of individuals as existing in an interactive web, all of which are valuable, all of which can contribute to a healthy society as a whole. We do not all need to be the same to be “valuable,” we do not all need to be the same to be valued for our contributions.
So back to Murray. What seems to be irrefutable are the results of these tests he writes about. What (in my mind) remains refutable is the meaning of the data. We do NOT know with certainty why these tests are so different by race. Murray is clearly convincing that there are genetic differences in populations with regard to IQ. This could be true, and perhaps if I read the book I would be completely convinced that it is true. But those innate differences have not been definitively proven because that is not how science works—only test results have been consistently reproduced to date. We also do not know what truly constitutes human intelligence, and probably still have much to learn about human intelligence.
Studying the differences in human populations should not be shut down, it should be accelerated. This is of course the 5-star alarm concern that many of us have: that these illiberal ideologies are poisoning scientific inquiry, that truth, such as the truths presented in Facing Reality, is giving way to political agendas. With more research funded, who knows what else we could discover about humanity that can help us solve our problems?
True science is based on rigor, on continued exploration, and bringing new information to light. It is my hope that we can hold this information carefully and lightly, while continuing to advocate for the light of truth.
I have not read Murray’s book, and all that I know about it is based on Glenn’s interview with him and this talk with John. I start from the assumption that John and Glenn are right: this data presented about IQ is robust and significant, if also deeply troubling. As to whether Murray is a racist or not—not really the most interesting or important question in my mind. Given how many ways people define “racist” the term is becoming less useful in this moment. I AM concerned about how this data could be used in ways that end up harming people of all skin colors and the fabric of our society. John points out that while the data about IQ tests is painstakingly footnoted, that when it comes to the policy implications, the book lacks footnotes and is more like cocktail party chatter. That is troubling.
I do not believe we should be rushing to make policy changes based on this data. It may be nearly “irrefutable:” but given how poisonous culturally it would be to alter policies (such as hiring policies) somehow based on it, I believe the priority should be to continue to study this phenomenon about IQ. If there is a genuine concern about affirmative action policies resulting in unqualified hires (and from what John says, this assertion was not backed up by footnotes in the book), there can be reasonable resolutions to those concerns, even without entirely ditching affirmative action policies. It is reasonable to expect people to pass tests at established minimum levels that are relevant to particular jobs. So, in some cases, a black applicant who passes a minimum test with flying colors but who tests slightly lower than a white applicant might be offered the position, if affirmative action policies are in place. (I am not arguing for or against affirmative action, just acknowledging that it is part of the landscape.) Tests are not the only indicator of success, and some people just do not do well on tests.
I know that John and Glenn and many of you may disagree with me here, but I also believe that there ARE multiple ways that humans are “intelligent.” I believe it is limiting and untrue to categorize this kind of analytical ability in humans as the only real or meaningful kind of intelligence. Not that it is not special and important and worth measuring and valuing: I just do not believe that IQ is the only measure of intelligence. It could be argued that intelligence is whatever helps us survive. Some of the sharpest tools in the shed can also be some of the cruelest monsters, creating pain and misery for others and not helping humanity solve problems intelligently. Some of the kindest people I have known do not possess the best critical thinking skills, but their loving kindness results in harmonious families and communities. Kindness helps us survive as much as advanced engineering.
I also believe that systems thinking presents a powerful lens through which to view intelligence. Systems thinking in ecology views all of life and the ecosystems within it as interconnected. All parts of the system influence one another within a whole. In human culture, we can see the skills, talents, and abilities of individuals as existing in an interactive web, all of which are valuable, all of which can contribute to a healthy society as a whole. We do not all need to be the same to be “valuable,” we do not all need to be the same to be valued for our contributions.
So back to Murray. What seems to be irrefutable are the results of these tests he writes about. What (in my mind) remains refutable is the meaning of the data. We do NOT know with certainty why these tests are so different by race. Murray is clearly convincing that there are genetic differences in populations with regard to IQ. This could be true, and perhaps if I read the book I would be completely convinced that it is true. But those innate differences have not been definitively proven because that is not how science works—only test results have been consistently reproduced to date. We also do not know what truly constitutes human intelligence, and probably still have much to learn about human intelligence.
Studying the differences in human populations should not be shut down, it should be accelerated. This is of course the 5-star alarm concern that many of us have: that these illiberal ideologies are poisoning scientific inquiry, that truth, such as the truths presented in Facing Reality, is giving way to political agendas. With more research funded, who knows what else we could discover about humanity that can help us solve our problems?
True science is based on rigor, on continued exploration, and bringing new information to light. It is my hope that we can hold this information carefully and lightly, while continuing to advocate for the light of truth.