Listen, white person here. And frankly everything I’ve read about Charles Murray and this argument in his book makes me sick to my stomach. I disagree with you, John, that the only way to “get into our head” is to “get out of our gut.” That’s manifestly a wrong-headed approach to intellectual rigor. The gut has a perceptual ability and it’s faster than our brains. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t then mean to be refined by the intellect, but the gut is crucial to sound moral instinct as well as being necessary for certain types of insights. The gut without the mind may be blind, but the mind without the gut is stupid.
Back to the main point. It’s *insane* to me that no one has discussed how ripe for manipulation statistics are. It’s so bad that the same statistics can easily be used to tell mutually contradictory stories about the same scenario, and that happens all the time.
I am glad you put your finger on the problem being his interpretation, because let’s remember that interpretation is a step removed from any fact, no matter how incontrovertible. Dispassionate or not, Murray is ideologically driven. He just is, and so is every human ever to look at data.
There are so. Many. Presuppositions not being acknowledged. So according to him, black people are scoring lower in test scores and the various interventions we’ve attempted haven’t made a difference? First of all, o know you say it’s incontrovertible but since I haven’t seen the data I’ll reserve judgement. It’s way too common for someone to cherry-pick statistics, so unless an absolutely exhaustive, sound systematic review has been done, I’m still skeptical.
Second, presupposition, and this is major, is the quality of the data. I doubt most of these studies would remotely qualify at a scientific level. We are talking TEST SCORES y’all. As an educator I can tell you that a test is an abysmally poor indicator of true subject grasp and I really only grudgingly use them. And as long as we are talking demographic disparities, sorry to burst everyone’s America bubble but our ranking SUCK. We aren’t anything like the leader of the world, or even the developed world, in education. Do you really expect tests developed by a country with discouragingly low capacity to create good education in the first place, who has a living history of laws and policies that actively undermined black success and a social structure that was born out of, in part, chattel slavery, is going to be a reliable source of measurements on black intelligence? This is where I say, come on, let’s use our heads people. It’s obvious. And might I add that even in the most rigorous scientific studies, the data often changes because new ways of framing the question usually change outcomes.
All the data tells us, like you say John, is that black Americans struggle with American tests, consistently. Big surprise there given our current educational failures and historic systemic racism, no matter what you might think of the progress we may have made in (very) recent years. This is not a diagnosis on racial intelligence!
Finally, WHY THE HECK would anyone try to establish anything about racial intelligence using only the data from one country? That doesn’t seem very insightful either. Maybe I missed something but I’ve only heard data from the US. We’ll come on y’all! Black Americans are dealing with vastly different issues than black Africans or integrated black citizens of other countries. Anyone really qualified to judge this and remotely interested in the real data would have known to broaden their spotlight. A systematic review is the only way to get any kind of a picture - and even then it’s only as good as the questions you ask, which is directly influenced by your ideology.
There is SO much room to heavily question Murray’s line of argument, both intellectually and morally. I cannot and will not leave my gut out of the equation when evaluating these sorts of issues, and neither should you. Many cutting edge scientific theories stated with a gut instinct, and I’m guessing the abolition had a lot of gut too. We have to use the whole apparatus, friends, not the disembodied head.
"facing reality"—sure, as long as it's about somebody else doing it, not you.
Keep these definitions in mind while you read:
“An assertion is just a point of view, an opinion. An argument goes further. An argument is a point of view supported by reasons that demonstrate the view is a good one.”
maverick: "A person who shows independence of thought and action, especially by refusing to adhere to the policies of a group to which he or she belongs."
Thomas Sowell has a long record of party-line hackery that flies in the face of that definition.
You can ignore me, dismiss me, mock me—but the only way you can make the argument that's he's a "maverick"—is to confine his record to only the parts that suits you.
And that—is against the rules of reason.
As I told Glen: "I’ve been explaining it for some time and you haven’t said one word. If you’re unwilling to change your mind in the face of evidence that warrants it—you have no business asking others to."
And that goes for all of you.
. . .
Below is the reply I received from Glenn Loury—a man who once called my writing “brilliant.”
But it’s not always gonna be brilliant—and that’s precisely to the point. You could be brain surgeon and behave like a moron in pursuit of political interests. How does that happen?
For the same reason Glenn responded the way he did: Your own standards go right out the window when your interests are at stake, and emotion runs roughshod over reason.
Jason Riley’s “Maverick” doesn’t have “Sowell’s Ways on Some Things but Not on Others” as the subtitle.
That would be honest—and there’s nothing I could object to on that.
But “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell”—implies he’s a “maverick” in the totality of his life.
“Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books -- go ahead. I'm listening...”
So you’ll only “listen” as long as you can confine the “conversation” to what works for you. Got it!
So no, you’re not listening. Black Lives Matter—they aren’t either—and if you won’t, why should they? Why should anyone?
America doesn’t listen either—as it’s infected with the plague of wishful thinking (framing the “debate” in whatever way works in your favor).
“I have no idea what you're talking about. How do you expect someone to respond to such a rant.”
I expect you to follow your own standards and think it through. It’s only a “rant” because that’s what you need it to be—so you can write it off and preserve what you want to see.
Why am I so P*$$@d off? Because this is the end of the series and I knew the end result all along. No regrets—I’m glad I wrote it and I’m eternally grateful to Glenn and others who inspired this site.
I had to try—I always do. And while I’m certainly not giving up, it’s just disappointing to once again be reminded of how there’s no one of influence who calls a spade a spade.
There’s always something people are unwilling to risk—and they'll rationalize it away to fabricate their own reality.
Look around: That's why America has become the clusterf$#% that it is.
You want everybody else to do their part, but you don't wanna do yours. It's the opposition at the core of America's decline—you had nothin' to do with it, naturally. You want them to take responsibility for their role in this mess, but not you. Never you—your hands are clean as can be.
I was so inspired by what Glenn did in 1984—I thought that maybe, just maybe—this guy had the guts to do what needs to done.
But I know human nature.
I have an idea that could really make a real difference—and it won’t even be discussed. You’re all too busy Tweeting and talking about things that get us nowhere.
I wrote that email that way to get Glenn’s attention. I confirmed what I really knew all along—and hoped I was wrong.
To believe that Thomas Sowell is a “maverick” is religion. Haven’t we seen enough of that already?
My response to Glenn:
*****************************
So you’re telling me that if one half of a person’s record is a “maverick”—but he’s a hack in the other half, it doesn’t matter?
What McWhorter said below is not true. You both made judgments outside the realm of his expertise and yours—and it’s simply not true.
That is what I am refuting—and that is fair game.
---------------------------------------
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.
He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through. It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
*****************************
Subject: Re: Let me tell you something about how the mind works, Mr. Pinker:
I have no idea what you're talking about. How do you expect someone to respond to such a rant. Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books -- go ahead. I'm listening...
*************************************
My open letter to Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Steven Pinker, Amy Chua, Charles Murray—and anyone who believes things to be true that are demonstrably false.
That means virtually all of America and across the world.
Subject: Let me tell you something about how the mind works, Mr. Pinker:
I obliterated the basis of Maverick—and all of you have a vested interest in denying reality to preserve a belief that is glaringly false. Riley flagrantly ignored the totality of Thomas Sowell’s record to manufacture a “maverick.” On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history—any objective observer can see it’s not true.
Not a trace of his “follow the facts” claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time. It doesn’t get any more obvious and definitive—and yet his record is chock-full of party-line hackery on that issue.
Which flies in the face of what Mr. McWhorter said below.
You guys spend your lives telling others that you’re right and they’re wrong. It’s time for you to step up and admit when you’re wrong. If you don’t, what makes you any different from the minds you’re trying to change? To believe he’s a “great man” and “fearless” “maverick” with what you knew of him—is one thing.
To continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence—is pure fantasy.
Ya know, the faith-based belief of anti-racism “religion,” Mr. McWhorter.
I have an idea that’s unlike anything ever done—and Thomas Sowell is key to it. Glenn, I hope to God you’re better than this—that instead of trying something that could turn the tide, you’d protect a reputation that isn’t real. If you do what I’m asking—Sowell’s name will be known to the entire world for good, and “the bad” won’t matter.
It won’t matter that Sowell blew it on WMD or why—all that matters is having the guts to say, “I was wrong—and I’m trying to make it right.” That’s exponentially more powerful than had he been right in the first place. It’s time to start solving problems instead of endlessly talking about them and getting nowhere. In fact, you’re actually making it worse—as I explain in the link below.
Do what I have in mind—and your reputations and status will soar worldwide. That shouldn’t even factor into it—all you should care about is doing what’s right. But this is human nature, so I know the obstacles involved.
“Jason Riley has rendered an enormous service by providing a compelling . . . biography”: It’s not compelling at all when you look at the whole story. So he did a colossal disservice by adding to the illusion around this man (dumbing down the minds of those who blindly follow).
Self-delusion is driving this nation into the ground. Don’t help it along.
P.S. Getting to the truth should not be this difficult, and people like Sowell helped make it nearly impossible. That’s the culture that we’ve become—and he helped by peddling poppycock and people buying it. That’s bad enough—but after nearly 20 years of battling this BS, I discover great minds who are mostly reasonable—only to find that you play the same game in casually perpetuating beliefs that aren’t true. You didn’t follow your own standards. A lot of that goin’ around.
I’m trying to cut you some slack—but there’s no way you shouldn’t have known about Sowell’s other side. I’m sick of America’s over-the-top praise for the wildly unworthy. Anyone worth this ridiculous hero-worship—wouldn’t want it, as they’d have a helluva lot higher expectations of their supporters.
What John McWhorter said below is not even remotely true. Virtually every major problem in America is plagued by decades of manufactured beliefs.
So while you’re trying to cut through these myths—you’re not only creating more, you’re unwittingly helping to further calcify the ones you’re battling against.
***************************
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.
He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through. It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
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 think all who commented here will be quite interested in this discussion between Dr. Wilfred Reilly and Coleman Hughes. It is on this same and tangentially related topics with other data and references included.
I read the book, on the strength of your interview with Murray. I agree with McWhorter's comments: Murray ends the exercise too early.
For starters, how much of the observed IQ gap within universities or professions is the result of affirmative action distorting admissions and hiring decisions, and how much is an efficient outcome? Murray reports a gap of 0.96 SD for accountants; is there a plausible affirmative action program that could explain that? As someone who often uses my IQ to compensate for other shortcomings (with varying success), it seems plausible that two groups could be equally good, on average, at some set of tasks, despite one group having a higher average IQ.
To the extent that there is official or implicit affirmative action, is it the gap itself, or the racial proportions, subject to equilibrating forces? The behavioral economics literature on the "law of small numbers" seems relevant.
30 years ago what inspired me to teach was volunteering with adolescent youth from 'the hood' and noticing the same level of perception, connection, and wit I experienced with my non-Black peers from high school through college (b.s, engineering). The reason so many did not end up as I did was the horrendous job of imparting that secondary knowledge/crystallized intelligence our urban schools have done.
I cannot argue against Murray's data, but my experience doesn't consist with it.
Existentially, we are more homo religiosus than homo sapiens, particularly these days in the western world where wisdom appear to be evaporating from our culture.
There is danger in how Murray makes statistical comparisons: for a valid relationship to emerge -- whether causal or correlation -- statisticians need to ensure that the observed sets of data are valid. Here's the experiment that is needed to disprove Murray's claims: collect two sets of data with similar attributes except for IQ which is treated as a random variable. E.g. one data set is black Americans, income bracket $50k-$100k, BA degrees, home ownership and mom & dad in home. The second data set is a copy of the first *except* white Americans (not Asian, not Hispanic). Run regressions to see whether the differences in IQ are random or attributed to ethnicity. Without such an experiment, how can anyone take Murray seriously? PS this experiment should be conducted by neutral, non-political economists, for obvious reasons.
I doubt he would want to discuss given the ordeal he went through in the past, but Brett Weinstein who has been on Glenn's podcast in the past as briefly talked about this issue. He has a Q&A and received a question about racial group disparity in testing and whether its largely caused by genetics. He basically said as an evolutionary biologist this question was up his ally and there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that test score differences are derived from genetics. He said it remains an open question--and given that nobody really wants to research the question in a thorough scientific way, its likely to remain an open question for a long time. But he said people who have reached conclusions (such as Charles Murray though I don't think he called him by name) have reached conclusions about a causal relationship before the evidence really proves that.
My take on how things have played out over the past decade:
1. A decade ago: Murray's reality is impolite and injurious to some people, so let's refrain from discussing it. We're all Americans here, wanting the best for all. Agree, everyone? Sure, of course.
2. The intervening ten years: Hey, ya'll, we got a new UNreality that is impolite and injurious to some people, so let's force-feed it to the nation. Media: Yes! Politicians: Yes!
3. Today: Hmmm, I guess it's time for some good old-fashioned reality, and as for hurt feelings, my give-a-damn meter is really low.
First of all, I do think one either accepts the conclusion of the US Supreme Court in KIYOSHI HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES (1943) namely --Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality -- or one goes the way of Murray etc towards racial normalization as the de facto and default position. Hirabayashi has been cited over 150 times, including in Loving v VA which allowed interracial marriage. I firmly believe it is the only way to go (even if the US isn't not there yet)
In France, due to their experience during WW2, attempting to collect the sort of statistics Murrray uses is forbidden by law. It is why President Macron came out against the importation of CRT into France last week. If you look at the European experience in the run up to, during and the aftermath of WW2, there are reasons why universalism is a good thing.
Second, Murray only examines the US data rather than looking at the UK data. He can't examine data from France because it doesn't exist. The section of the UK population which always scores the lowest is the Irish Travellers ethnic grouping (skin tone white). There are reasons why the UK government has recently warned (yet again) teaching such concepts of white privilege etc is highly contentious given the UK stats. It is quite possible (and I believe something which Sowell showed) that if you control for the quality of education that parents and grandparents received, the difference in population groups falls away. This is something that Ellen Wilkinson (UK Labour Education Minister 1946 -1948) was well aware of (see Peter Hennessy Never Again Britain 1945 -1951 chapter on Building Jerusalem for example) -- a good education affects not only the generation who receives it but subsequent generations. As the Barbara Bush Literacy foundation recently pointed out the decline in literacy in the US is costing the country trillions. Putting that generational failure to provide an adequate education which allows for social mobility on the part of the local authorities to the skin tone of recipients of said inadequate education is wrong in principle and practice to my mind.
Third, it is always more interesting to look at the outliers in something like astrophysics. For example, I believe we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Gladys West, the woman who was recently awarded the Prince Philip medal from the Royal Academy of Engineering for her work on satellite geodesy which underpins the entire GPS. She still prefers to do her calculations with pencil and paper. She of course grew up a sharecropper's daughter in VA and choose to do mathematics at a time when most women were discouraged from the subject.
So, I have one little question about this claim that black people on average score worse than white people: How much worse?
I mean, if the average white IQ is 100 and the average black IQ is 99, then technically the statement, "Blacks have lower IQs than whites on average" is true, but the actual difference is negligible. So what, according to the data, is the actual difference, and what percentage of blacks score at or above the white average?
I am starting to lose patience with this circle jerk. So much focus on the right end tail of the distributions and the elite jobs in the elite Universities and Companies and Government.
It's just the same old talk, talk, talk while the shootings and murders and robberies and rapes and out of wedlock births and high abortion rates continue in the ghettos of Chicago, NY, Baltimore, DC, LA, St. Louis, Detroit............. The only one doing concrete work other than talking (or writing books) is Bob Woodson and his Foundation.
At the same time there is a concerted effort by a bunch of Post Modern Critical Theory facists to destroy our Country and turn it into another shithole. They use race, climate, trans, gender, religion, anything they can co-opt to divide and conquer us. And then you have China trying (and largely succeeding so far) to fuck us over big time.
As much as I feel for the marginalized folk in the ghettos and want to see them move on up, they're a pimple on the elephants ass in today's struggle with the forces trying to destroy us.
Go ahead and focus like a laser on race and the right hand tail of the IQ distribution and all the disparities etc. etc. etc. They're coming for us on multiple other fronts and we'd better be ready.
Doctors, I'm really interested in hearing a discussion from you two on the possible benefits or consequences of shorthand, e.g. "shrthnd." Lately, I've found myself "cmpsng txt msgs" this way. I surmise the use of such would result in shorter education periods, which in turn
would lower the costs of education. If the time it took to get a high school or college degree was chopped in half, lagging students may be found to be more intelligent than currently assumed.
There are different kids of intelligence, and looking at it in the abstract, it would be a miracle if each type of intelligence was equally distributed across every subset of the human population. The problem has become particular acute because the value placed on the kind of intelligence that results in good SAT scores (which is highly associated with the kind of intelligence that is most valued in today's job marketplace) has become exagerrated in the "winner-take-all" symbolic "information age" economy that we've built. Less attention should be paid to making sure that every single job classification out there perfectly mirrors the demographic profile of the gneeral population, and more attention should be paid towards reducing the consequences of the economic stratification between those job classifications.
Re: the racial distribution of violence, it's critical that we take that into account in how we respond to the allegation of police abuse. Failing to do so has resulted in thousands of unnecessary incremental murders and other violent crimes, the vast majority of the victims being black.
Listen, white person here. And frankly everything I’ve read about Charles Murray and this argument in his book makes me sick to my stomach. I disagree with you, John, that the only way to “get into our head” is to “get out of our gut.” That’s manifestly a wrong-headed approach to intellectual rigor. The gut has a perceptual ability and it’s faster than our brains. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t then mean to be refined by the intellect, but the gut is crucial to sound moral instinct as well as being necessary for certain types of insights. The gut without the mind may be blind, but the mind without the gut is stupid.
Back to the main point. It’s *insane* to me that no one has discussed how ripe for manipulation statistics are. It’s so bad that the same statistics can easily be used to tell mutually contradictory stories about the same scenario, and that happens all the time.
I am glad you put your finger on the problem being his interpretation, because let’s remember that interpretation is a step removed from any fact, no matter how incontrovertible. Dispassionate or not, Murray is ideologically driven. He just is, and so is every human ever to look at data.
There are so. Many. Presuppositions not being acknowledged. So according to him, black people are scoring lower in test scores and the various interventions we’ve attempted haven’t made a difference? First of all, o know you say it’s incontrovertible but since I haven’t seen the data I’ll reserve judgement. It’s way too common for someone to cherry-pick statistics, so unless an absolutely exhaustive, sound systematic review has been done, I’m still skeptical.
Second, presupposition, and this is major, is the quality of the data. I doubt most of these studies would remotely qualify at a scientific level. We are talking TEST SCORES y’all. As an educator I can tell you that a test is an abysmally poor indicator of true subject grasp and I really only grudgingly use them. And as long as we are talking demographic disparities, sorry to burst everyone’s America bubble but our ranking SUCK. We aren’t anything like the leader of the world, or even the developed world, in education. Do you really expect tests developed by a country with discouragingly low capacity to create good education in the first place, who has a living history of laws and policies that actively undermined black success and a social structure that was born out of, in part, chattel slavery, is going to be a reliable source of measurements on black intelligence? This is where I say, come on, let’s use our heads people. It’s obvious. And might I add that even in the most rigorous scientific studies, the data often changes because new ways of framing the question usually change outcomes.
All the data tells us, like you say John, is that black Americans struggle with American tests, consistently. Big surprise there given our current educational failures and historic systemic racism, no matter what you might think of the progress we may have made in (very) recent years. This is not a diagnosis on racial intelligence!
Finally, WHY THE HECK would anyone try to establish anything about racial intelligence using only the data from one country? That doesn’t seem very insightful either. Maybe I missed something but I’ve only heard data from the US. We’ll come on y’all! Black Americans are dealing with vastly different issues than black Africans or integrated black citizens of other countries. Anyone really qualified to judge this and remotely interested in the real data would have known to broaden their spotlight. A systematic review is the only way to get any kind of a picture - and even then it’s only as good as the questions you ask, which is directly influenced by your ideology.
There is SO much room to heavily question Murray’s line of argument, both intellectually and morally. I cannot and will not leave my gut out of the equation when evaluating these sorts of issues, and neither should you. Many cutting edge scientific theories stated with a gut instinct, and I’m guessing the abolition had a lot of gut too. We have to use the whole apparatus, friends, not the disembodied head.
"facing reality"—sure, as long as it's about somebody else doing it, not you.
Keep these definitions in mind while you read:
“An assertion is just a point of view, an opinion. An argument goes further. An argument is a point of view supported by reasons that demonstrate the view is a good one.”
maverick: "A person who shows independence of thought and action, especially by refusing to adhere to the policies of a group to which he or she belongs."
Thomas Sowell has a long record of party-line hackery that flies in the face of that definition.
You can ignore me, dismiss me, mock me—but the only way you can make the argument that's he's a "maverick"—is to confine his record to only the parts that suits you.
And that—is against the rules of reason.
As I told Glen: "I’ve been explaining it for some time and you haven’t said one word. If you’re unwilling to change your mind in the face of evidence that warrants it—you have no business asking others to."
And that goes for all of you.
. . .
Below is the reply I received from Glenn Loury—a man who once called my writing “brilliant.”
But it’s not always gonna be brilliant—and that’s precisely to the point. You could be brain surgeon and behave like a moron in pursuit of political interests. How does that happen?
For the same reason Glenn responded the way he did: Your own standards go right out the window when your interests are at stake, and emotion runs roughshod over reason.
Jason Riley’s “Maverick” doesn’t have “Sowell’s Ways on Some Things but Not on Others” as the subtitle.
That would be honest—and there’s nothing I could object to on that.
But “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell”—implies he’s a “maverick” in the totality of his life.
“Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books -- go ahead. I'm listening...”
So you’ll only “listen” as long as you can confine the “conversation” to what works for you. Got it!
So no, you’re not listening. Black Lives Matter—they aren’t either—and if you won’t, why should they? Why should anyone?
America doesn’t listen either—as it’s infected with the plague of wishful thinking (framing the “debate” in whatever way works in your favor).
“I have no idea what you're talking about. How do you expect someone to respond to such a rant.”
I expect you to follow your own standards and think it through. It’s only a “rant” because that’s what you need it to be—so you can write it off and preserve what you want to see.
Why am I so P*$$@d off? Because this is the end of the series and I knew the end result all along. No regrets—I’m glad I wrote it and I’m eternally grateful to Glenn and others who inspired this site.
I had to try—I always do. And while I’m certainly not giving up, it’s just disappointing to once again be reminded of how there’s no one of influence who calls a spade a spade.
There’s always something people are unwilling to risk—and they'll rationalize it away to fabricate their own reality.
Look around: That's why America has become the clusterf$#% that it is.
You want everybody else to do their part, but you don't wanna do yours. It's the opposition at the core of America's decline—you had nothin' to do with it, naturally. You want them to take responsibility for their role in this mess, but not you. Never you—your hands are clean as can be.
I was so inspired by what Glenn did in 1984—I thought that maybe, just maybe—this guy had the guts to do what needs to done.
But I know human nature.
I have an idea that could really make a real difference—and it won’t even be discussed. You’re all too busy Tweeting and talking about things that get us nowhere.
I wrote that email that way to get Glenn’s attention. I confirmed what I really knew all along—and hoped I was wrong.
To believe that Thomas Sowell is a “maverick” is religion. Haven’t we seen enough of that already?
My response to Glenn:
*****************************
So you’re telling me that if one half of a person’s record is a “maverick”—but he’s a hack in the other half, it doesn’t matter?
What McWhorter said below is not true. You both made judgments outside the realm of his expertise and yours—and it’s simply not true.
That is what I am refuting—and that is fair game.
---------------------------------------
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.
He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through. It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
*****************************
Subject: Re: Let me tell you something about how the mind works, Mr. Pinker:
I have no idea what you're talking about. How do you expect someone to respond to such a rant. Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books -- go ahead. I'm listening...
*************************************
My open letter to Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Steven Pinker, Amy Chua, Charles Murray—and anyone who believes things to be true that are demonstrably false.
That means virtually all of America and across the world.
Subject: Let me tell you something about how the mind works, Mr. Pinker:
I obliterated the basis of Maverick—and all of you have a vested interest in denying reality to preserve a belief that is glaringly false. Riley flagrantly ignored the totality of Thomas Sowell’s record to manufacture a “maverick.” On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history—any objective observer can see it’s not true.
Not a trace of his “follow the facts” claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time. It doesn’t get any more obvious and definitive—and yet his record is chock-full of party-line hackery on that issue.
Which flies in the face of what Mr. McWhorter said below.
You guys spend your lives telling others that you’re right and they’re wrong. It’s time for you to step up and admit when you’re wrong. If you don’t, what makes you any different from the minds you’re trying to change? To believe he’s a “great man” and “fearless” “maverick” with what you knew of him—is one thing.
To continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence—is pure fantasy.
Ya know, the faith-based belief of anti-racism “religion,” Mr. McWhorter.
I have an idea that’s unlike anything ever done—and Thomas Sowell is key to it. Glenn, I hope to God you’re better than this—that instead of trying something that could turn the tide, you’d protect a reputation that isn’t real. If you do what I’m asking—Sowell’s name will be known to the entire world for good, and “the bad” won’t matter.
It won’t matter that Sowell blew it on WMD or why—all that matters is having the guts to say, “I was wrong—and I’m trying to make it right.” That’s exponentially more powerful than had he been right in the first place. It’s time to start solving problems instead of endlessly talking about them and getting nowhere. In fact, you’re actually making it worse—as I explain in the link below.
Do what I have in mind—and your reputations and status will soar worldwide. That shouldn’t even factor into it—all you should care about is doing what’s right. But this is human nature, so I know the obstacles involved.
“Jason Riley has rendered an enormous service by providing a compelling . . . biography”: It’s not compelling at all when you look at the whole story. So he did a colossal disservice by adding to the illusion around this man (dumbing down the minds of those who blindly follow).
Self-delusion is driving this nation into the ground. Don’t help it along.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Richard W. Memmer
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/10/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-b/
P.S. Getting to the truth should not be this difficult, and people like Sowell helped make it nearly impossible. That’s the culture that we’ve become—and he helped by peddling poppycock and people buying it. That’s bad enough—but after nearly 20 years of battling this BS, I discover great minds who are mostly reasonable—only to find that you play the same game in casually perpetuating beliefs that aren’t true. You didn’t follow your own standards. A lot of that goin’ around.
I’m trying to cut you some slack—but there’s no way you shouldn’t have known about Sowell’s other side. I’m sick of America’s over-the-top praise for the wildly unworthy. Anyone worth this ridiculous hero-worship—wouldn’t want it, as they’d have a helluva lot higher expectations of their supporters.
What John McWhorter said below is not even remotely true. Virtually every major problem in America is plagued by decades of manufactured beliefs.
So while you’re trying to cut through these myths—you’re not only creating more, you’re unwittingly helping to further calcify the ones you’re battling against.
***************************
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.
He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through. It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
— John McWhorter
***************************
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 think all who commented here will be quite interested in this discussion between Dr. Wilfred Reilly and Coleman Hughes. It is on this same and tangentially related topics with other data and references included.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conversations-with-coleman/id1489326460?i=1000524150601
Highly recommend
I read the book, on the strength of your interview with Murray. I agree with McWhorter's comments: Murray ends the exercise too early.
For starters, how much of the observed IQ gap within universities or professions is the result of affirmative action distorting admissions and hiring decisions, and how much is an efficient outcome? Murray reports a gap of 0.96 SD for accountants; is there a plausible affirmative action program that could explain that? As someone who often uses my IQ to compensate for other shortcomings (with varying success), it seems plausible that two groups could be equally good, on average, at some set of tasks, despite one group having a higher average IQ.
To the extent that there is official or implicit affirmative action, is it the gap itself, or the racial proportions, subject to equilibrating forces? The behavioral economics literature on the "law of small numbers" seems relevant.
30 years ago what inspired me to teach was volunteering with adolescent youth from 'the hood' and noticing the same level of perception, connection, and wit I experienced with my non-Black peers from high school through college (b.s, engineering). The reason so many did not end up as I did was the horrendous job of imparting that secondary knowledge/crystallized intelligence our urban schools have done.
I cannot argue against Murray's data, but my experience doesn't consist with it.
Existentially, we are more homo religiosus than homo sapiens, particularly these days in the western world where wisdom appear to be evaporating from our culture.
There is danger in how Murray makes statistical comparisons: for a valid relationship to emerge -- whether causal or correlation -- statisticians need to ensure that the observed sets of data are valid. Here's the experiment that is needed to disprove Murray's claims: collect two sets of data with similar attributes except for IQ which is treated as a random variable. E.g. one data set is black Americans, income bracket $50k-$100k, BA degrees, home ownership and mom & dad in home. The second data set is a copy of the first *except* white Americans (not Asian, not Hispanic). Run regressions to see whether the differences in IQ are random or attributed to ethnicity. Without such an experiment, how can anyone take Murray seriously? PS this experiment should be conducted by neutral, non-political economists, for obvious reasons.
I doubt he would want to discuss given the ordeal he went through in the past, but Brett Weinstein who has been on Glenn's podcast in the past as briefly talked about this issue. He has a Q&A and received a question about racial group disparity in testing and whether its largely caused by genetics. He basically said as an evolutionary biologist this question was up his ally and there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that test score differences are derived from genetics. He said it remains an open question--and given that nobody really wants to research the question in a thorough scientific way, its likely to remain an open question for a long time. But he said people who have reached conclusions (such as Charles Murray though I don't think he called him by name) have reached conclusions about a causal relationship before the evidence really proves that.
I don't really understand John's criticism. I hope he expands on it further. Murray's book is phenomenal and deserves more engagement.
My take on how things have played out over the past decade:
1. A decade ago: Murray's reality is impolite and injurious to some people, so let's refrain from discussing it. We're all Americans here, wanting the best for all. Agree, everyone? Sure, of course.
2. The intervening ten years: Hey, ya'll, we got a new UNreality that is impolite and injurious to some people, so let's force-feed it to the nation. Media: Yes! Politicians: Yes!
3. Today: Hmmm, I guess it's time for some good old-fashioned reality, and as for hurt feelings, my give-a-damn meter is really low.
First of all, I do think one either accepts the conclusion of the US Supreme Court in KIYOSHI HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES (1943) namely --Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality -- or one goes the way of Murray etc towards racial normalization as the de facto and default position. Hirabayashi has been cited over 150 times, including in Loving v VA which allowed interracial marriage. I firmly believe it is the only way to go (even if the US isn't not there yet)
In France, due to their experience during WW2, attempting to collect the sort of statistics Murrray uses is forbidden by law. It is why President Macron came out against the importation of CRT into France last week. If you look at the European experience in the run up to, during and the aftermath of WW2, there are reasons why universalism is a good thing.
Second, Murray only examines the US data rather than looking at the UK data. He can't examine data from France because it doesn't exist. The section of the UK population which always scores the lowest is the Irish Travellers ethnic grouping (skin tone white). There are reasons why the UK government has recently warned (yet again) teaching such concepts of white privilege etc is highly contentious given the UK stats. It is quite possible (and I believe something which Sowell showed) that if you control for the quality of education that parents and grandparents received, the difference in population groups falls away. This is something that Ellen Wilkinson (UK Labour Education Minister 1946 -1948) was well aware of (see Peter Hennessy Never Again Britain 1945 -1951 chapter on Building Jerusalem for example) -- a good education affects not only the generation who receives it but subsequent generations. As the Barbara Bush Literacy foundation recently pointed out the decline in literacy in the US is costing the country trillions. Putting that generational failure to provide an adequate education which allows for social mobility on the part of the local authorities to the skin tone of recipients of said inadequate education is wrong in principle and practice to my mind.
Third, it is always more interesting to look at the outliers in something like astrophysics. For example, I believe we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Gladys West, the woman who was recently awarded the Prince Philip medal from the Royal Academy of Engineering for her work on satellite geodesy which underpins the entire GPS. She still prefers to do her calculations with pencil and paper. She of course grew up a sharecropper's daughter in VA and choose to do mathematics at a time when most women were discouraged from the subject.
So, I have one little question about this claim that black people on average score worse than white people: How much worse?
I mean, if the average white IQ is 100 and the average black IQ is 99, then technically the statement, "Blacks have lower IQs than whites on average" is true, but the actual difference is negligible. So what, according to the data, is the actual difference, and what percentage of blacks score at or above the white average?
I am starting to lose patience with this circle jerk. So much focus on the right end tail of the distributions and the elite jobs in the elite Universities and Companies and Government.
It's just the same old talk, talk, talk while the shootings and murders and robberies and rapes and out of wedlock births and high abortion rates continue in the ghettos of Chicago, NY, Baltimore, DC, LA, St. Louis, Detroit............. The only one doing concrete work other than talking (or writing books) is Bob Woodson and his Foundation.
At the same time there is a concerted effort by a bunch of Post Modern Critical Theory facists to destroy our Country and turn it into another shithole. They use race, climate, trans, gender, religion, anything they can co-opt to divide and conquer us. And then you have China trying (and largely succeeding so far) to fuck us over big time.
As much as I feel for the marginalized folk in the ghettos and want to see them move on up, they're a pimple on the elephants ass in today's struggle with the forces trying to destroy us.
Go ahead and focus like a laser on race and the right hand tail of the IQ distribution and all the disparities etc. etc. etc. They're coming for us on multiple other fronts and we'd better be ready.
Doctors, I'm really interested in hearing a discussion from you two on the possible benefits or consequences of shorthand, e.g. "shrthnd." Lately, I've found myself "cmpsng txt msgs" this way. I surmise the use of such would result in shorter education periods, which in turn
would lower the costs of education. If the time it took to get a high school or college degree was chopped in half, lagging students may be found to be more intelligent than currently assumed.
There are different kids of intelligence, and looking at it in the abstract, it would be a miracle if each type of intelligence was equally distributed across every subset of the human population. The problem has become particular acute because the value placed on the kind of intelligence that results in good SAT scores (which is highly associated with the kind of intelligence that is most valued in today's job marketplace) has become exagerrated in the "winner-take-all" symbolic "information age" economy that we've built. Less attention should be paid to making sure that every single job classification out there perfectly mirrors the demographic profile of the gneeral population, and more attention should be paid towards reducing the consequences of the economic stratification between those job classifications.
Re: the racial distribution of violence, it's critical that we take that into account in how we respond to the allegation of police abuse. Failing to do so has resulted in thousands of unnecessary incremental murders and other violent crimes, the vast majority of the victims being black.