I know this is late, but I just wanted to go back and comment on how incredible it was to see someone engage with Mr. Murray like this. Rather than ignore his work, or call him a racist, you had a serious conversation with him: it was such a pleasure to see.
The scope of these discussions is far too narrow. I look at the entire picture of how we got here. Without that understanding, you can talk about these issues 24/7/365 and it won't make a dent. This is part 1 of 2 in the finale of my series:
Why I suspect your friend Charles Murray is a racist--that is he has fossilized bigotries about people based on the racial group they belong--is because while you have faith that black people in general can develop their cognitive skills to compete with Ashkanazi Jews in general over time if they improve their culture, he seems to have faith that the weight of "black" genetic heritage will weigh them down, assuming they don't implement a breeding program. He did give a touching "miracles happen" reply at the end though.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't question him more deeply about his views on his perspective on race, genetics, and iq. His first unjustifiably smug response about quarters landing on their side and the evolution of isolated populations gave the impression that he thought there was some scientific consensus that because populations that developed in different geographic locations show some relatively small genetic variation, that the genetic variation they do show explains differences in variations in tests of cognitive abilities. Which is just ridiculous. That sort of evidence doesn't exist. And it takes the faith of a racist to think outcomes of modern cognitive tests are sufficient to have confidence that genetics is the best explanation for racial disparities in performance on cognitive tests.
As for his book, I read the bell jar like 20 years ago. It sounds like he is just saying the same thing - there are statistical differences in performance on iq like tests between racial groups -- and he seems to have added crime to that as well (or at least some crime; he didn't assess things like imperialist war I assume). Yes I already know and acknowledge those disparities. He seems to have left it up to readers to speculate about the causes. But the causes are perhaps the most important question if we are going to change anything. I'll read the book once I can get it used or from a library. For anthropological reasons.
I agree with him that disparities are not best explained by contemporary "systemic racism", but I find his semi concealed attachment to a genetic narrative to be disdainful. A person doesn't need to think their own race is Supreme in all things to be a racist. And whenever someone, usually a white guy who is proud of "the Enlightenmemt" and proud of their intelligence points out that asians in general perform better than white people in cognitive tests and that other things like musical ability are important too, I have the suspicion that they personally don't think that being a grammy winning rapper is as great of an accomplishment as inventing the steam engine. For him to suggest that intelligence isn't that big of a deal is disingenuous. He wrote a book on human accomplishment that expressed his opinion that the arts declined following the 1800s--so any black artistic achievements following their emancipation from slavery are sadly not up to par. And he also wrote about "dumb" people, especially dumb black people, in the Bell Curve. Despite clearly having a higher iq than average, *Murray* must be really dumb if he actually thinks he thinks that intelligence is not a big deal. Charles Murray is either lying or proof of how a person can have a relatively high iq and still be a moron.
But don't worry Glenn, I'm no where near wanting to see you canceled. Carry on. But the next time you have Murray on, can you invite me too? I'd love to ask him some questions.
I think Murray puts too much stock into genetic explanations. Given the Flynn effect, where average IQ in the US increased 3 points per decade for 100 years, surely nutrition, environmental, and cultural factors play a huge role. Let’s try addressing those disparities before resigning ourselves to genetic explanations.
I thought long ago, and hyperbolically so, that if 50%, or 22 million, of blacks hated whites, the chance of whites encountering that hatred is minimal. But if 20%, or 46 million, of whites hated blacks then blacks chance of encountering that hatred is more than minimal. However, on the side of blacks, whatever number actually hate whites, are a growing number of whites who boast of how much life is easier for them because of the color of their skin.
Maybe I am ignorant. I have not read the book and I am sure that I am missing something, but my critique of Murray is that he loses all reality in the abstractions.
When we are talking of race, what are we even talking about? He is saying that people from one subcontinent vs another? He is saying those that lived in this valley vs another? Where are we drawing the genetic line? How long, and how much genetic mixing do we need to have before we end up as another race? He is tracing the data to a source that correlates well, but this does not mean causation. How can we say that the bell curves overlap when you are arbitrarily sorting people based on a perceived characteristic, i.e. genetic roots of continental cohorts. There are infinitely many to sort the group and create bell curves based on the attributes that readily present themselves for measurement, but why do we choose these?
Honestly, the whole basis of his work is fundamentally flawed on the assumption that genetic differences at one level display themselves in humans in measurable ways. This would imply that I am my brother and he is me. Is my neighbor included in my group? Is my ancestors neighbor 40,000 years ago included in my group despite the fact that he crossed the Siberian plane to the Americas? Or he went north of the south of the Mediterranean sea?
He even mentions that our thinking on this has changed (example of Gould and the races being the same), but now that we can measure and see the differences of standing variation in the population we are better equipped to determine the genetic differences based on geography. But at what point does someone differ enough to show the characteristic differences? He is taking data from two readily available source, genetic sequences and IQ and calling them causation. It is exasperating.
I would be really interested to see you interview Gregory Clark. His coming book is called For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls, and while he tries to avoid racial discussions it seems like his central thesis - that social status and success are heritable and genetic - would be of interest to you
Fascinating talk. I think Murray is right about the woke culture being omnipresent now - e.g. there is a horror movie coming out about a "Karen" who terrorizes her neighbors with microaggressions that turn into murder. Sadly it's not a comedy because it sounds ridiculous.
Today, pointing out facts on gaps in education, criminality, income, etc. has become bigotry, racism, White Supremacy, etc.
I was expecting Prof. Lours to mention how Dr. Thomas Sowell was one of the few people to push back hard against the insinuation of Black intellectual genetic inferiority implied by some of Murray's earlier works.
But Murray has been clear to distinguish between the what (differences in outcome which are clear) and the why (culture, values, poverty, particular circumstances, etc. whose effects are unclear and not easily quantifiable or qualifiable).
WOW, makes me proud to be an old intellectual! Erudite conversation like this is so refreshing in this age of quickie sound bites of “rousable” comments, often taken out of context. I urge you to LISTEN without shutting it off and sending out some comment that misses the point. Take the time to LISTEN, replay it if you need to….I did…it is worth your time to see how two intellectual powerhouses communicate with respect and integrity. Agree or disagree, but please pay attention to the process of communicating respectfully. Our conversation in this great country is getting so low that it is destructive to both sides of the political spectrum today. Please…..and May Almighty God, the Father the Son (+) and the Holy Spirit bless and keep you in His love. Amen.
I was quite unimpressed with CM in this episode of the Glenn show. In particular, it seemed like he didn't give satisfactory responses to two of Glenn's pushbacks - one related to a zoom in-zoom out analysis (more about that below), and another related to how CM is applying partitioning to explain disparities.
On the zoom-in, zoom-out issue, CM asserts that the left has launched an assault on the American credo by insisting that the state treat groups differently. I think his underlying point is that if you zoom in on an interaction between persons A and B, of different races, you simply can't ascribe racist impulses to one member, and zoom out to claim that those impulses are leading to systemic discrimination. You have to zoom in and treat A and B as individuals. However, it seems like CM's analysis relies heavily on group behaviors. So, if a group is disproportionately responsible for crimes in a certain area, why wouldn't I similarly zoom in and look at the character and life story of each individual being arrested? Why in that scenario does it not make sense to notice if that person had lead in his drinking water growing up, if that person was let down by his community, if he had a substandard education, if there were no job opportunities for him, etc. Why can I just zoom out and adopt race as a marker in my data analysis? CM didn't have a response to that.
In a fair labor market, yes, we could convince ourselves that there are no systemic issues, only skills mismatches and the lack of a pipeline of skilled minorities. Can we be certain that the labor market is fair though? Not always is my suspicion - https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
This leads to the second point where CM fumbles. CM highlights group differences in cognitive abilities and ventures that they are feeding, in some way, differences in outcomes. He admits that racism is a factor, but the listener/reader is left to determine what proportion of the disparity can be attributed to it. Is it 60-40 cognitive ability vs. racism, or are there other variables involved? I guess we will never know...CM in his work seems to assert that cognitive differences explain a big chunk of the disparities. His public policies, therefore, recommend a very hands-off approach. And, as Ezra Klein has pointed out, he's been a very good policy entrepreneur. It's been over 20 years since the welfare reforms he inspired were passed, and I think the outcomes are mixed at best and awful at worse - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/20-years-welfare-reform/496730/
There is an obvious difference between regression and causal analysis. If I walked in tomorrow into a meeting at work and presented a regression without an underlying model, I'd be laughed out of the room. What is CM's underlying model in this case? Is he just looking at cognitive abilities and correlating them with certain outcomes? I don't really understand if that's the nature of a lot of social science research. If it is, it's remarkably flimsy. I think Nassim Taleb has lately been pretty brutal about CM's work and a lot of social science research in general. Nassim's speaking from a perch of mathematical statistics mastery. I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal to Nasssim's points.
I don't mind talking about this more, but if we're basing public policy on CM's claims, I feel like we're doing ourselves a real disservice.
I know this is late, but I just wanted to go back and comment on how incredible it was to see someone engage with Mr. Murray like this. Rather than ignore his work, or call him a racist, you had a serious conversation with him: it was such a pleasure to see.
Murray's premise is utter trash
The scope of these discussions is far too narrow. I look at the entire picture of how we got here. Without that understanding, you can talk about these issues 24/7/365 and it won't make a dent. This is part 1 of 2 in the finale of my series:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/02/two-sides-of-the-same-counterfeit-coin-part-12-a/
I have an idea that could turn the tide -- which is soon to follow in Part 12-B.
Why I suspect your friend Charles Murray is a racist--that is he has fossilized bigotries about people based on the racial group they belong--is because while you have faith that black people in general can develop their cognitive skills to compete with Ashkanazi Jews in general over time if they improve their culture, he seems to have faith that the weight of "black" genetic heritage will weigh them down, assuming they don't implement a breeding program. He did give a touching "miracles happen" reply at the end though.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't question him more deeply about his views on his perspective on race, genetics, and iq. His first unjustifiably smug response about quarters landing on their side and the evolution of isolated populations gave the impression that he thought there was some scientific consensus that because populations that developed in different geographic locations show some relatively small genetic variation, that the genetic variation they do show explains differences in variations in tests of cognitive abilities. Which is just ridiculous. That sort of evidence doesn't exist. And it takes the faith of a racist to think outcomes of modern cognitive tests are sufficient to have confidence that genetics is the best explanation for racial disparities in performance on cognitive tests.
As for his book, I read the bell jar like 20 years ago. It sounds like he is just saying the same thing - there are statistical differences in performance on iq like tests between racial groups -- and he seems to have added crime to that as well (or at least some crime; he didn't assess things like imperialist war I assume). Yes I already know and acknowledge those disparities. He seems to have left it up to readers to speculate about the causes. But the causes are perhaps the most important question if we are going to change anything. I'll read the book once I can get it used or from a library. For anthropological reasons.
I agree with him that disparities are not best explained by contemporary "systemic racism", but I find his semi concealed attachment to a genetic narrative to be disdainful. A person doesn't need to think their own race is Supreme in all things to be a racist. And whenever someone, usually a white guy who is proud of "the Enlightenmemt" and proud of their intelligence points out that asians in general perform better than white people in cognitive tests and that other things like musical ability are important too, I have the suspicion that they personally don't think that being a grammy winning rapper is as great of an accomplishment as inventing the steam engine. For him to suggest that intelligence isn't that big of a deal is disingenuous. He wrote a book on human accomplishment that expressed his opinion that the arts declined following the 1800s--so any black artistic achievements following their emancipation from slavery are sadly not up to par. And he also wrote about "dumb" people, especially dumb black people, in the Bell Curve. Despite clearly having a higher iq than average, *Murray* must be really dumb if he actually thinks he thinks that intelligence is not a big deal. Charles Murray is either lying or proof of how a person can have a relatively high iq and still be a moron.
But don't worry Glenn, I'm no where near wanting to see you canceled. Carry on. But the next time you have Murray on, can you invite me too? I'd love to ask him some questions.
I think Murray puts too much stock into genetic explanations. Given the Flynn effect, where average IQ in the US increased 3 points per decade for 100 years, surely nutrition, environmental, and cultural factors play a huge role. Let’s try addressing those disparities before resigning ourselves to genetic explanations.
*That* was a truly remarkable interview and discussion. Thank you both for your decency, good will and intellectual honestly in these troubled times.
I thought long ago, and hyperbolically so, that if 50%, or 22 million, of blacks hated whites, the chance of whites encountering that hatred is minimal. But if 20%, or 46 million, of whites hated blacks then blacks chance of encountering that hatred is more than minimal. However, on the side of blacks, whatever number actually hate whites, are a growing number of whites who boast of how much life is easier for them because of the color of their skin.
Maybe I am ignorant. I have not read the book and I am sure that I am missing something, but my critique of Murray is that he loses all reality in the abstractions.
When we are talking of race, what are we even talking about? He is saying that people from one subcontinent vs another? He is saying those that lived in this valley vs another? Where are we drawing the genetic line? How long, and how much genetic mixing do we need to have before we end up as another race? He is tracing the data to a source that correlates well, but this does not mean causation. How can we say that the bell curves overlap when you are arbitrarily sorting people based on a perceived characteristic, i.e. genetic roots of continental cohorts. There are infinitely many to sort the group and create bell curves based on the attributes that readily present themselves for measurement, but why do we choose these?
Honestly, the whole basis of his work is fundamentally flawed on the assumption that genetic differences at one level display themselves in humans in measurable ways. This would imply that I am my brother and he is me. Is my neighbor included in my group? Is my ancestors neighbor 40,000 years ago included in my group despite the fact that he crossed the Siberian plane to the Americas? Or he went north of the south of the Mediterranean sea?
He even mentions that our thinking on this has changed (example of Gould and the races being the same), but now that we can measure and see the differences of standing variation in the population we are better equipped to determine the genetic differences based on geography. But at what point does someone differ enough to show the characteristic differences? He is taking data from two readily available source, genetic sequences and IQ and calling them causation. It is exasperating.
I would be really interested to see you interview Gregory Clark. His coming book is called For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls, and while he tries to avoid racial discussions it seems like his central thesis - that social status and success are heritable and genetic - would be of interest to you
This book (published in 2015) was cited by CM in the end notes as a thorough but "breezy" read on Intelligence:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RTY0LPO/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I am half way through it and it is worth reading.
Fascinating talk. I think Murray is right about the woke culture being omnipresent now - e.g. there is a horror movie coming out about a "Karen" who terrorizes her neighbors with microaggressions that turn into murder. Sadly it's not a comedy because it sounds ridiculous.
https://www.tmz.com/2021/06/18/taryn-manning-karen-movie-trailer-terrifying/
Word. Great discussion!
Today, pointing out facts on gaps in education, criminality, income, etc. has become bigotry, racism, White Supremacy, etc.
I was expecting Prof. Lours to mention how Dr. Thomas Sowell was one of the few people to push back hard against the insinuation of Black intellectual genetic inferiority implied by some of Murray's earlier works.
But Murray has been clear to distinguish between the what (differences in outcome which are clear) and the why (culture, values, poverty, particular circumstances, etc. whose effects are unclear and not easily quantifiable or qualifiable).
WOW, makes me proud to be an old intellectual! Erudite conversation like this is so refreshing in this age of quickie sound bites of “rousable” comments, often taken out of context. I urge you to LISTEN without shutting it off and sending out some comment that misses the point. Take the time to LISTEN, replay it if you need to….I did…it is worth your time to see how two intellectual powerhouses communicate with respect and integrity. Agree or disagree, but please pay attention to the process of communicating respectfully. Our conversation in this great country is getting so low that it is destructive to both sides of the political spectrum today. Please…..and May Almighty God, the Father the Son (+) and the Holy Spirit bless and keep you in His love. Amen.
my prior is that worries about a white identity group rising and destroying American society are exaggerated
I was quite unimpressed with CM in this episode of the Glenn show. In particular, it seemed like he didn't give satisfactory responses to two of Glenn's pushbacks - one related to a zoom in-zoom out analysis (more about that below), and another related to how CM is applying partitioning to explain disparities.
On the zoom-in, zoom-out issue, CM asserts that the left has launched an assault on the American credo by insisting that the state treat groups differently. I think his underlying point is that if you zoom in on an interaction between persons A and B, of different races, you simply can't ascribe racist impulses to one member, and zoom out to claim that those impulses are leading to systemic discrimination. You have to zoom in and treat A and B as individuals. However, it seems like CM's analysis relies heavily on group behaviors. So, if a group is disproportionately responsible for crimes in a certain area, why wouldn't I similarly zoom in and look at the character and life story of each individual being arrested? Why in that scenario does it not make sense to notice if that person had lead in his drinking water growing up, if that person was let down by his community, if he had a substandard education, if there were no job opportunities for him, etc. Why can I just zoom out and adopt race as a marker in my data analysis? CM didn't have a response to that.
In a fair labor market, yes, we could convince ourselves that there are no systemic issues, only skills mismatches and the lack of a pipeline of skilled minorities. Can we be certain that the labor market is fair though? Not always is my suspicion - https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
This leads to the second point where CM fumbles. CM highlights group differences in cognitive abilities and ventures that they are feeding, in some way, differences in outcomes. He admits that racism is a factor, but the listener/reader is left to determine what proportion of the disparity can be attributed to it. Is it 60-40 cognitive ability vs. racism, or are there other variables involved? I guess we will never know...CM in his work seems to assert that cognitive differences explain a big chunk of the disparities. His public policies, therefore, recommend a very hands-off approach. And, as Ezra Klein has pointed out, he's been a very good policy entrepreneur. It's been over 20 years since the welfare reforms he inspired were passed, and I think the outcomes are mixed at best and awful at worse - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/20-years-welfare-reform/496730/
There is an obvious difference between regression and causal analysis. If I walked in tomorrow into a meeting at work and presented a regression without an underlying model, I'd be laughed out of the room. What is CM's underlying model in this case? Is he just looking at cognitive abilities and correlating them with certain outcomes? I don't really understand if that's the nature of a lot of social science research. If it is, it's remarkably flimsy. I think Nassim Taleb has lately been pretty brutal about CM's work and a lot of social science research in general. Nassim's speaking from a perch of mathematical statistics mastery. I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal to Nasssim's points.
I don't mind talking about this more, but if we're basing public policy on CM's claims, I feel like we're doing ourselves a real disservice.
Murray has his reality to face and the Democrats have theirs: Thirteen percent of the population decides 100 percent of presidential elections.