"You cannot understand the public debate about race and intelligence if you don’t read The Bell Curve. Attempts to make Murray persona non grata, to paint him as a racist and a hollow ideologue, simply don’t hold water. Attempts to deplatform him and hound him out of the public sphere are even worse."
One of these three points is not like the others. The first point—The Bell Curve should be read—is right. It is consequential so it should be read, just as the writings of John C. Calhoun should be read. The third point, deplatforming is bad, also true. But the second point, that "attempts to paint him as a racist and a hollow ideologue simply don't hold water" dismisses the SUBSTANCE of the critics' case against Murray without actually engaging our arguments. Why do the criticisms not hold water? I wrote a careful essay explaining why I believe it is accurate to call Murray racist: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
Murray saw it, did not respond to the arguments, and just commented "I guess I'm odious." I object to the way that defenses of Murray's right to be heard and to have his arguments evaluated often turn into a substantive defense of his ideas as being valuable and his scholarship as being good. The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work. Harris says "I don't think he's a racist." But he seems unfamiliar with the arguments critics make to show Murray is racist. (I have also extensively critiqued Harris' shoddy reasoning, including his failure to grasp the critiques of Murray's work and challenge Murray on them. Harris didn't respond either. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable )
Why the anger against Murray? “The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work.” The Murray-haters were wrong to chase him off Middlebury’s platform. If you can’t refer to a better work on IQ than The Bell Curve, your “shoddy piece” insult starts to apply even more strongly to your own 2017 piece. Where is such neutral scholarship? Rage without a better alternative is self-defeating.
I’m enraged against Murray-haters, because today it is claimed by many that Black failures are due to White structural racism. Blacks fail, and it’s MY fault (since I’m white). This is false, and enraging. Those that fail do so because they fail at one or more of the clear 4 steps to take out of poverty:
1) graduate from High School (knowing how to read, write, and do some math);
2) have no babies before marriage;
3) stay out of jail, commit no crimes;
4) get some job and keep it for a year or more.
Whites who are poor are poor for failing at one or more of these – ain’t ‘cause ‘a no racism. But Blacks who are poor when failing to do these steps? Oh yeah, THAT’s racism, structural racism.
So every time Black kids play basketball instead of studying for school, or even going to school to graduate from High School, I’m guilty. Blacks having sex before and outside of marriage and having babies (with fathers not there; some 75% of Black kids) – my guilt. Guilt but no orgasm. Blacks commit crimes, like killing other gang members or bystanders – clearly it’s White folks’ fault. Blacks refuse to stay in some BS job, or something where you have show up on time, or not drugged out nor drunk – Witey’s fault. Eddie Murphy explained it decades ago: “I hate Whitey because he’s white: W – I – T – E”.
Bullshit. 90% or more of US poverty is based on individual failure to follow the 4 steps out of poverty. The sad reality is too few Blacks choose, due to IQ, culture, parents, school, gov’t programs, too few Blacks choose to follow the steps out of poverty. But society talks about racism, talks about racism, and talks about who is a racist and why.
[The above was my conclusion, the rest discusses your article in more detail.]
Your piece claims Murray IS a racist, as in para 4:
“For it can be very easily proven that Murray is a man with a strong racial bias against Black people, insofar as he fails to respect them as equal human beings and believes them to be, on average, inferior to white people in matters of intelligence, creativity, and inherent human worth... if Murray is not a racist, the word “racist” is empty of meaning.”
You use the same Murray-hate (Murray Derangement Syndrome?) argumentation that you claim so many other haters do when you “stretch the case against him beyond its limits”. Belief in lower group average intelligence does NOT mean lower inherent human worth.
But it’s very very true that economic success is often equated with moral superiority, and IQ or other “smarts” is expected to lead one to become rich. “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” (Stanford unofficial sweatshirt motto.)
Murray’s ACTUAL appearance on The Glenn Show shows him as quite respectful of Glenn, treating him fully as an equal human being. Which is possible for those who believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated and judged as individuals based on their own behavior and characteristics, as MLK dreamt. The importance of this is that individual treatment is the only realistic way to behave to others if Blacks are, on average, inferior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in the matter of IQ / g – intelligence / SATscores.
Your claims about what Murray writes:
“1- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
2- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
3- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
On #3, you never show that Murray wants a conception of equality where black people are subhuman. You show he likes the limited government of the early USA, and its ideals. YOU, Nathan, are adding the part about Blacks as subhuman, and ascribing it the Founding Fathers, and by implication any who admire these most admirable men. Murray, like most Libertarians, is against most post New Deal regulations and expansions of gov’t power.
On #1, you admit the fact that Black SAT (& IQ) scores are lower: “Murray and Herrnstein report the (undisputed) empirical finding that black scores on IQ tests are—as a statistical average—lower than white scores on IQ tests.” yet claim the rage against Murray is justified because of his racism. I claim that a lot of the rage is against that reality of IQ difference, which also often translates into disputing that IQ measures “smart”, or claims IQ & SAT & all math tests are “racist”.
Your Too Long screed didn’t quite define racism, but comes close in describing Murray’s thought:
“Charles Murray thinks black people are inferior to white people, and having them in socially, economically, and politically subordinate positions is acceptable…. “
Still, what is “having them”? In the case of slavery, clearly, but also Democratic Party Jim Crow laws, laws and policies that require them to be subordinate, or forbid them from equal use. That racism is Illegal, and very popularly illegal, treating two similar behaving individuals differently based on group average differences. That’s what “racism” means, and a racist is somebody who advocates that policy. Of course, as almost noted by Glenn and Sam, all Affirmative Action programs are racist, advocating promoting Blacks who are just a little bit less qualified over a White.
But how much is “just a little bit”? That’s a huge important part of the controversy that is seldom quantified, and is not done either by Murray, Loury, nor Harris, either. After CRA of 1964, the expectation was that AA positive discrimination would remove barriers and become ever less needed over time as free and natural equality led towards more equal outcomes. AA + freedom + white guilt + welfare (that rewards bad lifestyle choices with gov’t cash) has seen an increase in inequality.
According to The Harvard Crimson, Asian acceptance SAT scores averaged 767 (of 800), Whites at 745, Hispanics 718, Native Americans 712, while Blacks were at 704. Just under a 9% difference with a class size of about 1700, but applicant count at over 40,000. This will probably be ruled, eventually & correctly, as too much anti-Asian racist bias. I’d say about 2% max difference should be acceptable, so around 751 – already above the average admit rate of all other groups. That’s the reality, today.
[We should probably change College entrances to be more parental income based (over prior 5 years), so only 1% (17) can come from parents in the top 1%, only 10% (170) from parents in the top 10%, only 20% (340) from parents in the top 20%; and only 50% (850) from parents in the top 50%. This for schools with high endowments (over $100 million? Harvard has some $40 billion) and current reduced tax status. – such brainstorm ideas seldom make it into serious columns.]
Today racists like Kendi claim disparate impact proves racism, but only for Blacks against Whites and Asians. That stupid idea needs to be fought, strongly. Individual performance based merit causes average group difference.
Thus, the fact that Black players dominate the NBA is not racist, but performance based – Blacks on b-ball teams score more points/ win more games, than teams with more Hispanics or other less successful players.
I haven’t read Human Achievement, but your (2) points about Black musical culture seem very strong – tho it’s related to Black over-representation relative to Hispanics in selling music and being in movies. Yet I don’t remember “creative inferiority” of current Blacks being strongly attributed to Murray as reasons for rage, unlike group IQ differences.
As I read (and read & read), it’s like you can’t stop insulting and condemning Murray while eliding the key truths: a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.
This Too Long comment’s conclusion was elevated to the top. To minimize racial gap differences, it’s most important for Blacks to change their own behavior – of which they are, themselves, the victims of the bad outcomes. 1) High School; 2) Marriage before babies; 3) No crime; 4) Hold a job for year.
How to get more Blacks to take these steps, as well as more Whites - that's most of the Work Glenn is talking about.
“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.
I just read your other article, on Sam Harris. I don't think it is *as* compelling as the Charles Murray article, but it is still very informative and has mostly good arguments.
It though is riddled with what appears to me pious tribal references to things like "Mansplaining", which is sexist. I've observed that people of a particular political tribe, who often find themselves in the Church of the Awoken, have the tendency to find the bigotry of "minorities" (which irrationally includes women), to be acceptable or even noble. Thus, the same people who think "mansplaining" isn't sexist are more likely to believe black people cannot be racist. I suspect, based on the way you wrote of "feminism" you don't hold people of particular groups to the same rigorous standards of morality or reason that you hold Charles Murray or Mr. Reasonable. That you refer to Mr. Kendi, aka Mr Ministry of [Racist] Anti-Racism, as support in an essay about the statist and totalitarian fantasies of Sam Harris is... quaint.
I'll point out one thing I found to be erroneous.
"Sam Harris constantly deploys insults (“preening,” “delusional,” “unscrupulous”), and as Dan Jones notes, his “style of argument is more about beating people down than engaging in any sort of dialogue that would help him, and others, get straight on deep, complex issues.”
Insults, like calling Charles Murray odious? I could not gather from your article whether you thought him using insults simply watered down his self-image of being Mr Reasonable, or whether you were proposing that insults undermined a person's arguments entirely. I don't think they necessarily do. Insults are *sometimes* just the "rational" outcome of what we believe and feel about people, and they aren't necessarily part of an argument. Charles Murray being odious is not an argument for why his ideas are garbage, but a judgement in response to his ideas and sentiments being garbage, which you do a good job of explaining why you think they are.
So, when Sam Harris says that "feminist epistemology" is crazy, it could just as well be a conclusion, and not a premise. Do you personally think no philosophical ideas are crazy? I doubt that. If you do, I imagine you haven't read much philosophy. I find that highly unlikely though given the breadth of your criticisms of Harris. Which means, your opposition toward Harris calling feminist epistemology crazy may be driven mostly by your attachment to your tribe. I don't know what version of feminist epistemology Sam or you are referring to, but if it supports the pseudo-popular the mind-twisting notion that "transwomen are women", it is definitely crazy. What say you? Are "transwomen" women?
So I will guess your answer to my question is yes, "transwomen" are women. Its okay, you are probably just "displaying the exact intellectual blind spots so typical among men."
I would be delighted to have a conversation with you about trans philosophy and "have a dialogue that would help" you "and others, get straight on deep, complex issues."
Given Nathan's status as a devout follower of the Church of Trans, it's not really that surprising that he would believe that men can be women. But if he's seriously interested in trying to show the rest of the world how to be rationale and to recognize flaws in their arguments, he really needs to take some time to re-examine his nonsensical religious beliefs and drop the science-denying pontificating that he's picked up from the Trans Cult.
Nathan wrote: 'If people become convinced that trans women do not belong in women’s sports, it reinforces the idea that trans women are not "really" women.'
Charles Murray is a racist just as certainly as Lia Thomas is a woman. I think we can all agree on that!
Lia Thomas is not a woman. Biological sex is real and it is not true that everyone who says "I am a woman" is a woman. I totally agree with Jeffrey Peoples - the notion that "transwomen are women" is mind-twisting and has absolutely nothing in common with science. The biological differences between male and female bodies are real and have real consequences.
I read the first article you linked to and will admit that while I own a copy of The Bell Curve, I haven't read it cover to cover but rather have only read sections of it and also don't have my copy with me at hand, so am operating a bit in the dark as it's been years since I last opened up the book.
Where I do agree with you is that Murray is a bit too naive in his assertion that racial differences if proven to be partly genetic should have no impact in terms of how we think about and treat our fellow human beings. Glenn has also pointed out that these kinds of racial hypotheses carry strong sociological, moral and emotional implications. This is not just another empirical assertion. I tend to excuse Murray somewhat on this matter because I've found that high IQ academic types aren't always the most in touch with the larger part of humanity.
It's understandable why many people would be offended by such an emotionally charged thesis, but that doesn't mean Murray is wrong about the facts or even that his moral framework is lacking. You don't seem to believe that Murray should be censored, which I definitely appreciate. You also don't seem to deny the possibility that racial differences could in theory be partly genetic in origin, but from your first article seem angry that Murray would express agnosticism towards the extent to which such differences are environmental versus genetic without a full accounting of the history of racism in American society towards Blacks. Such an accounting would presumably incline any decent human being towards a primarily environmental explanation for the present-day racial gaps observed in this country. You also express anger at the perceived implications of what a genetic explanation of group differences would entail, i.e., that whites would essentially be let off the hook for their historical oppression of Blacks in America.
This is the quandary that people like myself find themselves in. I'm open to the possibility that racial differences have a partly genetic basis but also don't really care to think about the matter 24/7. I'd much rather just live and let live, in the same sense that I enjoy watching the NFL without really pondering too much why ~99% of cornerbacks in the league are Black for instance. But as Glenn eloquently pointed out in his conversation with Sam, part of the reason why some people focus on the topic of group differences more than they otherwise might is that the other side operates under a blanket assumption that biological differences of any kind are basically inconceivable and that any disparity in outcomes among races is ipso facto proof of systemic racism. I find this kind of thinking to be a stretch.
I agree that the sociological and moral implications of the nature/nurture debate are particularly thorny but feel like the topic of race has muddied these issues quite a bit. I’m assuming that you’re more okay with Murray’s thesis where it touches not upon race but upon individuals, but don’t want to misrepresent your views. If we take a step back from the vexed matter of race, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person could argue that at least among individuals there aren’t meaningful differences in intelligence and motivation and that these traits aren’t correlated with tangible real-life outcomes. You seem annoyed by Murray’s embrace of the notion of the natural aristocracy and its paternalistic view that everyone has their station in life, but I wonder if a more enlightened and realistic attitude towards individual differences in fact doesn’t make society better off.
One of the things that many people have argued against in this country is the sort of Yale or jail mindset whereby it’s assumed that everyone needs to go to a 4-year college and aspire to be a superstar in life. In my opinion a lot of that kind of thinking is motivated by left-wing Blank Slate egalitarian views that argue that anyone can basically become anything under the right circumstances. But feel free to point out that I'm just peddling a caricature here. From what I’ve read they do a much better job emphasizing vocational training in countries like Germany and Japan. Is this precisely not the kind of enlightened social policy that would be more likely to be implemented under the operational and moral framework espoused by someone like Charles Murray? I personally found his book Real Education to be particularly informative.
My main impression is that you don’t so much disagree with Murray as a matter of empirical fact, although as I stated above you clearly believe he ignores a vast amount of racial history when he expresses agnosticism towards the extent to which group differences are rooted in biology as opposed to environment. Rather I get the feeling that you’re mostly angry about the sorts of value judgments Murray makes when for instance he valorizes IQ and intelligence in a particular rhetorical way or when he passes judgment on matters of artistic or musical merit.
I can sympathize in part with where you're coming from but don’t believe that these sorts of value judgments make Charles Murray a racist. At worst some of his views are a bit parochial and reveal a bias for the particular milieu that he grew up in. But I'm no more offended by Murray's opinions on art than I would be by someone who felt that Japanese anime was the epitome of artistic excellence. To each his own.
I truly believe deep down that Murray harbors no malice towards any particular ethnic group, which quite frankly I wouldn't say about other individuals who might be described as being part of the alt-right. And that I would argue is what constitutes the essence of racism.
“Murray would express agnosticism towards the extent to which such differences are environmental versus genetic without a full accounting of the history of racism in American society towards Blacks. “
Yet this is not true. Murray is not agnostic about it. He has confidence that genetics underlie the differences. He expresses this clearly in the interview with Coleman Hughes. He suspects the disparities are due to genetics to such an extent that he believes it would be futile for any social efforts to end those disparities.
He downplays that faith of his. Glenn Loury shouldn’t.
I concur. I read your article on current affairs. It is much better and more interesting scholarship than the Bell Curve.
And it is obnoxious that those who praise Charles Murray and insist that he isn’t racist have discussed Charles Murray with Charles Murray but have never to my knowledge discussed Charles Murray with any articulate critic of Charles Murray. How about Glenn brings on you, Nathan Robinson, to his show to discuss Charles Murray and his ideas?
"You cannot understand the public debate about race and intelligence if you don’t read The Bell Curve. Attempts to make Murray persona non grata, to paint him as a racist and a hollow ideologue, simply don’t hold water. Attempts to deplatform him and hound him out of the public sphere are even worse."
One of these three points is not like the others. The first point—The Bell Curve should be read—is right. It is consequential so it should be read, just as the writings of John C. Calhoun should be read. The third point, deplatforming is bad, also true. But the second point, that "attempts to paint him as a racist and a hollow ideologue simply don't hold water" dismisses the SUBSTANCE of the critics' case against Murray without actually engaging our arguments. Why do the criticisms not hold water? I wrote a careful essay explaining why I believe it is accurate to call Murray racist: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
Murray saw it, did not respond to the arguments, and just commented "I guess I'm odious." I object to the way that defenses of Murray's right to be heard and to have his arguments evaluated often turn into a substantive defense of his ideas as being valuable and his scholarship as being good. The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work. Harris says "I don't think he's a racist." But he seems unfamiliar with the arguments critics make to show Murray is racist. (I have also extensively critiqued Harris' shoddy reasoning, including his failure to grasp the critiques of Murray's work and challenge Murray on them. Harris didn't respond either. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable )
Why the anger against Murray? “The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work.” The Murray-haters were wrong to chase him off Middlebury’s platform. If you can’t refer to a better work on IQ than The Bell Curve, your “shoddy piece” insult starts to apply even more strongly to your own 2017 piece. Where is such neutral scholarship? Rage without a better alternative is self-defeating.
I’m enraged against Murray-haters, because today it is claimed by many that Black failures are due to White structural racism. Blacks fail, and it’s MY fault (since I’m white). This is false, and enraging. Those that fail do so because they fail at one or more of the clear 4 steps to take out of poverty:
1) graduate from High School (knowing how to read, write, and do some math);
2) have no babies before marriage;
3) stay out of jail, commit no crimes;
4) get some job and keep it for a year or more.
Whites who are poor are poor for failing at one or more of these – ain’t ‘cause ‘a no racism. But Blacks who are poor when failing to do these steps? Oh yeah, THAT’s racism, structural racism.
So every time Black kids play basketball instead of studying for school, or even going to school to graduate from High School, I’m guilty. Blacks having sex before and outside of marriage and having babies (with fathers not there; some 75% of Black kids) – my guilt. Guilt but no orgasm. Blacks commit crimes, like killing other gang members or bystanders – clearly it’s White folks’ fault. Blacks refuse to stay in some BS job, or something where you have show up on time, or not drugged out nor drunk – Witey’s fault. Eddie Murphy explained it decades ago: “I hate Whitey because he’s white: W – I – T – E”.
Bullshit. 90% or more of US poverty is based on individual failure to follow the 4 steps out of poverty. The sad reality is too few Blacks choose, due to IQ, culture, parents, school, gov’t programs, too few Blacks choose to follow the steps out of poverty. But society talks about racism, talks about racism, and talks about who is a racist and why.
[The above was my conclusion, the rest discusses your article in more detail.]
Your piece claims Murray IS a racist, as in para 4:
“For it can be very easily proven that Murray is a man with a strong racial bias against Black people, insofar as he fails to respect them as equal human beings and believes them to be, on average, inferior to white people in matters of intelligence, creativity, and inherent human worth... if Murray is not a racist, the word “racist” is empty of meaning.”
You use the same Murray-hate (Murray Derangement Syndrome?) argumentation that you claim so many other haters do when you “stretch the case against him beyond its limits”. Belief in lower group average intelligence does NOT mean lower inherent human worth.
But it’s very very true that economic success is often equated with moral superiority, and IQ or other “smarts” is expected to lead one to become rich. “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” (Stanford unofficial sweatshirt motto.)
Murray’s ACTUAL appearance on The Glenn Show shows him as quite respectful of Glenn, treating him fully as an equal human being. Which is possible for those who believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated and judged as individuals based on their own behavior and characteristics, as MLK dreamt. The importance of this is that individual treatment is the only realistic way to behave to others if Blacks are, on average, inferior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in the matter of IQ / g – intelligence / SATscores.
Your claims about what Murray writes:
“1- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
2- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
3- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
On #3, you never show that Murray wants a conception of equality where black people are subhuman. You show he likes the limited government of the early USA, and its ideals. YOU, Nathan, are adding the part about Blacks as subhuman, and ascribing it the Founding Fathers, and by implication any who admire these most admirable men. Murray, like most Libertarians, is against most post New Deal regulations and expansions of gov’t power.
On #1, you admit the fact that Black SAT (& IQ) scores are lower: “Murray and Herrnstein report the (undisputed) empirical finding that black scores on IQ tests are—as a statistical average—lower than white scores on IQ tests.” yet claim the rage against Murray is justified because of his racism. I claim that a lot of the rage is against that reality of IQ difference, which also often translates into disputing that IQ measures “smart”, or claims IQ & SAT & all math tests are “racist”.
Your Too Long screed didn’t quite define racism, but comes close in describing Murray’s thought:
“Charles Murray thinks black people are inferior to white people, and having them in socially, economically, and politically subordinate positions is acceptable…. “
Still, what is “having them”? In the case of slavery, clearly, but also Democratic Party Jim Crow laws, laws and policies that require them to be subordinate, or forbid them from equal use. That racism is Illegal, and very popularly illegal, treating two similar behaving individuals differently based on group average differences. That’s what “racism” means, and a racist is somebody who advocates that policy. Of course, as almost noted by Glenn and Sam, all Affirmative Action programs are racist, advocating promoting Blacks who are just a little bit less qualified over a White.
But how much is “just a little bit”? That’s a huge important part of the controversy that is seldom quantified, and is not done either by Murray, Loury, nor Harris, either. After CRA of 1964, the expectation was that AA positive discrimination would remove barriers and become ever less needed over time as free and natural equality led towards more equal outcomes. AA + freedom + white guilt + welfare (that rewards bad lifestyle choices with gov’t cash) has seen an increase in inequality.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/
According to The Harvard Crimson, Asian acceptance SAT scores averaged 767 (of 800), Whites at 745, Hispanics 718, Native Americans 712, while Blacks were at 704. Just under a 9% difference with a class size of about 1700, but applicant count at over 40,000. This will probably be ruled, eventually & correctly, as too much anti-Asian racist bias. I’d say about 2% max difference should be acceptable, so around 751 – already above the average admit rate of all other groups. That’s the reality, today.
[We should probably change College entrances to be more parental income based (over prior 5 years), so only 1% (17) can come from parents in the top 1%, only 10% (170) from parents in the top 10%, only 20% (340) from parents in the top 20%; and only 50% (850) from parents in the top 50%. This for schools with high endowments (over $100 million? Harvard has some $40 billion) and current reduced tax status. – such brainstorm ideas seldom make it into serious columns.]
Today racists like Kendi claim disparate impact proves racism, but only for Blacks against Whites and Asians. That stupid idea needs to be fought, strongly. Individual performance based merit causes average group difference.
Thus, the fact that Black players dominate the NBA is not racist, but performance based – Blacks on b-ball teams score more points/ win more games, than teams with more Hispanics or other less successful players.
I haven’t read Human Achievement, but your (2) points about Black musical culture seem very strong – tho it’s related to Black over-representation relative to Hispanics in selling music and being in movies. Yet I don’t remember “creative inferiority” of current Blacks being strongly attributed to Murray as reasons for rage, unlike group IQ differences.
As I read (and read & read), it’s like you can’t stop insulting and condemning Murray while eliding the key truths: a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.
This Too Long comment’s conclusion was elevated to the top. To minimize racial gap differences, it’s most important for Blacks to change their own behavior – of which they are, themselves, the victims of the bad outcomes. 1) High School; 2) Marriage before babies; 3) No crime; 4) Hold a job for year.
How to get more Blacks to take these steps, as well as more Whites - that's most of the Work Glenn is talking about.
“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious?s=r
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.
I just read your other article, on Sam Harris. I don't think it is *as* compelling as the Charles Murray article, but it is still very informative and has mostly good arguments.
It though is riddled with what appears to me pious tribal references to things like "Mansplaining", which is sexist. I've observed that people of a particular political tribe, who often find themselves in the Church of the Awoken, have the tendency to find the bigotry of "minorities" (which irrationally includes women), to be acceptable or even noble. Thus, the same people who think "mansplaining" isn't sexist are more likely to believe black people cannot be racist. I suspect, based on the way you wrote of "feminism" you don't hold people of particular groups to the same rigorous standards of morality or reason that you hold Charles Murray or Mr. Reasonable. That you refer to Mr. Kendi, aka Mr Ministry of [Racist] Anti-Racism, as support in an essay about the statist and totalitarian fantasies of Sam Harris is... quaint.
I'll point out one thing I found to be erroneous.
"Sam Harris constantly deploys insults (“preening,” “delusional,” “unscrupulous”), and as Dan Jones notes, his “style of argument is more about beating people down than engaging in any sort of dialogue that would help him, and others, get straight on deep, complex issues.”
Insults, like calling Charles Murray odious? I could not gather from your article whether you thought him using insults simply watered down his self-image of being Mr Reasonable, or whether you were proposing that insults undermined a person's arguments entirely. I don't think they necessarily do. Insults are *sometimes* just the "rational" outcome of what we believe and feel about people, and they aren't necessarily part of an argument. Charles Murray being odious is not an argument for why his ideas are garbage, but a judgement in response to his ideas and sentiments being garbage, which you do a good job of explaining why you think they are.
So, when Sam Harris says that "feminist epistemology" is crazy, it could just as well be a conclusion, and not a premise. Do you personally think no philosophical ideas are crazy? I doubt that. If you do, I imagine you haven't read much philosophy. I find that highly unlikely though given the breadth of your criticisms of Harris. Which means, your opposition toward Harris calling feminist epistemology crazy may be driven mostly by your attachment to your tribe. I don't know what version of feminist epistemology Sam or you are referring to, but if it supports the pseudo-popular the mind-twisting notion that "transwomen are women", it is definitely crazy. What say you? Are "transwomen" women?
...Oh, you wrote this https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-arguments-against-trans-athletes-are-bigoted-and-irrational
So I will guess your answer to my question is yes, "transwomen" are women. Its okay, you are probably just "displaying the exact intellectual blind spots so typical among men."
I would be delighted to have a conversation with you about trans philosophy and "have a dialogue that would help" you "and others, get straight on deep, complex issues."
Given Nathan's status as a devout follower of the Church of Trans, it's not really that surprising that he would believe that men can be women. But if he's seriously interested in trying to show the rest of the world how to be rationale and to recognize flaws in their arguments, he really needs to take some time to re-examine his nonsensical religious beliefs and drop the science-denying pontificating that he's picked up from the Trans Cult.
No need to guess...
Nathan wrote: 'If people become convinced that trans women do not belong in women’s sports, it reinforces the idea that trans women are not "really" women.'
Charles Murray is a racist just as certainly as Lia Thomas is a woman. I think we can all agree on that!
Lia Thomas is not a woman. Biological sex is real and it is not true that everyone who says "I am a woman" is a woman. I totally agree with Jeffrey Peoples - the notion that "transwomen are women" is mind-twisting and has absolutely nothing in common with science. The biological differences between male and female bodies are real and have real consequences.
I read the first article you linked to and will admit that while I own a copy of The Bell Curve, I haven't read it cover to cover but rather have only read sections of it and also don't have my copy with me at hand, so am operating a bit in the dark as it's been years since I last opened up the book.
Where I do agree with you is that Murray is a bit too naive in his assertion that racial differences if proven to be partly genetic should have no impact in terms of how we think about and treat our fellow human beings. Glenn has also pointed out that these kinds of racial hypotheses carry strong sociological, moral and emotional implications. This is not just another empirical assertion. I tend to excuse Murray somewhat on this matter because I've found that high IQ academic types aren't always the most in touch with the larger part of humanity.
It's understandable why many people would be offended by such an emotionally charged thesis, but that doesn't mean Murray is wrong about the facts or even that his moral framework is lacking. You don't seem to believe that Murray should be censored, which I definitely appreciate. You also don't seem to deny the possibility that racial differences could in theory be partly genetic in origin, but from your first article seem angry that Murray would express agnosticism towards the extent to which such differences are environmental versus genetic without a full accounting of the history of racism in American society towards Blacks. Such an accounting would presumably incline any decent human being towards a primarily environmental explanation for the present-day racial gaps observed in this country. You also express anger at the perceived implications of what a genetic explanation of group differences would entail, i.e., that whites would essentially be let off the hook for their historical oppression of Blacks in America.
This is the quandary that people like myself find themselves in. I'm open to the possibility that racial differences have a partly genetic basis but also don't really care to think about the matter 24/7. I'd much rather just live and let live, in the same sense that I enjoy watching the NFL without really pondering too much why ~99% of cornerbacks in the league are Black for instance. But as Glenn eloquently pointed out in his conversation with Sam, part of the reason why some people focus on the topic of group differences more than they otherwise might is that the other side operates under a blanket assumption that biological differences of any kind are basically inconceivable and that any disparity in outcomes among races is ipso facto proof of systemic racism. I find this kind of thinking to be a stretch.
I agree that the sociological and moral implications of the nature/nurture debate are particularly thorny but feel like the topic of race has muddied these issues quite a bit. I’m assuming that you’re more okay with Murray’s thesis where it touches not upon race but upon individuals, but don’t want to misrepresent your views. If we take a step back from the vexed matter of race, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person could argue that at least among individuals there aren’t meaningful differences in intelligence and motivation and that these traits aren’t correlated with tangible real-life outcomes. You seem annoyed by Murray’s embrace of the notion of the natural aristocracy and its paternalistic view that everyone has their station in life, but I wonder if a more enlightened and realistic attitude towards individual differences in fact doesn’t make society better off.
One of the things that many people have argued against in this country is the sort of Yale or jail mindset whereby it’s assumed that everyone needs to go to a 4-year college and aspire to be a superstar in life. In my opinion a lot of that kind of thinking is motivated by left-wing Blank Slate egalitarian views that argue that anyone can basically become anything under the right circumstances. But feel free to point out that I'm just peddling a caricature here. From what I’ve read they do a much better job emphasizing vocational training in countries like Germany and Japan. Is this precisely not the kind of enlightened social policy that would be more likely to be implemented under the operational and moral framework espoused by someone like Charles Murray? I personally found his book Real Education to be particularly informative.
My main impression is that you don’t so much disagree with Murray as a matter of empirical fact, although as I stated above you clearly believe he ignores a vast amount of racial history when he expresses agnosticism towards the extent to which group differences are rooted in biology as opposed to environment. Rather I get the feeling that you’re mostly angry about the sorts of value judgments Murray makes when for instance he valorizes IQ and intelligence in a particular rhetorical way or when he passes judgment on matters of artistic or musical merit.
I can sympathize in part with where you're coming from but don’t believe that these sorts of value judgments make Charles Murray a racist. At worst some of his views are a bit parochial and reveal a bias for the particular milieu that he grew up in. But I'm no more offended by Murray's opinions on art than I would be by someone who felt that Japanese anime was the epitome of artistic excellence. To each his own.
I truly believe deep down that Murray harbors no malice towards any particular ethnic group, which quite frankly I wouldn't say about other individuals who might be described as being part of the alt-right. And that I would argue is what constitutes the essence of racism.
“Murray would express agnosticism towards the extent to which such differences are environmental versus genetic without a full accounting of the history of racism in American society towards Blacks. “
Yet this is not true. Murray is not agnostic about it. He has confidence that genetics underlie the differences. He expresses this clearly in the interview with Coleman Hughes. He suspects the disparities are due to genetics to such an extent that he believes it would be futile for any social efforts to end those disparities.
He downplays that faith of his. Glenn Loury shouldn’t.
I concur. I read your article on current affairs. It is much better and more interesting scholarship than the Bell Curve.
And it is obnoxious that those who praise Charles Murray and insist that he isn’t racist have discussed Charles Murray with Charles Murray but have never to my knowledge discussed Charles Murray with any articulate critic of Charles Murray. How about Glenn brings on you, Nathan Robinson, to his show to discuss Charles Murray and his ideas?
I’d suggest myself but who is Jeffrey Peoples?