Charles Murray isn’t deplatformed. He has been pushed off the stage a few times. Regardless of that, his voice is widely available, his writings are on lots of bookshelves, including libraries. It is unfortunate that there are people out there who would try to use forms of force or coercion to prevent Murray from being on a stage that voluntarily requests him, and I find those people contemptible. But, alas Glenn, I find Murray contemptible as well. The fact that he has written some books that has had some political influence doesn’t make him less contemptible in my mind. Not having read the Bell Curve and some of Human Achievement would not have impoverished my mind. Not having read his other books likely hasn’t impoverished my mind either.
I commend you, Sam Harris, and Coleman Hughes for engaging with him. I think even contemptible people, if they have some popular appeal, should be wrestled with in debate and discussion rather than censored by good and reasonable people. But I am bewildered that you and John view him with such reverence and affection.
From every interview I have watched with him, he has demonstrated a faith in the notion that black people as a group are “dumb” (his word in the Bell Curve for people on the low end), and the reason for them being dumb is genetic. Murray confidently believes that the iq disparities among racial groups are due to genetic variations in racial groups, yet such confidence can only be had with the faith of a bigot.
It is*possible* such correlations and disparities are genetically grounded, but it’s also possible that they can be explained by culture. The confidence he expresses in interviews about the genetic causation is not rationally justified. And I would argue that the cultural explanation has better evidence. Despite 200+ years of brutal oppression and destruction of black Americans and their capacity to develop as individuals and communities, the theory he has faith in is that the limitations black people now face are genetically bounded. Anyone who thinks that 60 years of the Party of Slavery parasitically feeding off black victimhood, resentment, and insecurity by sabotaging their efforts to succeed with faux reparations, counter productive affirmative action, and political patronage counts as any semblance of an experiment to offset 200 years of brutality that just might affect disparities in cognitive abilities probably has deep seated bigotries about black people, aka racism, at least when no one is looking.
The cause of such disparities is extremely important when it comes to how we approach those disparities from a societal perspective. If we have the faith of racial bigots such as Murray that those disparities are genetic, putting in resources to change the cultural practices of black people as a group would a futile enterprise. Which is why Murray’s attitude appears to be that society must come to just accept the disparities: they won’t change. On the other hand, if you have the much more reasonable faith that disparities are due to culture, putting in resources the right way could have dramatic impact on those disparities.
The right way, btw, is not how the Democratic Party and BLM loyalists are currently proposing cultural change: e.g. declaring that the pursuit intellectual achievement is “whiteness” and lowering standards for black people.
And speaking of platforms, I’d really like a platform. Rather than defending bigots like Murray and expanding his platform, how about using your platform to help others, such as my glorious and humble self, to get theirs. It saddens me that my essay is still lingering in darkness while illustrious people such as yourself sweat about Charles Murray not being able to spread his idea that black people as a group are doomed to have a lower iq forever because of their genetics.
My essay, just in case you actually read this comment:
I'll probably be excoriated for expressing agnosticism on the matter of nature versus nurture vis-à-vis racial differences but for what it’s worth I personally found the phenomenon of Black excellence in competitive Scrabble to be an interesting and relevant datapoint for the cultural side of the debate.
Excoriated for agnosticism? Not by me. But I implore you to investigate more sources that support a cultural explanation. It is the righteous faith, but people should arrive there only after they have investigated it for themselves.
Have you read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell? Id recommend that as an introduction.
Yeah I have that book on my bookshelf and a couple of others by Sowell, but haven't read most of his most popular works since he's been such a prolific writer. Personally I found the Scrabble data point I linked to above to be more convincing evidence of the cultural thesis than some of the arguments offered by Sowell, but I'll admit that I haven't read enough of Sowell to be informed.
Have you actually read the book on your shelf, or just have it there?
And I read your comment about Nigerian Scrabble players. Definitely a fascinating data point; dunno if it outweighs the many data points, for example, in Black Rednecks, but certainly deserves a glorious place alongside them. I appreciate that you linked to it.
I think this is an outstanding comment and I look forward to reading your longer essay. It seems to me that the key point that causes upset with Murray is a nature vs nurture question where he seems to suggest that black people as a whole are genetically inferior or perhaps so disadvantaged that it's more or less the same thing. Glenn and Sam do not seem to take him to task on this very important point. When Murray was on the Glenn show to discuss the last book (which I have not read), Murray went out of his way to say that he was just presenting the data but that drawing conclusions is too controversial. My sense is that he did something similar in the Bell Curve. That is terribly weak and anyone giving him a platform (Glenn in this case) should clearly force this issue. That's what platforms like this are for.
I'm not sure that I think he should be canceled (and it seems like a partial cancellation in the sense that he's been making his way as a prominent public intellectual for decades despite publishing books about racial inferiority). But, let's not pretend to be surprised about why people are very upset about him.
This seems like a blind spot. Glenn and John get outraged about fuzzy logic, obfuscation and weak argumentation on the left. I'm on board for that. But, it is of great importance to maintain this level of rigor when dealing with your own side and your own friends. If you put the boots to Kendi and Hannah-Jones, you should do the same for Murray. With all the ruckus here over woke topics, it's frustrating to see Murray get a free (or close to free) pass from Glenn on his project of implied eugenics.
If I'm missing something here, or am lost in my own blind spot, please let me know.
“With all the ruckus here over woke topics, it's frustrating to see Murray get a free (or close to free) pass from Glenn on his project of implied eugenics.”
If Murray’s faith is true, the only way black people as a group can significantly improve cognitive abilities as demonstrated by iq scores and STEM employment is through a breeding program.
I don’t think anyone could come to such a faith without a large rock of bigotry lodged in their soul.
Glenn and John do seem to be blind to that spot. If they are truly Murray’s friend though, they should not allow their affection to blind them, and be willing to see faults and flaws, and then point out that spot. It is repulsive.
Faith has nothing to do with this. Look at the data, if the data changes, then update your views.
Right now, the data strongly suggest there are population level differences.
That shouldn't tell us anything about how we treat each other. But it might offer some other explanations on why the trillions we've spent on poverty reduction don't seem to do much
“Population level genetic differences” is an irrelevant observation. If you take a population that has blue eyes and a population that has brown eyes, those populations are going to have genetic differences. You are inferring incorrectly what faith I’m referring to.
Charles Murray isn’t deplatformed. He has been pushed off the stage a few times. Regardless of that, his voice is widely available, his writings are on lots of bookshelves, including libraries. It is unfortunate that there are people out there who would try to use forms of force or coercion to prevent Murray from being on a stage that voluntarily requests him, and I find those people contemptible. But, alas Glenn, I find Murray contemptible as well. The fact that he has written some books that has had some political influence doesn’t make him less contemptible in my mind. Not having read the Bell Curve and some of Human Achievement would not have impoverished my mind. Not having read his other books likely hasn’t impoverished my mind either.
I commend you, Sam Harris, and Coleman Hughes for engaging with him. I think even contemptible people, if they have some popular appeal, should be wrestled with in debate and discussion rather than censored by good and reasonable people. But I am bewildered that you and John view him with such reverence and affection.
From every interview I have watched with him, he has demonstrated a faith in the notion that black people as a group are “dumb” (his word in the Bell Curve for people on the low end), and the reason for them being dumb is genetic. Murray confidently believes that the iq disparities among racial groups are due to genetic variations in racial groups, yet such confidence can only be had with the faith of a bigot.
It is*possible* such correlations and disparities are genetically grounded, but it’s also possible that they can be explained by culture. The confidence he expresses in interviews about the genetic causation is not rationally justified. And I would argue that the cultural explanation has better evidence. Despite 200+ years of brutal oppression and destruction of black Americans and their capacity to develop as individuals and communities, the theory he has faith in is that the limitations black people now face are genetically bounded. Anyone who thinks that 60 years of the Party of Slavery parasitically feeding off black victimhood, resentment, and insecurity by sabotaging their efforts to succeed with faux reparations, counter productive affirmative action, and political patronage counts as any semblance of an experiment to offset 200 years of brutality that just might affect disparities in cognitive abilities probably has deep seated bigotries about black people, aka racism, at least when no one is looking.
The cause of such disparities is extremely important when it comes to how we approach those disparities from a societal perspective. If we have the faith of racial bigots such as Murray that those disparities are genetic, putting in resources to change the cultural practices of black people as a group would a futile enterprise. Which is why Murray’s attitude appears to be that society must come to just accept the disparities: they won’t change. On the other hand, if you have the much more reasonable faith that disparities are due to culture, putting in resources the right way could have dramatic impact on those disparities.
The right way, btw, is not how the Democratic Party and BLM loyalists are currently proposing cultural change: e.g. declaring that the pursuit intellectual achievement is “whiteness” and lowering standards for black people.
And speaking of platforms, I’d really like a platform. Rather than defending bigots like Murray and expanding his platform, how about using your platform to help others, such as my glorious and humble self, to get theirs. It saddens me that my essay is still lingering in darkness while illustrious people such as yourself sweat about Charles Murray not being able to spread his idea that black people as a group are doomed to have a lower iq forever because of their genetics.
My essay, just in case you actually read this comment:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious?s=r
I'll probably be excoriated for expressing agnosticism on the matter of nature versus nurture vis-à-vis racial differences but for what it’s worth I personally found the phenomenon of Black excellence in competitive Scrabble to be an interesting and relevant datapoint for the cultural side of the debate.
https://glennloury.substack.com/p/february-q-and-a-part-1/comment/5335113?s=r
Excoriated for agnosticism? Not by me. But I implore you to investigate more sources that support a cultural explanation. It is the righteous faith, but people should arrive there only after they have investigated it for themselves.
Have you read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell? Id recommend that as an introduction.
Yeah I have that book on my bookshelf and a couple of others by Sowell, but haven't read most of his most popular works since he's been such a prolific writer. Personally I found the Scrabble data point I linked to above to be more convincing evidence of the cultural thesis than some of the arguments offered by Sowell, but I'll admit that I haven't read enough of Sowell to be informed.
Have you actually read the book on your shelf, or just have it there?
And I read your comment about Nigerian Scrabble players. Definitely a fascinating data point; dunno if it outweighs the many data points, for example, in Black Rednecks, but certainly deserves a glorious place alongside them. I appreciate that you linked to it.
I think this is an outstanding comment and I look forward to reading your longer essay. It seems to me that the key point that causes upset with Murray is a nature vs nurture question where he seems to suggest that black people as a whole are genetically inferior or perhaps so disadvantaged that it's more or less the same thing. Glenn and Sam do not seem to take him to task on this very important point. When Murray was on the Glenn show to discuss the last book (which I have not read), Murray went out of his way to say that he was just presenting the data but that drawing conclusions is too controversial. My sense is that he did something similar in the Bell Curve. That is terribly weak and anyone giving him a platform (Glenn in this case) should clearly force this issue. That's what platforms like this are for.
I'm not sure that I think he should be canceled (and it seems like a partial cancellation in the sense that he's been making his way as a prominent public intellectual for decades despite publishing books about racial inferiority). But, let's not pretend to be surprised about why people are very upset about him.
This seems like a blind spot. Glenn and John get outraged about fuzzy logic, obfuscation and weak argumentation on the left. I'm on board for that. But, it is of great importance to maintain this level of rigor when dealing with your own side and your own friends. If you put the boots to Kendi and Hannah-Jones, you should do the same for Murray. With all the ruckus here over woke topics, it's frustrating to see Murray get a free (or close to free) pass from Glenn on his project of implied eugenics.
If I'm missing something here, or am lost in my own blind spot, please let me know.
“With all the ruckus here over woke topics, it's frustrating to see Murray get a free (or close to free) pass from Glenn on his project of implied eugenics.”
If Murray’s faith is true, the only way black people as a group can significantly improve cognitive abilities as demonstrated by iq scores and STEM employment is through a breeding program.
I don’t think anyone could come to such a faith without a large rock of bigotry lodged in their soul.
Glenn and John do seem to be blind to that spot. If they are truly Murray’s friend though, they should not allow their affection to blind them, and be willing to see faults and flaws, and then point out that spot. It is repulsive.
Faith has nothing to do with this. Look at the data, if the data changes, then update your views.
Right now, the data strongly suggest there are population level differences.
That shouldn't tell us anything about how we treat each other. But it might offer some other explanations on why the trillions we've spent on poverty reduction don't seem to do much
“Population level genetic differences” is an irrelevant observation. If you take a population that has blue eyes and a population that has brown eyes, those populations are going to have genetic differences. You are inferring incorrectly what faith I’m referring to.