I am with Sam Harris when he wonders just why Charles Murray wrote his latest book. Murray himself took pains during the interview with Glenn Loury to say that the disparities he found between the races were most evident in the middle, and not so much on the extreme ends. Okay, so what does that really mean? But he is not going to comment on what it all means, he is just giving us the data. Come on. Conservative writer Wilfred Reilly has written about the i.q. scores of ethnic groups around the world, which highlights that many European populations have i.q. scores very close to African Americans, and also how average i.q. scores for African Americans and other groups have changed/increased pretty dramatically over the years, which points strongly towards environmental rather than genetic factors being most important. Reilly's points need to be explored in any discussion about ethnicity and i.q. Why not ask Murray about that? I read Murray's book Coming Apart, and thought he had a lot of good info and insights, but he also struck me as having an agenda, and being rather obsessed with the purchasing habits of upper middle class professionals, blaming them for every ill besetting less educated, less wealthy white Americans, whose economic plight he otherwise described very eloquently through his statistics and research. Murray deserves to be treated respectfully, he has a right to speak his mind, and present his research, but I don't think he deserves special treatment either. His research should be open to critique, like any other scholar.
"His research should be open to critique, like any other scholar." If there is any scholar that has been critiqued, I think Charles Murray would be it, or at least very near the top of the list.
Also, I was listening to the Charles Murray, Sam Harris podcast, and they specifically mentioned that of course environment can be a factor. But that doesn't mean genetics isn't also a factor. Their comparison to height I think was very apt.
If a person is malnourished they might not grow as tall. But that doesn't mean height doesn't have a strong genetic component. Same certainly applies to IQ.
Yes, I see the genetics-environmental interaction. I am not an expert, but from what I have read, intelligence, as recorded by I Q tests may be more malleable than, say, height. However it is, there is a good argument for enriching the environment of children as much as possible.
I am with Sam Harris when he wonders just why Charles Murray wrote his latest book. Murray himself took pains during the interview with Glenn Loury to say that the disparities he found between the races were most evident in the middle, and not so much on the extreme ends. Okay, so what does that really mean? But he is not going to comment on what it all means, he is just giving us the data. Come on. Conservative writer Wilfred Reilly has written about the i.q. scores of ethnic groups around the world, which highlights that many European populations have i.q. scores very close to African Americans, and also how average i.q. scores for African Americans and other groups have changed/increased pretty dramatically over the years, which points strongly towards environmental rather than genetic factors being most important. Reilly's points need to be explored in any discussion about ethnicity and i.q. Why not ask Murray about that? I read Murray's book Coming Apart, and thought he had a lot of good info and insights, but he also struck me as having an agenda, and being rather obsessed with the purchasing habits of upper middle class professionals, blaming them for every ill besetting less educated, less wealthy white Americans, whose economic plight he otherwise described very eloquently through his statistics and research. Murray deserves to be treated respectfully, he has a right to speak his mind, and present his research, but I don't think he deserves special treatment either. His research should be open to critique, like any other scholar.
"His research should be open to critique, like any other scholar." If there is any scholar that has been critiqued, I think Charles Murray would be it, or at least very near the top of the list.
Also, I was listening to the Charles Murray, Sam Harris podcast, and they specifically mentioned that of course environment can be a factor. But that doesn't mean genetics isn't also a factor. Their comparison to height I think was very apt.
If a person is malnourished they might not grow as tall. But that doesn't mean height doesn't have a strong genetic component. Same certainly applies to IQ.
Yes, I see the genetics-environmental interaction. I am not an expert, but from what I have read, intelligence, as recorded by I Q tests may be more malleable than, say, height. However it is, there is a good argument for enriching the environment of children as much as possible.