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 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.