You are so right to defend Murray, or anybody's, right to ask the question. How much is genetics? How much is nurture/ culture/ living conditions/ everything else.
50:50? 40: 60? 80:20? Anti-science haters of Murray who insisted on 0% genetics are increasingly being proved wrong.
But we can't do anything about genetics, yet we can maybe affect and improve each child's situation. Maybe. Because spending gov't and charity money on poor people seems to have been tried, and failed to work on many.
One idea that's terrible, tho Murray might endorse it somewhat, is Universal Basic Income (UBI). Paying to be lazy is terrible - see Mississippi and response to the Covid stimulus. Instead we need a Job Guaranty of State, National, or Country service, to hire everybody, which hasn't seriously been tried. It's based on the theory that most poor folk need to earn self-respect, which can't be given, but must be earned.
There might be other programs to reward other good behavior, like getting married, or being single without kids or pregnancy.
I wish there were some policy ideas you were thinking should be tried - we should all be humble enough to admit none know what "will work". But some policies will work better than others.
Glenn, it would be good to be more clear about what "racism" can mean:
1) The races are different in some way. Visibly.
2) Some races are superior, others are inferior.
a) in IQ - intelligence, cognitive ability, getting to the "right answer" thru logic
b) in physical measures, like height, weight, breast or penis size, hair color, or eye color, or
amount of melanin in their skin.
3) That, based on racial differences, they can be treated differently as members of a group, irrespective of individual differences.
(Jeffrey Peoples is also a target of this comment - what does "racism" mean to him).
Race is real, and visible by normal eyesight, as well as increasingly by genetic analysis.
(3) treating individuals differently because of race is already illegal, discrimination is illegal - yet different races exhibit different outcomes.
The problem of different outcomes doesn't seem so large in the NBA. Even tho there are more Hispanics in America than Blacks, there are far far fewer Hispanics than Blacks playing professional basketball. Is that racism? Culture/ nurture? Genetics? Is it so bad that the rules need to be changed?
Blacks are, as a group, taller. Genetically. Culturally Blacks play more basketball, younger, than do Hispanics, who play more soccer (football to the rest of the world).
Trying to imagine rules to allow more "equity" in the NBA between Blacks and Hispanics would essentially destroy the main meritocracy criteria of "most winning (w/o cheating)".
Here are some bad possible equality rules: - Hispanics should score as many points, so they get 10, 20, & 30 points for their shots, not just 1, 2, & 3.
- Each team needs as many Hispanics as Blacks
- Each team needs to have Hispanics play as many minutes as Blacks play
- The total amount of money paid to Hispanics must be at least as much as paid to Blacks
... all of these equality rules destroy the game.
This is similar to ending sexism by comparing XY males and XX females and trying for equality.
XY people ARE genetically different than XX people - and real men are XY people who identify as men; real women are XX people who identify as women. We don't have language for XY people who do NOT identify as men, and "mentally ill" has been rejected, altho it might be true. (I'd suggest ‘quasi-women’ for such an XY person as Lia Thomas, because q'she is not a real woman. Q'her winning in women's swimming is not fair. Q’she is not a real woman, but q’she is a q’woman. Elliot Page is a q’man, since q’he transitioned in 2021.)
On math ability (math IQ), there's a good Putnam exam. Last year MIT won all of the 5 top spots, with East Asian men, as well as the top woman (in top 15, not even top 10).
No Blacks, no Whites. It might be that there have been 0 blacks as any of the top 5 since this competition started 82 years ago - it's certainly the case that fewer than 10%, and even less than 1% of the winners have been Black. Far far less than 50% or even 10% have been women (Larry Summers was totally correct about few top female physicists - but he was still pushed out of Harvard for speaking this truth.)
MIT abolished SAT scores last year - this year they are re-instating them.
To be the top in just about anything requires genetics (talent?) AND cultural nurture AND individual effort.
Murray-haters implicitly or explicitly say that genetics have 0% influence. This is certainly false, based on all we know about genetics today, but we even knew that then. For group IQ, how much is genetics versus everything else is much less clear. 50%? 33%?
Why did Glenn Loury or John McWhorter succeed? Genetically gifted, some level of culture- nurture, and individual effort. (Same reasons I'm good but not nearly as great).
We who want Blacks to do better in America, and the world, should be agreeing that culture is important, and improvable. Poor Blacks, like poor Whites, and like all poor dumb people (like Forrest Gump), need to follow 4 main rules of behavior - behavior that is under their control, despite other influences:
1) Finish High School (or GED); 2) no babies until marriage; 3) no criminal behavior; 4) keep a job for at least a year.
Poor Whites, like poor Hispanics, have almost always violated one or more of these clear social rules. Also poor Blacks - but in even greater percentages.
Talk about IQ distracts from the far more important issue of behavior. Like Will Smith's criminal small assault because of a verbal insult against his open-marriage wife. Even if low IQ is part of the reason that poor people are bad at following these rules, the key social issue should be in helping more poor people follow these rules more often.
"...the key social issue should be in helping more poor people..."
I think that gets steamrolled by the key political issues, the key mercantile concerns, the key NEA/university concerns. The concerns of the huge Woke, Inc., industry.
You attacked the matter from a very logical perspective. That's the way I look at things, too. However, too many people benefit personally from keep the waters muddy. If there is no agreed upon definition of "racism," all the better to them.
You are so right to defend Murray, or anybody's, right to ask the question. How much is genetics? How much is nurture/ culture/ living conditions/ everything else.
50:50? 40: 60? 80:20? Anti-science haters of Murray who insisted on 0% genetics are increasingly being proved wrong.
But we can't do anything about genetics, yet we can maybe affect and improve each child's situation. Maybe. Because spending gov't and charity money on poor people seems to have been tried, and failed to work on many.
One idea that's terrible, tho Murray might endorse it somewhat, is Universal Basic Income (UBI). Paying to be lazy is terrible - see Mississippi and response to the Covid stimulus. Instead we need a Job Guaranty of State, National, or Country service, to hire everybody, which hasn't seriously been tried. It's based on the theory that most poor folk need to earn self-respect, which can't be given, but must be earned.
There might be other programs to reward other good behavior, like getting married, or being single without kids or pregnancy.
I wish there were some policy ideas you were thinking should be tried - we should all be humble enough to admit none know what "will work". But some policies will work better than others.
Glenn, it would be good to be more clear about what "racism" can mean:
1) The races are different in some way. Visibly.
2) Some races are superior, others are inferior.
a) in IQ - intelligence, cognitive ability, getting to the "right answer" thru logic
b) in physical measures, like height, weight, breast or penis size, hair color, or eye color, or
amount of melanin in their skin.
3) That, based on racial differences, they can be treated differently as members of a group, irrespective of individual differences.
(Jeffrey Peoples is also a target of this comment - what does "racism" mean to him).
Race is real, and visible by normal eyesight, as well as increasingly by genetic analysis.
(3) treating individuals differently because of race is already illegal, discrimination is illegal - yet different races exhibit different outcomes.
The problem of different outcomes doesn't seem so large in the NBA. Even tho there are more Hispanics in America than Blacks, there are far far fewer Hispanics than Blacks playing professional basketball. Is that racism? Culture/ nurture? Genetics? Is it so bad that the rules need to be changed?
Blacks are, as a group, taller. Genetically. Culturally Blacks play more basketball, younger, than do Hispanics, who play more soccer (football to the rest of the world).
Trying to imagine rules to allow more "equity" in the NBA between Blacks and Hispanics would essentially destroy the main meritocracy criteria of "most winning (w/o cheating)".
Here are some bad possible equality rules: - Hispanics should score as many points, so they get 10, 20, & 30 points for their shots, not just 1, 2, & 3.
- Each team needs as many Hispanics as Blacks
- Each team needs to have Hispanics play as many minutes as Blacks play
- The total amount of money paid to Hispanics must be at least as much as paid to Blacks
... all of these equality rules destroy the game.
This is similar to ending sexism by comparing XY males and XX females and trying for equality.
XY people ARE genetically different than XX people - and real men are XY people who identify as men; real women are XX people who identify as women. We don't have language for XY people who do NOT identify as men, and "mentally ill" has been rejected, altho it might be true. (I'd suggest ‘quasi-women’ for such an XY person as Lia Thomas, because q'she is not a real woman. Q'her winning in women's swimming is not fair. Q’she is not a real woman, but q’she is a q’woman. Elliot Page is a q’man, since q’he transitioned in 2021.)
On math ability (math IQ), there's a good Putnam exam. Last year MIT won all of the 5 top spots, with East Asian men, as well as the top woman (in top 15, not even top 10).
https://news.mit.edu/2022/mit-students-take-first-place-82nd-putnam-mathematical-competition-0311 (see picture)
No Blacks, no Whites. It might be that there have been 0 blacks as any of the top 5 since this competition started 82 years ago - it's certainly the case that fewer than 10%, and even less than 1% of the winners have been Black. Far far less than 50% or even 10% have been women (Larry Summers was totally correct about few top female physicists - but he was still pushed out of Harvard for speaking this truth.)
MIT abolished SAT scores last year - this year they are re-instating them.
To be the top in just about anything requires genetics (talent?) AND cultural nurture AND individual effort.
Murray-haters implicitly or explicitly say that genetics have 0% influence. This is certainly false, based on all we know about genetics today, but we even knew that then. For group IQ, how much is genetics versus everything else is much less clear. 50%? 33%?
Why did Glenn Loury or John McWhorter succeed? Genetically gifted, some level of culture- nurture, and individual effort. (Same reasons I'm good but not nearly as great).
We who want Blacks to do better in America, and the world, should be agreeing that culture is important, and improvable. Poor Blacks, like poor Whites, and like all poor dumb people (like Forrest Gump), need to follow 4 main rules of behavior - behavior that is under their control, despite other influences:
1) Finish High School (or GED); 2) no babies until marriage; 3) no criminal behavior; 4) keep a job for at least a year.
Poor Whites, like poor Hispanics, have almost always violated one or more of these clear social rules. Also poor Blacks - but in even greater percentages.
Talk about IQ distracts from the far more important issue of behavior. Like Will Smith's criminal small assault because of a verbal insult against his open-marriage wife. Even if low IQ is part of the reason that poor people are bad at following these rules, the key social issue should be in helping more poor people follow these rules more often.
"...the key social issue should be in helping more poor people..."
I think that gets steamrolled by the key political issues, the key mercantile concerns, the key NEA/university concerns. The concerns of the huge Woke, Inc., industry.
You attacked the matter from a very logical perspective. That's the way I look at things, too. However, too many people benefit personally from keep the waters muddy. If there is no agreed upon definition of "racism," all the better to them.