"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.
"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.