Why the anger against Murray? “The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work.” The Murray-haters were wrong to chase him off Middlebury’s platform. If you can’t refer to a better work on IQ than The Bell Curve, your “shoddy piece” insult starts to apply even more strongly to your own 2017 piece. Where is such neutral scholarship? Rage without a better alternative is self-defeating.
I’m enraged against Murray-haters, because today it is claimed by many that Black failures are due to White structural racism. Blacks fail, and it’s MY fault (since I’m white). This is false, and enraging. Those that fail do so because they fail at one or more of the clear 4 steps to take out of poverty:
1) graduate from High School (knowing how to read, write, and do some math);
2) have no babies before marriage;
3) stay out of jail, commit no crimes;
4) get some job and keep it for a year or more.
Whites who are poor are poor for failing at one or more of these – ain’t ‘cause ‘a no racism. But Blacks who are poor when failing to do these steps? Oh yeah, THAT’s racism, structural racism.
So every time Black kids play basketball instead of studying for school, or even going to school to graduate from High School, I’m guilty. Blacks having sex before and outside of marriage and having babies (with fathers not there; some 75% of Black kids) – my guilt. Guilt but no orgasm. Blacks commit crimes, like killing other gang members or bystanders – clearly it’s White folks’ fault. Blacks refuse to stay in some BS job, or something where you have show up on time, or not drugged out nor drunk – Witey’s fault. Eddie Murphy explained it decades ago: “I hate Whitey because he’s white: W – I – T – E”.
Bullshit. 90% or more of US poverty is based on individual failure to follow the 4 steps out of poverty. The sad reality is too few Blacks choose, due to IQ, culture, parents, school, gov’t programs, too few Blacks choose to follow the steps out of poverty. But society talks about racism, talks about racism, and talks about who is a racist and why.
[The above was my conclusion, the rest discusses your article in more detail.]
Your piece claims Murray IS a racist, as in para 4:
“For it can be very easily proven that Murray is a man with a strong racial bias against Black people, insofar as he fails to respect them as equal human beings and believes them to be, on average, inferior to white people in matters of intelligence, creativity, and inherent human worth... if Murray is not a racist, the word “racist” is empty of meaning.”
You use the same Murray-hate (Murray Derangement Syndrome?) argumentation that you claim so many other haters do when you “stretch the case against him beyond its limits”. Belief in lower group average intelligence does NOT mean lower inherent human worth.
But it’s very very true that economic success is often equated with moral superiority, and IQ or other “smarts” is expected to lead one to become rich. “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” (Stanford unofficial sweatshirt motto.)
Murray’s ACTUAL appearance on The Glenn Show shows him as quite respectful of Glenn, treating him fully as an equal human being. Which is possible for those who believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated and judged as individuals based on their own behavior and characteristics, as MLK dreamt. The importance of this is that individual treatment is the only realistic way to behave to others if Blacks are, on average, inferior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in the matter of IQ / g – intelligence / SATscores.
Your claims about what Murray writes:
“1- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
2- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
3- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
On #3, you never show that Murray wants a conception of equality where black people are subhuman. You show he likes the limited government of the early USA, and its ideals. YOU, Nathan, are adding the part about Blacks as subhuman, and ascribing it the Founding Fathers, and by implication any who admire these most admirable men. Murray, like most Libertarians, is against most post New Deal regulations and expansions of gov’t power.
On #1, you admit the fact that Black SAT (& IQ) scores are lower: “Murray and Herrnstein report the (undisputed) empirical finding that black scores on IQ tests are—as a statistical average—lower than white scores on IQ tests.” yet claim the rage against Murray is justified because of his racism. I claim that a lot of the rage is against that reality of IQ difference, which also often translates into disputing that IQ measures “smart”, or claims IQ & SAT & all math tests are “racist”.
Your Too Long screed didn’t quite define racism, but comes close in describing Murray’s thought:
“Charles Murray thinks black people are inferior to white people, and having them in socially, economically, and politically subordinate positions is acceptable…. “
Still, what is “having them”? In the case of slavery, clearly, but also Democratic Party Jim Crow laws, laws and policies that require them to be subordinate, or forbid them from equal use. That racism is Illegal, and very popularly illegal, treating two similar behaving individuals differently based on group average differences. That’s what “racism” means, and a racist is somebody who advocates that policy. Of course, as almost noted by Glenn and Sam, all Affirmative Action programs are racist, advocating promoting Blacks who are just a little bit less qualified over a White.
But how much is “just a little bit”? That’s a huge important part of the controversy that is seldom quantified, and is not done either by Murray, Loury, nor Harris, either. After CRA of 1964, the expectation was that AA positive discrimination would remove barriers and become ever less needed over time as free and natural equality led towards more equal outcomes. AA + freedom + white guilt + welfare (that rewards bad lifestyle choices with gov’t cash) has seen an increase in inequality.
According to The Harvard Crimson, Asian acceptance SAT scores averaged 767 (of 800), Whites at 745, Hispanics 718, Native Americans 712, while Blacks were at 704. Just under a 9% difference with a class size of about 1700, but applicant count at over 40,000. This will probably be ruled, eventually & correctly, as too much anti-Asian racist bias. I’d say about 2% max difference should be acceptable, so around 751 – already above the average admit rate of all other groups. That’s the reality, today.
[We should probably change College entrances to be more parental income based (over prior 5 years), so only 1% (17) can come from parents in the top 1%, only 10% (170) from parents in the top 10%, only 20% (340) from parents in the top 20%; and only 50% (850) from parents in the top 50%. This for schools with high endowments (over $100 million? Harvard has some $40 billion) and current reduced tax status. – such brainstorm ideas seldom make it into serious columns.]
Today racists like Kendi claim disparate impact proves racism, but only for Blacks against Whites and Asians. That stupid idea needs to be fought, strongly. Individual performance based merit causes average group difference.
Thus, the fact that Black players dominate the NBA is not racist, but performance based – Blacks on b-ball teams score more points/ win more games, than teams with more Hispanics or other less successful players.
I haven’t read Human Achievement, but your (2) points about Black musical culture seem very strong – tho it’s related to Black over-representation relative to Hispanics in selling music and being in movies. Yet I don’t remember “creative inferiority” of current Blacks being strongly attributed to Murray as reasons for rage, unlike group IQ differences.
As I read (and read & read), it’s like you can’t stop insulting and condemning Murray while eliding the key truths: a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.
This Too Long comment’s conclusion was elevated to the top. To minimize racial gap differences, it’s most important for Blacks to change their own behavior – of which they are, themselves, the victims of the bad outcomes. 1) High School; 2) Marriage before babies; 3) No crime; 4) Hold a job for year.
How to get more Blacks to take these steps, as well as more Whites - that's most of the Work Glenn is talking about.
“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.
Why the anger against Murray? “The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work.” The Murray-haters were wrong to chase him off Middlebury’s platform. If you can’t refer to a better work on IQ than The Bell Curve, your “shoddy piece” insult starts to apply even more strongly to your own 2017 piece. Where is such neutral scholarship? Rage without a better alternative is self-defeating.
I’m enraged against Murray-haters, because today it is claimed by many that Black failures are due to White structural racism. Blacks fail, and it’s MY fault (since I’m white). This is false, and enraging. Those that fail do so because they fail at one or more of the clear 4 steps to take out of poverty:
1) graduate from High School (knowing how to read, write, and do some math);
2) have no babies before marriage;
3) stay out of jail, commit no crimes;
4) get some job and keep it for a year or more.
Whites who are poor are poor for failing at one or more of these – ain’t ‘cause ‘a no racism. But Blacks who are poor when failing to do these steps? Oh yeah, THAT’s racism, structural racism.
So every time Black kids play basketball instead of studying for school, or even going to school to graduate from High School, I’m guilty. Blacks having sex before and outside of marriage and having babies (with fathers not there; some 75% of Black kids) – my guilt. Guilt but no orgasm. Blacks commit crimes, like killing other gang members or bystanders – clearly it’s White folks’ fault. Blacks refuse to stay in some BS job, or something where you have show up on time, or not drugged out nor drunk – Witey’s fault. Eddie Murphy explained it decades ago: “I hate Whitey because he’s white: W – I – T – E”.
Bullshit. 90% or more of US poverty is based on individual failure to follow the 4 steps out of poverty. The sad reality is too few Blacks choose, due to IQ, culture, parents, school, gov’t programs, too few Blacks choose to follow the steps out of poverty. But society talks about racism, talks about racism, and talks about who is a racist and why.
[The above was my conclusion, the rest discusses your article in more detail.]
Your piece claims Murray IS a racist, as in para 4:
“For it can be very easily proven that Murray is a man with a strong racial bias against Black people, insofar as he fails to respect them as equal human beings and believes them to be, on average, inferior to white people in matters of intelligence, creativity, and inherent human worth... if Murray is not a racist, the word “racist” is empty of meaning.”
You use the same Murray-hate (Murray Derangement Syndrome?) argumentation that you claim so many other haters do when you “stretch the case against him beyond its limits”. Belief in lower group average intelligence does NOT mean lower inherent human worth.
But it’s very very true that economic success is often equated with moral superiority, and IQ or other “smarts” is expected to lead one to become rich. “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” (Stanford unofficial sweatshirt motto.)
Murray’s ACTUAL appearance on The Glenn Show shows him as quite respectful of Glenn, treating him fully as an equal human being. Which is possible for those who believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated and judged as individuals based on their own behavior and characteristics, as MLK dreamt. The importance of this is that individual treatment is the only realistic way to behave to others if Blacks are, on average, inferior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in the matter of IQ / g – intelligence / SATscores.
Your claims about what Murray writes:
“1- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
2- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
3- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
On #3, you never show that Murray wants a conception of equality where black people are subhuman. You show he likes the limited government of the early USA, and its ideals. YOU, Nathan, are adding the part about Blacks as subhuman, and ascribing it the Founding Fathers, and by implication any who admire these most admirable men. Murray, like most Libertarians, is against most post New Deal regulations and expansions of gov’t power.
On #1, you admit the fact that Black SAT (& IQ) scores are lower: “Murray and Herrnstein report the (undisputed) empirical finding that black scores on IQ tests are—as a statistical average—lower than white scores on IQ tests.” yet claim the rage against Murray is justified because of his racism. I claim that a lot of the rage is against that reality of IQ difference, which also often translates into disputing that IQ measures “smart”, or claims IQ & SAT & all math tests are “racist”.
Your Too Long screed didn’t quite define racism, but comes close in describing Murray’s thought:
“Charles Murray thinks black people are inferior to white people, and having them in socially, economically, and politically subordinate positions is acceptable…. “
Still, what is “having them”? In the case of slavery, clearly, but also Democratic Party Jim Crow laws, laws and policies that require them to be subordinate, or forbid them from equal use. That racism is Illegal, and very popularly illegal, treating two similar behaving individuals differently based on group average differences. That’s what “racism” means, and a racist is somebody who advocates that policy. Of course, as almost noted by Glenn and Sam, all Affirmative Action programs are racist, advocating promoting Blacks who are just a little bit less qualified over a White.
But how much is “just a little bit”? That’s a huge important part of the controversy that is seldom quantified, and is not done either by Murray, Loury, nor Harris, either. After CRA of 1964, the expectation was that AA positive discrimination would remove barriers and become ever less needed over time as free and natural equality led towards more equal outcomes. AA + freedom + white guilt + welfare (that rewards bad lifestyle choices with gov’t cash) has seen an increase in inequality.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/
According to The Harvard Crimson, Asian acceptance SAT scores averaged 767 (of 800), Whites at 745, Hispanics 718, Native Americans 712, while Blacks were at 704. Just under a 9% difference with a class size of about 1700, but applicant count at over 40,000. This will probably be ruled, eventually & correctly, as too much anti-Asian racist bias. I’d say about 2% max difference should be acceptable, so around 751 – already above the average admit rate of all other groups. That’s the reality, today.
[We should probably change College entrances to be more parental income based (over prior 5 years), so only 1% (17) can come from parents in the top 1%, only 10% (170) from parents in the top 10%, only 20% (340) from parents in the top 20%; and only 50% (850) from parents in the top 50%. This for schools with high endowments (over $100 million? Harvard has some $40 billion) and current reduced tax status. – such brainstorm ideas seldom make it into serious columns.]
Today racists like Kendi claim disparate impact proves racism, but only for Blacks against Whites and Asians. That stupid idea needs to be fought, strongly. Individual performance based merit causes average group difference.
Thus, the fact that Black players dominate the NBA is not racist, but performance based – Blacks on b-ball teams score more points/ win more games, than teams with more Hispanics or other less successful players.
I haven’t read Human Achievement, but your (2) points about Black musical culture seem very strong – tho it’s related to Black over-representation relative to Hispanics in selling music and being in movies. Yet I don’t remember “creative inferiority” of current Blacks being strongly attributed to Murray as reasons for rage, unlike group IQ differences.
As I read (and read & read), it’s like you can’t stop insulting and condemning Murray while eliding the key truths: a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.
This Too Long comment’s conclusion was elevated to the top. To minimize racial gap differences, it’s most important for Blacks to change their own behavior – of which they are, themselves, the victims of the bad outcomes. 1) High School; 2) Marriage before babies; 3) No crime; 4) Hold a job for year.
How to get more Blacks to take these steps, as well as more Whites - that's most of the Work Glenn is talking about.
“a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.”
And this is why Murray’s books are such garbage. People such as yourself come out of reading them thinking that from a) follows b), which is erroneous. All the data Murray presents in all of his books can be true, but it means nothing about whether genetics underlay disparities at all. In fact, all the data can be true and the black population can have genetics that theoretically could manifest in higher cognitive abilities than any other racial group -- given the right culture and environment. The fact that you are confident b follows from a or that b follows from the data Murray presents is evidence of your own racial bigotry. Or lack of cognitive ability. Perhaps it’s genetic. In which case it is futile you will ever understand your errors. An “intractable” problem as Murray calls it.
When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books.
"All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure.
Robinson is more clear: "this statement buries the fact that there are very important moral implications to the genetic question: the more the difference can be proven to be genetic in origin, the less responsible white people are for the disproportionate poverty affecting black communities. "
First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)
Much more important is the question of how much white people, both living and dead, are responsible for today's black poverty (in the USA). There's no other country on earth where blacks have less absolute poverty, and are 10% or more of the population (as far as I know). The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious?s=r
about the Democrat Party being the Party of Slavery, the Jim Crow Party, the KKK Party.
Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live. Current poverty among Blacks today is maybe 5% IQ, but 50% crime, and 40% promiscuity (5% other). Because today's crime was influenced so much by the before birth promiscuity of the current criminal's parent, others might claim even higher % for promiscuity.
Today, AA is a little racist against Whites, and for colleges is quite racist against Asians, but in favor of less qualified Blacks. In theory, this reduces Black poverty.
[This assumption might actually be false, but that's a much longer rant.]
BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior.
"When I ask for a better than Bell Curve book on IQ, you fail to provide any link or reference, yet continue to insult Murray's books."
A book that addresses IQ disparities between racial groups, and particular the disparities of black people, better than the Bell Curve is Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals. And you can be comforted to know that Thomas Sowell doesn't insult Murray's book, albeit he does correct errors and disagree with aspects of it.
""All the data ... can be true, but it means nothing..." -- Horse manure."
No, that is just the limitations of correlational data. Assessing causation can be a complicated enterprise.
"First there's the scientific truth, a known unknown, about the amount of IQ which is genetic versus Socio-Economic-Status (including parental relations). You claim, without evidence, genetics is essentially insignificant. (Too much argumentation on this issue, rather than current responsibility.)"
No, I didn't claim genetics is essentially insignificant. I claimed that it *could be* entirely irrelevant. Not just insignificant; it could have no causal relevance to the group disparities in cognitive abilities. It could also be very significant. Theoretically. Genetics could be foundational in such a way that without a conscious breeding program, the disparities could be unchangeable. While it could be that a breeding program for blacks would be required, its also possible that a breeding program for whites would be required. The data is such that influence of environment and culture could be so dramatic that blacks as a group still have the genetics that underlie superior cognitive abilities to whites or any other racial group.
It could also be true that genetics underlie individual intelligence substantially but genetics doesn't underlie the disparities of cognitive abilities between racial groups. Proving that genetics underlies the foundation of individual intelligence does not prove that group disparities in cognitive abilities are genetic.
And while I didn't state anywhere to you that genetics are irrelevant; I do indeed actually suspect they are irrelevant. As for evidence that genetics is irrelevant when it comes to *group* disparities, I provided that in a different comment here to someone else. I'll copy and paste that here, just for convenience. And I will clarify my position now: I do suspect the foundation of intelligence is genetic on an individual level but I also suspect there is no genetic basis for disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups.
This is largely paraphrased from Sowell. Among the best evidence against the genetic basis for the disparities in cognitive abilities between racial groups is that the average performance on cognitive tests has changed substantially for populations over time. And furthermore, particular ethnic groups have changed their relative position with regard to average performance on cognitive tests when intermarriage was relatively rare.
An example - when Jews took mental tests during WW1 -- American soldiers -- they scored extraordinarily low. However within a decade they were scoring above average. And now they are far above average.
IQ tests are normalized. And this conceals a continuing trend of people on average over time answering more questions correct on cognitive tests. A person can answer the same number of questions correct today as someone 2 decades ago but the former would have an IQ of 100 and the latter an IQ 85. The number of questions “blacks” answer correctly today is similar to the number of questions answered correctly by past generations of “whites”. Blacks today are not meaningfully more different genetically than whites today than whites a few generations ago. If blacks on average differ from whites in IQ today by 15 points but blacks also differ from blacks 2 generations prior by 15 points, and if those 15 points between generations of blacks are best explained by environment why wouldn’t environment explain the difference between blacks and whites today? Since it seems environment could be *sufficient* to explain *all* the difference, why would one not only propose that genetics could theoretically explain some of the difference (it could) but also have so much confidence that genetics explains so much of the difference that it would be futile to change the environment to improve disparities? I’ve got a reason: cuz the person is racist.
"The idea that living white people are responsible, today, for what dead white people did decades or centuries ago - this idea is totally against judging each person as an individual.
But it IS the basis of never-ending tribal warfare - which is what I see Democrats, today, trying to create.
With your help, Jeffrey. Despite your admirable honesty last year"
I absolutely don't think random white people today are responsible for what particular white people did in the past. Nor have I ever suggested that. You are welcome to quote me where I do. Judging Murray racist doesn't implicate all white people. Not all white people think it is futile to invest resources into attempting to remove disparities between racial groups because they think genetics make the disparities intractable. And some white people who do believe that aren't even racist, they are just ignorant. They may have just read the Bell Curve and didn't read anything like Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Now, if they don't attempt to explore contrary opinions, arguably they are indeed racist. And ignorant. Or I guess.. maybe just intellectually lazy.
"BAD BLACK behavior is the main reason - and "structural racism" is an excuse for what should be inexcusable behavior."
Yes, I agree the aggregate behavior of black people is the main reason for the continued disparities between black people and white people, just as the aggregate behavior of white people is the main reason for the continued disparities between white people and asian people. While historical racism can explain some of the disparities in wealth, and can even explain some of the cultural dysfunction of some black people, current racism as a significant causal explanation is erroneous. Black people today are not "structurally" or "systematically" oppressed, albeit, there are still some racists within the system who sometimes harm people who are black due to racism.
And I still think Charles Murray is a racist but that he should be able to safely speak at colleges.
"Blacks who decide to commit crimes, who decide to have sex before or outside of marriage (including "open marriages"), those blacks' choices create negative results in the communities where they live."
More black people can more frequently use condoms and other forms of birth control. That would be sufficient to adequately reduce children born outside relationships or to people not committed to raising children. People needn't abstain from sex until marriage. That largely explains lower frequency of unwanted pregnancies of other racial groups. Not abstinence. While I disparage indiscriminate sexual relationships, abstinence until marriage is a perverse and worthless norm.