# Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 23, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052 "2017-04-23T09:21:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/481 "2017-05-01T12:43:21Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Regarding that one study with mixed race kids in Germany, if that study is replicated, that is the kind of study and piece of evidence that suggests it’s much less about any genetic differences between groups. After doing some digging it seems that study is a bit of an outlier. I’ve heard about far more studies that show something very different, so this seems like a case of a cherry picked study that goes against what is typically seen. You haven’t really started doing internet science until you’ve started ignoring evidence that’s inconvenient to your pre-existing beliefs. Anyway, I answered your challenge, now it’s your turn. Show me one study that shows that all differences in IQ between races (as they are popularly understood) are due entirely to genetic characteristics of those races. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/482 "2017-05-01T13:01:50Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > If that is the case it’s largely due of the use of the term _racist_ as a thought terminating slur. Now, now. I don’t think you stopped thinking because someone called you a racist. I think you have your cause and effect swapped. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/483 "2017-05-01T14:25:12Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Now, now. I don’t think you stopped thinking because someone called you a racist. I think you have your cause and effect swapped. On that note I have to say to the other posters that listen to anti-science that \*\*Chen019 \*\*also started having a disgust with evidence that does not conform to what he believes, and with the ones that investigate and report that evidence. His path has been nothing sort of a big cautionary tale, first he started as a mild scientific racist, then a nativist, then a climate change denier\*, and now in GD he is a proud Holocaust denier. Really guys, you need to get better sources or friends, you are getting poisoned slowly, but surely. \*Those items -Climate change denial and nativism- came together from him and others in a thread showing how powerful interests (when I checked their sources) are not having a problem with supporting bigotry and anti-science at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/484 "2017-05-01T18:59:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Show me one study that shows that all differences in IQ between races (as they are popularly understood) are due entirely to genetic characteristics of those races. This is a straw man, no? It’s a far stronger argument – to the point of being absurd – than Murray ever makes. I believe that in The Bell Curve’s own words the authors were “agnostic” on the subject of genes v. environment, leaning to both having a role (full disclosure: like everyone else, I have not read the book). That’s is their great sin, right? The correlation between IQ and positive outcomes (education, wealth, etc.) is a fact. The existence of “g,” the general intelligence IQ tests purport to measure, is widely accepted in the relevant scientific community. Observed gaps in IQ scores between somewhat arbitrary but socially significant groupings of people with varying degrees of shared ancestry and correlated genes (i.e., “races”) are likewise a fact. Intelligence being largely heritable is a fact. The Bell Curve survives at least this far in any honest assessment, I think. But its authors take the additional step of attempting to assess how genetics v. environment plays a role in the observed racial gaps in America, and come to a relatively measured conclusion: “we aren’t sure, but a bit of both probably contribute.” For this Murray, who had the misfortune to survive until the book’s publication, has become a pariah, an embodiment of “pseudoscientific racism.” Is this really fair? As Salvor argues at length above, there are at least a priori reasons to think that groups of people segregated by culture and geography might develop somewhat different genes, on average. The mental consequences of those differences could be unmeasurably small, but the idea is not a ridiculous one. It’s not like Murray denies the role of environment. In this very podcast, and I believe in the book as well, Murray uses the analogy of corn planted in Iowa vs. corn planted in the desert (white Americans’ environment is Iowa; black Americans’ is the desert). Later, he describes meeting black students at Harvard as an undergraduate, and assuming that they’re innately smarter than he is, given his environmental advantages (I assume this predated affirmative action, which he does not care for). These do not strike me as the musings of a raving racist. I’m sufficiently uncomfortable with this topic and sufficiently uneducated in the relevant fields that I’m resistant to the conclusion that racial IQ differences are significantly genetic in origin - but I honestly don’t know the right answer. _Are_ East Asians better at spacial reasoning than Caucasians, on average, due to different allele frequencies rather than cultural or environmental factors? That’s a question for science to answer, if it cares to. I don’t see how the answer can be an obvious “No, you #%#% racist.” By the way, I just made an account on these forums, as I just listened to this podcast, thought Murray seemed somewhat mistreated, and was curious as to the response. I, uh, promise that I’m not an enthusiastic racist running to a new environment to spew my bile. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/485 "2017-05-01T19:33:13Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > This is a straw man, no? It’s a far stronger argument – to the point of being absurd – than Murray ever makes. I believe that in The Bell Curve’s own words the authors were “agnostic” on the subject of genes v. environment, leaning to both having a role (full disclosure: like everyone else, I have not read the book). It’s the argument \*\*Salvor \*\*is making, so he should back it up. > [@](#): > > That’s is their great sin, right? The correlation between IQ and positive outcomes (education, wealth, etc.) is a fact. The existence of “g,” the general intelligence IQ tests purport to measure, is widely accepted in the relevant scientific community. Observed gaps in IQ scores between somewhat arbitrary but socially significant groupings of people with varying degrees of shared ancestry and correlated genes (i.e., “races”) are likewise a fact. Intelligence being largely heritable is a fact. “Black” people aren’t a race, so that’s factually wrong. Certain subgroups of African Americans share common West African ancestry, but a) not all of them, b) the typical “African American” has maybe 25% European ancestry, and c) many “white Americans” have African heritage. Also, there have been various studies showing that a) there’s no relationship between percentage of African heritage and average IQ (which, if correct, immediately disproves the theory that black people have lower average IQ because of genetic characteristics of the “black” race, but which is consistent with different treatment of people with black skin), b) black children raised under similar conditions as white children in a community which doesn’t discriminate against them have similar average IQs, and c) black average IQ is increasing over time, and is currently higher than average white IQ from 50 years ago. None of this conclusively proves that the “genetic” argument is wrong, but it’s a lot of fucking evidence that has to be ignored by people like **Salvor**. Luckily, ignoring this evidence is easy for \*\*Salvor \*\*because he’s profoundly ignorant, and has made no effort whatsoever to educate himself. You can’t ignore what you don’t know! > [@](#): > > As Salvor argues at length above, there are at least a priori reasons to think that groups of people segregated by culture and geography might develop somewhat different genes, on average. \*\*Salvor \*\*is ignorant and verbose, a bad combination. There are actual intelligent people commenting on this thread–you should read what they say and skip over \*\*Salvor’s \*\*posts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/486 "2017-05-01T19:50:59Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > For this Murray, who had the misfortune to survive until the book’s publication, has become a pariah, an embodiment of “pseudoscientific racism.” Is this really fair? Yes, because here you are missing a lot of history, and Murray and Sam also act as if things like this did not happen: [https://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/04/youve-got-to-be-taught-to-hate-and-fear/138489](https://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/04/youve-got-to-be-taught-to-hate-and-fear/138489) > [@](#): > > The publicity campaign for The Bell Curve mimicked that of Losing Ground. It is safe to say that most scholarly books containing hundreds of pages of regression analyses and primary source-based historical, economic and sociological claims would first be published, at least in part, in academic quarterlies that vet submissions by scholarly peer review on the part of an editorial board. But Simon & Schuster did not even send The Bell Curve to reviewers in galleys, and neither did its authors. A Wall Street Journal news story reported that the book had been “swept forward by a strategy that provided book galleys to likely supporters while withholding them from likely critics.” The Journal suggested that AEI “tried to fix the fight when it released review copies selectively, contrary to usual publishing protocol.” Murray and AEI also hand-picked a group of pundits to be flown to Washington at the think tank’s expense for a weekend of briefings by Murray and discussion of the book’s arguments.[4] This strategy would pay off when the book was released and the publicity machine put into action, long before the scientific establishment could garner a look and form any coherent judgments. > > Couched between an endless array of tables, charts and ten-dollar words, the Murray/Hernstein thesis, at its core, was nevertheless disarmingly simple. The book’s first sentence is: “This book is about differences in intellectual capacity among people, and groups, and what these differences mean for America’s future.” The authors blame many of the nation’s social problems, including the persistence of an “underclass” characterized by high-levels of crime, welfare, and illegitimacy, on the fact that black people are just not as smart as white people. After all, they argue, all racial barriers to advancement have been removed from American society; hence, we have arrived at a near perfect consequential relationship between IQ and socioeconomic achievement. And because, the authors believe IQ to be largely the product of one’s genetic inheritance, it is futile for society to try to boost those doomed to failure beyond their natural stations in life. > [@](#): > > But the second wave of reviews, which did not arrive until much later, was comprised of expert opinion in the relevant field and provided a belated substitute for the peer-review process to which Murray and Hernstein were originally unwilling to submit. > > Once experts in the fields of psychometrics, dysgenics, and genetics began to weigh in on the book, not much of it was left. Scholarly examination repeatedly demonstrated that the statements that form the very core of The Bell Curve’s arguments were either highly questionable or demonstrably false. For instance, Hernstein and Murray insisted, “it is beyond significant technical dispute that cognitive ability is substantially heritable”. But as a group of British geneticists and psychometricans pointed out in response, "Research in this field is still evolving, studies cited by Herrnstein and Murray face significant methodological difficulties, and the validity of results quoted are disputed. " [1] > > The mistakes grow even graver. Herrnstein and Murray actually seek to quantify the degree to which such intelligence is heritable. “Half a century of work, now amounting to hundreds of empirical and theoretical studies,” they write, “permits a broad conclusion that the genetic component of IQ is unlikely to be smaller than 40 per cent or higher than 80 per cent. … For purposes of this discussion, we will adopt a middling estimate of 60 per cent heritability.” They appear to the unsuspecting reader to be the soul of caution in this regard. Alas, as Nicholas Lemann reported in Slate, another study by three scientists at Carnegie Mellon University employing exactly the same data base, suggested “a narrow-sense heritability of 34 per cent and a broad-sense heritability of 46 per cent,” a far cry from the figures employed by Murray and Hernstein. > > In perhaps the key test of the honesty of the underlying science of the book, trained experts in the field found they could not reproduce its results. For instance, one chart in The Bell Curve purports to show that people with IQs above 120 have become “rapidly more concentrated” in high-IQ occupations since 1940. But Robert Hauser and his colleague Min-Hsiung Huang retested the data and came up with estimates that fell “well below those of Herrnstein and Murray.” They added that the data, properly used, “do not tell us anything except that selected, highly educated occupation groups have grown rapidly since 1940.” Much more in the link. > [@obeast](#): > > By the way, I just made an account on these forums, as I just listened to this podcast, thought Murray seemed somewhat mistreated, and was curious as to the response. I, uh, promise that I’m not an enthusiastic racist running to a new environment to spew my bile. No problems… so far. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/487 "2017-05-01T20:50:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, because here you are missing a lot of history, and Murray and Sam also act as if things like this did not happen: > > [https://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/04/youve-got-to-be-taught-to-hate-and-fear/138489](https://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/04/youve-got-to-be-taught-to-hate-and-fear/138489) > > Much more in the link. But see, this is where I have a hard time seeing this as anything but an unusually well-intentioned defamation campaign. The article you link suggests that he’s a blundering dilettante who stepped outside his field - “Trained as a Ph.D. in political science but without any formal credentials in economics or psychometrics” - but his co-author was an eminent psychologist and behavioral economist. Similarly, the circumstances surrounding the book’s publishing and review process seem irrelevant. The passage goes on to give this summary of the book’s thesis: > [@](#): > > After all, they argue, all racial barriers to advancement have been removed from American society; hence, we have arrived at a near perfect consequential relationship between IQ and socioeconomic achievement. And because, the authors believe IQ to be largely the product of one’s genetic inheritance, it is futile for society to try to boost those doomed to failure beyond their natural stations in life. As I said, I have not read the book, but if that’s in fact its thesis Murray did an absolutely terrible job advancing it in this podcast. It sounds like a caricature of his argument, in fact, framed in language to make it seem maximally mustache-twirling. I am reasonablycertain that the book does not argue that “all racial barriers to advancement have been removed from American society” - recall Murray’s folksy analogy to corn I paraphrased above. This all just seems flatly dishonest. The second quote argues experts in psychometrics, etc. crushed the book on publication for its reliance on flawed studies purporting to demonstrate the heritability of IQ. But those studies were correct, and my understanding is that they were widely accepted in the field even at the time of the book’s publishing. From the “IQ heritability” Wikipedia page: > [@](#): > > The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults. Even if Murray and his coauthor were wrong about IQ’s heritability-- and it appears that they were not – judging a published result to be correct when it is not does not make someone a pseudoscientist, much less a racist. At this point, psychology has a rather embarrassing list of high-profile results that appear to have been mythical. Look, I won’t pretend to be an expert in this field. I’m just some random citizen with a degree in an unrelated science trying to make sense of the world. But it sure seems to me that much of the ire directed Murray’s way is entirely unfair, bordering on deliberately malicious. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/488 "2017-05-01T21:03:12Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > But see, this is where I have a hard time seeing this as anything but an unusually well-intentioned defamation campaign. The article you link suggests that he’s a blundering dilettante who stepped outside his field - “Trained as a Ph.D. in political science but without any formal credentials in economics or psychometrics” - but his co-author was an eminent psychologist and behavioral economist. Now we are running into trouble… **Again** , he and his co-author decided to not subject their research to peer review, in contrast a Nobel laureate in economics did publish his criticism of the book on a peer reviewed journal. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/489 "2017-05-01T21:03:34Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > But see, this is where I have a hard time seeing this as anything but an unusually well-intentioned defamation campaign… - “Trained as a Ph.D. in political science but without any formal credentials in economics or psychometrics” - but his co-author was an eminent psychologist and behavioral economist. Could you clarify–are you saying that this is accurate, but that’s it’s not an accurate summary of someone else’s credentials, therefore it’s malicious? So if someone were to say" \*\*Evil Economist \*\*isn’t a brain surgeon." I could counter by saying, “yes, but Ben Carson is, therefore you’re defaming me”? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/490 "2017-05-01T21:06:33Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > Even if Murray and his coauthor were wrong about IQ’s heritability-- and it appears that they were not – They were, the sooner you give it up, the healthier you will be in the future. As pointed before, Murray’s work is one of the poster boys that many experts do point at when they talk about how “psychology has a rather embarrassing list of high-profile results that appear to have been mythical.” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/491 "2017-05-01T21:23:12Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > Similarly, the circumstances surrounding the book’s publishing and review process seem irrelevant. You think the “circumstance” of not having research peer reviewed is irrelevant? I’m finding your posts here very credible. Very credible. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/492 "2017-05-01T21:27:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Could you clarify–are you saying that this is accurate, but that’s it’s not an accurate summary of someone else’s credentials, therefore it’s malicious? So if someone were to say" \*\*Evil Economist \*\*isn’t a brain surgeon." I could counter by saying, “yes, but Ben Carson is, therefore you’re defaming me”? No, no - I’m saying the implication is that Murray isn’t qualified to do this kind of research, but whether or not that’s true he wrote the book with someone who evidently was. The fact that Herrnstein died just before The Bell Curve was published doesn’t mean that Murray authored it alone. This at least warrants a mention in any honest sentence about the qualifications of the book’s authors. The sentence in question is clearly crafted to suggest that Murray was a racist know-nothing from another field who embarrassed himself by stepping into the deep end of the pool when he couldn’t swim. Here it is in full: > [@](#): > > Trained as a Ph.D. in political science but without any formal credentials in economics or psychometrics – the two fields in which his work managed to incite national debates – Murray’s work has met with little but vituperation and disgust among those experts competent to judge its scientific merits Don’t you think Hernnstein warrants a mention here? It’s not just “Murray’s work,” after all, and it seems likely that the real psychologist did the heaving lifting re: interpreting the relevant literature. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > They were, the sooner you give it up, the healthier you will be in the future. As pointed before, Murray’s work is one of the poster boys that many experts do point at when they talk about how “psychology has a rather embarrassing list of high-profile results that appear to have been mythical.” Again, I am not an expert in this field, but I am pretty sure that the heritability is simply established science: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability\_of\_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) The line I quoted above (estimating nearly 80% heritability in adults) is from an American Psychological Association “task force” from 1996, which I think formed in response to the furor about The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve may be somewhat or substantially wrong, but I really don’t think this is the reason. Edit - I should add that the heritability of IQ is no way “Murray’s work,” as I understand it. He simply used it as a fact in his broader argument. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/493 "2017-05-01T21:31:57Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You think the “circumstance” of not having research peer reviewed is irrelevant? > > I’m finding your posts here very credible. Very credible. It’s a ~900 page book largely aimed at a popular audience… Do those typically get peer reviewed? I’m quite confused by this objection. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/494 "2017-05-01T21:45:05Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > Again, I am not an expert in this field, but I am pretty sure that the heritability is simply established science: > > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability\_of\_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) Not my problem that you want to show others that you did not read the thread. The hereditability is not the issue, the problem was that Murray and others did go from that to claim that there was a difference with that and with intelligence between races, and also related to genes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/495 "2017-05-01T21:55:57Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > It’s a ~900 page book largely aimed at a popular audience… Do those typically get peer reviewed? I’m quite confused by this objection. And here you show that you did not bother to read the cited article from MediaMatters that I made. If you had read it and stopped to show to others how ignorant you want to be, you would had noticed (unwillingly) why there is a big objection, Murray and others claim to do science when in reality they did not. They have an agenda already made. [http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/magazine/daring-research-or-social-science-pornography-charles-murray.html?pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/magazine/daring-research-or-social-science-pornography-charles-murray.html?pagewanted=all) > [@](#): > > Murray’s persona in print is that of the burdened researcher coming to his disturbing conclusions with the utmost regret; but at the moment, he seems to be having the time of his life. “It really is social science pornography,” he says. > > Social science pornography. The phrase may explain more about Murray’s influence than he intended, and possibly more than he fully understands. Much of that influence has stemmed from his ability to express, through seemingly dispassionate analysis, many people’s hidden suspicions about race, class and sex. His writings comprise a kind of Michelin guide to the American underpsyche. > > The phenomenon is one that he himself has at least inadvertently acknowledged. “Why can a publisher sell it?” he asked in the proposal for “Losing Ground.” “Because a huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It’s going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say.” > > Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich may have more power than Murray, and Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan may have more direct influence. But no other conservative has his ability to make a radical thought seem so reasonable. Where others rant, Murray seduces with mountains of data and assurances of his own fine intentions. He will never be the country’s most famous conservative, but he may well be the most dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/496 "2017-05-01T22:04:52Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > It’s a ~900 page book largely aimed at a popular audience… Do those typically get peer reviewed? I’m quite confused by this objection. It’s very simple. If you want it to have legitimacy as science, it has to go through the rigors of science. The rigor is what grants the legitimacy. If you don’t want to have to go through those rigors, it is not science; it’s opinion. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/497 "2017-05-01T22:11:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not my problem that you want to show others that you did not read the thread. > > The hereditability is not the issue, the problem was that Murray and others did go from that to claim that there was a difference with that and with intelligence between races, and also related to genes. Err, the heritability was most certainly the issue in the sentence of mine you quoted. What does this have to do with reading the thread? I said “Even if Murray and his coauthor were wrong about IQ’s heritability [etc., etc., typically pompous prose]”; you replied “They were…”; I replied that I thought you were mistaken. At no point were were discussing anything but the heritability of IQ. Obviously the heritability of IQ is not what pissed everyone off (although a surprising number of people choose to simply reject it). The “difference” you reference is similarly settled science - there really are differences in the mean values between (self-identified) racial groups in IQ test results, and not always in favor of white people. Those gaps may or may not be genetic in nature - that’s the question, right? I don’t see much of a chance that there aren’t some environmental contributions (my money would be on “most to all environmental,” but my money is worthless because I don’t know enough), but I also don’t see the point of publicly destroying anyone who tries to study the issue if we don’t like their conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![obeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@obeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obeast)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/498 "2017-05-01T22:22:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It’s very simple. If you want it to have legitimacy as science, it has to go through the rigors of science. > > The rigor is what grants the legitimacy. If you don’t want to have to go through those rigors, it is not science; it’s opinion. Ok, but it’s either right or wrong on its merits, irrespective of its venue, and it’s hardly the only book of its type. Is Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature” illegitimate because it was published through the conventional press, such that I should ignore its argument? Certainly, I personally have to make some sort of decision on what I think about all of this, and in this particular case most of The Bell Curve’s argument is in fact derivative of accepted, peer-reviewed science (it even piggybacks on a notorious article from a real-deal peer-reviewed journal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How\_Much\_Can\_We\_Boost\_IQ\_and\_Scholastic\_Achievement%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_Can_We_Boost_IQ_and_Scholastic_Achievement%3F)). Since most of its premises appear to be uncontroversial, I have to grapple with the rest of it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/499 "2017-05-01T22:51:35Z")
> [@obeast](#): > > Ok, but it’s either right or wrong on its merits, irrespective of its venue, and it’s hardly the only book of its type. Well, it’s true that it’s hardly the only book that espouses racism and gets compliant fools to believe in it. The OP of this thread thought, I guess, that he was defending Sam Harris by claiming Harris didn’t tackle Murray about the science, just whether the forbidden knowledge was just too, too perilous. But without the science, what the fuck is anyone doing paying attention to this schmuck? Lots of people, especially on this board, think to hide behind the science-ish fig leaf. This thing looks like racism, but it’s totally science! If you disagree, you are totally against science! If it’s science, completely legit science, the methodology is the absolutely most important thing. Not the results, not the hypothesis, the methodology. And that’s the part Murray’s supporters are so quick to handwave away. Any bozo can come up with a hypothesis. Any demagogue can find “solutions.” Any nitwit can leap to conclusions. The scientist uses appropriate methodology and then invites other scientists to poke at that methodology with a sharp stick. Last year, I spent weeks shepherding peer review for research grants. Teams of ten experts went into every single grant proposal for hours. The poked and argued and questioned and then wrote extensively on every single aspect of every single proposal. That is rigor. Hiding from that is not a circumstance. Hiding from that is disqualifying. So, if you want to spend time thoughtfully contemplating an opinion piece you acknowledge you don’t have the science chops to actually review, be my guest. I’m sure it will be very valuable to the OP. He needs friends. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/500 "2017-05-01T22:51:55Z")
Anytime I see a post or thread from our esteemed OP, I usually just skip right over it. He’s just a contrarian. Every single thing he posts is an argument against something that is overwhelmingly already established. He posts simply to be a contrarian, he is not genuine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=26)