# 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:** 53
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1041 "2018-04-10T14:42:29Z")
Yglesias makes a very clear case (IMO) that Murray’s policy recommendations are almost uniformly counterfactual. Further, he argues that, rather than being marginalized/silenced/stymied, Murray has been extremely successful and influential, and his preferred policies are central to the national conversation about public social policy. > **[The Bell Curve isn’t about science, it’s about policy. And it’s wrong.](https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong)** > > Charles Murray is an incredibly successful — and pernicious — policy entrepreneur. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1042 "2018-04-10T14:43:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Paraphrasing someone Klein referenced whose name I recall, …whose name I _can’t_ recall… Oops. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1043 "2018-04-10T21:11:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yglesias makes a very clear case (IMO) that Murray’s policy recommendations are almost uniformly counterfactual. Further, he argues that, rather than being marginalized/silenced/stymied, Murray has been extremely successful and influential, and his preferred policies are central to the national conversation about public social policy. > > [Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve about Race and IQ has bad policy ideas - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong) I agree with almost all of that, with two major caveats: (1) Murray’s success only works on the right. Sam Harris is fortunate to have so many Patreon supporters, because no right or left wing think tank, or major university, would hire him. (2) He and his faculty chaperone (who was permanently injured) were viciously attacked. That is frightening, and morally abhorrent, no matter how much professional success he has. Then there’s the social penalty that is hard to quantify. But I do absolutely oppose most of Murray’s policy agenda. I also agree with Haier that it is legitimate to question how much of the racial disparity is genetic. What is **not** legitimate is to treat one side of the scientific spectrum on this question as equivalent to phrenology or Holocaust denialism. So let’s quote a little more from your Haier link, and I will ask you to comment on whether you agree with these parts as well: > [@](#): > > [A]s Harris has maintained, we should be able to discuss the data without a pejorative assumption that people who have the discussion are racist or malevolent[…] > > Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that at this point we do not have enough DNA-based evidence to conclude anything with confidence about how average group differences on complex traits like intelligence come about. Such data, however, are coming and we expect the findings, whatever they are, to be surprising. We should create an atmosphere where such things can be discussed when they do arrive. > The moral outrage many expressed after the Harris/Murray podcast, mostly based on a false reading or misreading of “The Bell Curve,” does not bode well for discussions to come. :dubious: ---
**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:** [April 10, 2018, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1044 "2018-04-10T23:56:57Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I also agree with Haier that it is legitimate to question how much of the racial disparity is genetic. What is **not** legitimate is to treat one side of the scientific spectrum on this question as equivalent to phrenology or Holocaust denialism. Again, if it was not Murray and the scientific racists, you may had a point. As it is, Murray would had been elevated to a better status if he had been working in Germany in the 1930’s. In my educated opinion, Murray is like Velikowsky, trying to pretend until the end of his days that he would be vindicated by the evidence of catastrophes in the past. Far from it. In Velikosky’s case, many scientists that do agree that disasters also shaped the earth in the past do not give Velikowsky much credit as his exaggerations and attempt at shoehorning biblical tales to disasters of the past actually slowed down the progress in their field. Likewise, guys like Murray (that already demonstrated to still be wrong about the Hispanics) with his racist solutions think that they will be vindicated by eventually finding genetic evidence of differences among “races”. Like with Velikowsky and his cosmic disasters, the ones that look for the genetic differences have very good reasons to not support what Murray and their ilk are doing. And this is because as the ones that are looking for differences report, Murray is not needed. Just like Velikowsky was not needed by the ones finding about the comet that helped remove the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. In that case gradualism was not eliminated as an explanation of the earth’s past; so it is with the environmental component of intelligence, there is still a lot of environmental issues that can not be ignored of that were found in recent years. Genes are important, but not the definitive part of our intelligence or our destinies. Hence the warnings and the repeated lines that racists should not be looking to make hay of the genetic differences of intelligence that may be there. > **[Scientists are finding more genes linked to IQ. This doesn’t mean we can...](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/6/15739590/genome-wide-studies)** > > Researchers using huge data sets to understand genetics and behavior worry their findings will be misinterpreted. > [@](#): > > Researchers using huge data sets to understand genetics and behavior worry their findings will be misinterpreted. > [@](#): > > But there’s also a deep uneasiness at the heart of this research — it is easily misused by people who want to make claims about racial superiority and differences between groups. Such concerns prompted Nature to run an editorial stressing that the new science of genetics and intelligence comes to no such conclusions. “Environment is crucial, too,” Nature emphasized. “The existence of genes ‘for’ intelligence would not imply that education is wasted on people without those genes. Geneticists burned down that straw man long ago.” > > Also, nothing in this work suggests there are genetic difference in intelligence when comparing people of different ancestries. If anything, it suggests that the genetics that give rise to IQ are more subtle and intricate than we can ever really understand. > [@](#): > > But most of the traits that make you you — your height, your personality, your intellect — arise out of a complex constellation of genes. There might be 1,000 genes that influence intelligence, for example. Same goes for the genes that lead to certain disorders. There’s no one gene for schizophrenia, for obesity, for depression. > > A single gene for one of these things also won’t have an appreciable impact on behavior. “If you have the bad variant of one gene for IQ, maybe your IQ score … is 0.001 percent lower than it would have been,” Posthuma says. > > But if you have 100 “bad” variants, or 1,000, then that might make a meaningful difference. > > Genome-wide association studies allow scientists to start to see how combinations of many, many genes interact in complicated ways. And it takes huge data sets to sort through all the genetic noise and find variants that truly make a difference on traits like intelligence. > > The researchers had one: the UK Biobank, a library that contains genetic, health, and behavioral information on 500,000 Britons. For the study, they pulled complete genome information on 78,000 individuals who had also undergone intelligence testing. Then a computer program combed through millions of sites on the gene code where people tend to variate from one another, and singled out the areas that correlated with smarts. > > The computer processing power needed for this kind of research — this study had to crunch 9.3 million DNA letters from 78,000 people — hasn’t been available very long. But now that it is, researchers have been starting to piece together the puzzle that links genes to behaviors. > > A recent genome-wide analysis effort identified 250 gene sites that predicted male pattern baldness in a sample of 52,000 men. (Would you really want to know if you had them?) And there’s been progress identifying genes that signal risk for diabetes, schizophrenia, and depression. > > And these studies don’t just look at traits, diseases, and behavior. They’re also starting to analyze genetic associations to life outcomes. A 2016 paper in Nature reported on 74 gene sites that correlate with educational attainment. (These genes, the study authors note, seem to have something to do with the formation of neurons.) Again, these associations are tiny — the study found that these 74 gene variants could only explain 3 percent of the difference between any two people on what level of education they achieve. It’s hardly set in stone that you’ll flunk school if you don’t have these gene variants. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1045 "2018-04-11T02:10:10Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > What is **not** legitimate is to treat one side of the scientific spectrum on this question as equivalent to phrenology or Holocaust denialism. No. But if advocates are constantly **misrepresenting** that side as much more strongly supported by evidence than it actually is, or using specious _“well it just stands to reason!”_ rhetoric to insinuate (or openly assert!) that skeptics pointing out the current inadequacy of the evidence are just being “politically correct”… …then it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the historic similarities between their obstinately unscientific arguments and similar obstinately unscientific arguments advanced in service to unsavory causes in the past. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1046 "2018-04-11T06:03:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No. But if advocates are constantly **misrepresenting** that side as much more strongly supported by evidence than it actually is, or using specious _“well it just stands to reason!”_ rhetoric to insinuate (or openly assert!) that skeptics pointing out the current inadequacy of the evidence are just being “politically correct”… > > …then it is not unreasonable to be concerned about the historic similarities between their obstinately unscientific arguments and similar obstinately unscientific arguments advanced in service to unsavory causes in the past. Fair enough. And I agree with someone who said, on Sam Harris’s Facebook page, something to the effect of “Murray didn’t just stumble upon this data while engaging in pure scientific curiosity.” Klein is right that Murray is kind of shady, and that there are sadly few people who take the line of “we are all limited in some way or another, and we should be kind to each other regardless” (looking, as Sam suggested, at Rawls’s “original position” perspective for inspiration). But I do! And I would like more people to do it. The hard data are going to come in pretty soon, as Haier said. And those who are now insisting those data are not going to show genetically based racial differences are laying down a huge bet. If they are wrong, who is going to listen to them when they try to make arguments about how people should respond to the findings? Actually, I think I can pretty confidently predict what is going to happen. DNA-based differences will appear, but they will only explain some percentage of the racial gap. If it is a very small percentage, the crowd that is currently denialist will be able to have fairly solid ground to stand on to say they were basically right that it is mostly about racism (and/or maybe lead, cultural issues around parenting, etc.) and that one or two points’ difference in average IQ attributable to genetics is not really significant. But if it is a large percentage (and I would call even a minority of say 30 percent or more “large”), they will still try to obfuscate by pointing to the non-genetic portion. This is what they do already with adoption, as we’ve seen right here in this thread. Look! they insist: babies from low-IQ, less educated biological parents adopted by high IQ, highly educated adoptive parents show a significant jump in IQ compared to their biological siblings who stayed behind with their biological parents. They always conveniently forget to point out that their adoptive siblings who are biological offspring of those high-IQ parents are also significantly higher in IQ than they are (all of this is on average, of course). Thus showing genes and family environment to be roughly equal in influence, and even more crucially showing that the genes you get from your parents can limit your IQ potential no matter what environment you are raised in, no matter how many advantages you get from an affluent family, top-notch schools, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1047 "2018-04-11T06:53:04Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Actually, I think I can pretty confidently predict what is going to happen. If by “confidently predict” you mean “hopefully speculate despite the current lack of scientific evidence”, then yes, I agree you can. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > DNA-based differences will appear, but they will only explain some percentage of the racial gap. […] if it is a large percentage (and I would call even a minority of say 30 percent or more “large”), they will still try to obfuscate by pointing to the non-genetic portion. This is what they do already with adoption, as we’ve seen right here in this thread. Look! they insist: babies from low-IQ, less educated biological parents adopted by high IQ, highly educated adoptive parents show a significant jump in IQ compared to their biological siblings who stayed behind with their biological parents. Once again, you seem to be mixing up the concept of **individual** heritability of IQ with the concept of hypothesized **racial-group** genetic differences in IQ. Who in this thread is arguing that individual differences in innate IQ don’t exist? Or that changes in nurture/environment can reliably cancel out **all** the effects of such individual differences? Can you please point to a specific post that you think is making such claims? > [@SlackerInc](#): > > […] there are sadly few people who take the line of “we are all limited in some way or another, and we should be kind to each other regardless” […] But I do! And I would like more people to do it. That’s big of you, but there are already plenty of **demonstrably real** sorts of human limitations that we can be kind to one another about. We don’t have to prematurely jump to conclusions about anybody else’s hypothesized but currently unproven racially-based cognitive inferiority in order to exercise our capacity for kindness towards them. The fact that you keep being so unquenchably eager to try to talk other people into being accepting and kind and humble and broadminded about black folks’ genetically-determined IQ deficit, _ **even while there is still no actual scientific evidence that any such genetic deficit really exists** _, is not doing wonders for your hopes of coming across as non-racist. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1048 "2018-04-11T08:11:37Z")
I’ve already copped to paternalistic racism. It’s the hostile, hateful kind of racism that I don’t understand, and abhor. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1049 "2018-04-11T08:23:08Z")
Well that’s OK then. You understand that “racist” isn’t just a pejorative; it’s also a specific kind of reasoning error (unfairly generalizing on the basis of race)? You’re fine with claiming to be making that error? Sent from my Mi-4c using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1050 "2018-04-11T09:33:32Z")
What’s amusing is that this fuckstick seems to think owning up to “paternalistic racism” somehow makes him better than the Nazis and Klansmen of the world, instead of just more cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1051 "2018-04-11T11:04:53Z")
I’ve read The Bell Curve (most of it at least). I listened to both of the podcasts. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, and Hillary in the general. Hopefully that gives me liberal “street cred” to say the following: I support Sam Harris and SlackerInc in this discussion. It’s a huge book, and it by no means focuses primarily on race (it’s only a small portion of the book). It’s a shame the race chapter was so radioactive, because there’s a very important discussion about the role that IQ plays in our society. If you are born with a high IQ, you are very likely to succeed in life (regardless of your race). And if you have a low IQ your prospects are not so great (regardless of your race). From my point of view that’s an argument to greatly strengthen the social safety net, not slash it. I support a universal basic income, but I don’t think it should replace all government safety net programs (we’d need universal healthcare as well, and services for the disabled). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1052 "2018-04-11T12:06:43Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’ve read The Bell Curve (most of it at least). I listened to both of the podcasts. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, and Hillary in the general. Hopefully that gives me liberal “street cred” to say the following: > > I support Sam Harris and SlackerInc in this discussion. > > It’s a huge book, and it by no means focuses primarily on race (it’s only a small portion of the book). It’s a shame the race chapter was so radioactive, because there’s a very important discussion about the role that IQ plays in our society. If you are born with a high IQ, you are very likely to succeed in life (regardless of your race). And if you have a low IQ your prospects are not so great (regardless of your race). From my point of view that’s an argument to greatly strengthen the social safety net, not slash it. > > I support a universal basic income, but I don’t think it should replace all government safety net programs (we’d need universal healthcare as well, and services for the disabled). This is a brief post, but as far as I can tell, none of the points you seem concerned about are actually in dispute. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1053 "2018-04-11T12:40:07Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, and Hillary in the general. Hopefully that gives me liberal “street cred” Err, no? Why would voting for boringly mainstream party politicians give you any ‘liberal “street cred”’ cred, as if such a thing existed in the first place? And why would it matter? The racist asshole OP is himself supposedly a Democrat or something. So, you mention that the race part of _Bell Curve_ is toxic, but you fail to mention what _you_ think of it, in particular, yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1054 "2018-04-11T13:11:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Err, no? Why would voting for boringly mainstream party politicians give you any ‘liberal “street cred”’ cred, as if such a thing existed in the first place? And why would it matter? The racist asshole OP is himself supposedly a Democrat or something. As soon as “liberal” lost its sting from the right as an accusation of quasi or outright Communism, it was picked up by the left as an accusation of being a moderate Democrat, so I don’t see how being racist would prevent one from being _that_ kind of strawman liberal if every other policy and outlook lined up. ---
**Author:** ![Not\_Carlson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc79bd/32.png) [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1055 "2018-04-11T13:47:14Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’ve already copped to paternalistic racism. It’s the hostile, hateful kind of racism that I don’t understand, and abhor. > [@MrDibble](#): > > What’s amusing is that this fuckstick seems to think owning up to “paternalistic racism” somehow makes him better than the Nazis and Klansmen of the world, instead of just more cowardly. Is a paternalistic racist like a shitty dad? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1056 "2018-04-11T14:03:47Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > It’s a huge book, and it by no means focuses primarily on race (it’s only a small portion of the book). It’s a shame the race chapter was so radioactive, because there’s a very important discussion about the role that IQ plays in our society. If you are born with a high IQ, you are very likely to succeed in life (regardless of your race). And if you have a low IQ your prospects are not so great (regardless of your race). From my point of view that’s an argument to greatly strengthen the social safety net, not slash it. If the discussion was only on the bell curve itself then you’re broadly right: it doesn’t actually contain that much about race (although I’d still say what it includes is sloppy). However Murray has published other, more contentious works. Like that book about how only whites have contributed anything culturally significant in the arts. And his public comments are often more skewed in that direction than towards the uncontentious parts of the bell curve. Harris also. Harris says some uncomfortable but valid things, then sprinkles in some bigoted statements. So whenever someone disagrees with him he (or one of his supporters) can just retreat back to the uncontroversial stuff, and paint his opponents as being overly PC. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1057 "2018-04-11T14:04:55Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > it was picked up by the left as an accusation of being a moderate Democrat I don’t really recall any use of it in that sense. I mean, I’m strongly LEftist, myself, but I’m not really encountering its pejorative use by “the left”. > [@](#): > > , so I don’t see how being racist would prevent one from being _that_ kind of strawman liberal if every other policy and outlook lined up. IME, party politics and racism are only somewhat correlated. Plenty of racists to be found on both sides of the American political aisle, as elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1058 "2018-04-11T14:10:35Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So, you mention that the race part of _Bell Curve_ is toxic, but you fail to mention what _you_ think of it, in particular, yourself. It goes against my instincts to sign on to that. I certainly don’t **want** it to be true that there are racial differences in IQ, but I’m not completely closed off to that possibility. I guess I’m agnostic on that issue. I wish The Bell Curve excluded the race chapter, and I wish someone other than Murray (who wants to slash the social safety net) wrote it, because the cognitive stratification of society is certainly an important topic. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2018, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1059 "2018-04-11T14:25:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > It goes against my instincts to sign on to that. I certainly don’t **want** it to be true that there are racial differences in IQ, but I’m not completely closed off to that possibility. I guess I’m agnostic on that issue. I wish The Bell Curve excluded the race chapter, and I wish someone other than Murray (who wants to slash the social safety net) wrote it, because the cognitive stratification of society is certainly an important topic. Yes, but remember the title and the intention of the thread, it is to claim that Sam and Murray are onto something, when in reality serious researchers do not want their “help”. It is something alright; but as the discussions has showed, Sam is beginning to willfully ignore how racist and wrong Murray is about Hispanics and other groups, and it was made worse when one notices that SlackeInc himself pointed at evidence that he thought helped his point but in reality blows a big hole to Murray and Sam’s arguments. So, willful ignorance, “paternalistic” racism, propensity to tell us that they (Murray, Sam and the Slacker) \*\*\*interpret \*\*\*better what experts like Flinn are actually telling us. Continuing to ignore new evidence… Supporting that is not really wise. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1060 "2018-04-11T16:23:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > If the discussion was only on the bell curve itself then you’re broadly right: it doesn’t actually contain that much about race (although I’d still say what it includes is sloppy). > > However Murray has published other, more contentious works. Like that book about how only whites have contributed anything culturally significant in the arts. And his public comments are often more skewed in that direction than towards the uncontentious parts of the bell curve. > > Harris also. Harris says some uncomfortable but valid things, then sprinkles in some bigoted statements. So whenever someone disagrees with him he (or one of his supporters) can just retreat back to the uncontroversial stuff, and paint his opponents as being overly PC. To be clear, “The Bell Curve” was thoroughly debunked even before the rise of the commercial internet. It follows the same trope that other forms of pseudoscientific bigotry, by stacking datasets to fit the argument even if the numbers are wrong. It was written a decade before we even successfully sequenced the human genome, and evidence that is more recent does not fit it’s claims, and favors the null. Here is just one example that will demonstrate “simple” problems that should be in the “grasp” of someone like Harris if he actually did have a _superior Cognitive ability_ Assumptions that the book makes that are wrong and easy to explain to someone as cognitively challenged as Harris. (blame his parents) > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.[/li][li]Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.[/li][li]IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.[/li][li]IQ tests measure how “smart” or “intelligent” people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.[/li][li]IQ tests can measure this accurately.[/li][li]IQ tests are not biased with regard to race, ethnic group or socioeconomic status.[/li][/ul] [https://web.archive.org/web/20160315230510/http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.062](https://web.archive.org/web/20160315230510/http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.062) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=54)