# 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:** 73
**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 26, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1441 "2018-04-26T19:02:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who cares what room they’re in? Well, a lot of people care. > [@Shodan](#): > > They should be studying third grade material until they master it, then move on to fourth grade, and so on. What if they don’t learn in the normal pattern a neurotypical kid does? My daughter, for instance, has autism. By age six, she could read a text presented to her out loud with high apparent fluency. If the idea was to have her read a book to other kids, or give a speech, you’d probably have to say she reads way beyond her grade level, maybe at high school level. But if it’s about what she actually understands, she is behind grade level. ---
**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 26, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1442 "2018-04-26T19:03:12Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Speaking of Google Scholar, I’m almost tempted to shell out ten bucks to see this paper: > > [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/392856?download=true](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/392856?download=true) > > But I’d probably better not start down the slippery slope of making the SDMB not only a bad habit, but one that costs me money. Well, thanks for showing once again that you are an ignoramus about how to use google (not the scholar one this time) \*: (PDF File) [Neven Sesardictt Department of Philosophy, Lingnan University, Hong Kong](http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/POS-2000.pdf) Well, he did publish alright, but relying on a philosopher talking about science in a philosopher’s journal is not a good cite about the issue. What it was clear in my previous post though is that others have confirmed what Scarr reported decades ago. - One looks for PDFs or articles referencing the paper’s title/author, usually one will find that one does not need to pay to check the gist or the whole contents of an article. ---
**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 26, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1443 "2018-04-26T19:05:06Z")
Well then thanks for the tip—if not the gratuitous insult. 😛 ---
**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 26, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1444 "2018-04-26T19:15:01Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Well then thanks for the tip—if not the gratuitous insult. 😛 One more thing: Books that pop up from searches should be omitted because, besides not being proper studies, many times it means that the proponents of an idea do not have confidence with their evidence or peers that would agree with their shoddy research. Guess what Murray and their ilk prefer to go for? ---
**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 26, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1445 "2018-04-26T19:19:43Z")
Or maybe they just want to make some money out of the deal. How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not “shoddy” or “pseudo-“) science? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1446 "2018-04-26T20:00:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who cares what room they’re in? They should be studying third grade material until they master it, then move on to fourth grade, and so on. You don’t see any problems having a 17 year old sitting in class with 8 year olds? > [@](#): > > If they have gotten to be 18 and still haven’t mastered it, oh well. > Yes, that’s the sort of thing I am talking about. The reason that we have public schools is to have an educated populace. An educated populace is better for society, as it not only creates productive members to help in industry and commerce, but it also lowers crime. These kids that you have just given up on with an “oh well” are far more likely to turn to crime than a kid that was not left behind to rot. It seems better to invest a bit in these kids, as it actually benefits us as well. Lower crime means that we have to pay less for our police and courts and prisons. Lower crime means that we don’t have our stuff stolen. Lower crime means that we are more secure in our selves and our families against violence. Pay me now, or pay me later… > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Well, a lot of people care. > > What if they don’t learn in the normal pattern a neurotypical kid does? My daughter, for instance, has autism. By age six, she could read a text presented to her out loud with high apparent fluency. If the idea was to have her read a book to other kids, or give a speech, you’d probably have to say she reads way beyond her grade level, maybe at high school level. But if it’s about what she actually understands, she is behind grade level. This is why we really need to just completely reformulate schools and education from the ground up. It’s not just your daughter with a particular learning disability. Most people don’t learn in exactly the way that they are expected to, by sitting in a classroom for 8 hours a day, concentrating on a subject for an hour, then going on to the next. Especially in grade school, where all the subjects are lumped together and taught by the same teacher (who is very rarely much of an expert in any of these subjects.) What is the point of having your daughter sit through a reading class over and over, when the problem isn’t her reading, it’s her comprehension, a part of reading that is not taught nearly as much as how to translate the symbols on a page into words that can be spoken? She may also do great in math, but terrible in history and science. In order for her to repeat the history and science that she didn’t get the first time, she also has to sit through the math class that she did. Classes should be more modular, with “certificates of achievement” awarded as you complete modules. Some may complete the modules faster than others, and if you fail a module, you just retake the module, and maybe some prerequisite work if it is needed, rather than having to retake the whole class or grade. Also, require higher scores to complete modules. If you pass with a 70%, that means that you didn’t actually understand 30% of the material you were presented with. Then you are expected to go onto the next class that builds on that, which means you are set up for failure. Personally, I think if we eliminate the traditional classroom setting as the default method of education, people of all demographics will get a drastically improved educational experience, and virtually all of the complaints found in this thread become obsolete. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1447 "2018-04-26T20:17:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You don’t see any problems having a 17 year old sitting in class with 8 year olds? Well, a 17 year old that reads or does math at the 8 year old level shouldn’t be a senior in high school or playing D1 footballl. > [@](#): > > The reason that we have public schools is to have an educated populace. An educated populace is better for society, as it not only creates productive members to help in industry and commerce, but it also lowers crime. > > These kids that you have just given up on with an “oh well” are far more likely to turn to crime than a kid that was not left behind to rot. > > It seems better to invest a bit in these kids, as it actually benefits us as well. Lower crime means that we have to pay less for our police and courts and prisons. Lower crime means that we don’t have our stuff stolen. Lower crime means that we are more secure in our selves and our families against violence. > > Pay me now, or pay me later… True enough but schools can’t solve cultural problems with the tools schools currently have. > [@](#): > > This is why we really need to just completely reformulate schools and education from the ground up. It’s not just your daughter with a particular learning disability. Most people don’t learn in exactly the way that they are expected to, by sitting in a classroom for 8 hours a day, concentrating on a subject for an hour, then going on to the next. Especially in grade school, where all the subjects are lumped together and taught by the same teacher (who is very rarely much of an expert in any of these subjects.) > > What is the point of having your daughter sit through a reading class over and over, when the problem isn’t her reading, it’s her comprehension, a part of reading that is not taught nearly as much as how to translate the symbols on a page into words that can be spoken? She may also do great in math, but terrible in history and science. In order for her to repeat the history and science that she didn’t get the first time, she also has to sit through the math class that she did. > > Classes should be more modular, with “certificates of achievement” awarded as you complete modules. Some may complete the modules faster than others, and if you fail a module, you just retake the module, and maybe some prerequisite work if it is needed, rather than having to retake the whole class or grade. > > Also, require higher scores to complete modules. If you pass with a 70%, that means that you didn’t actually understand 30% of the material you were presented with. Then you are expected to go onto the next class that builds on that, which means you are set up for failure. > > Personally, I think if we eliminate the traditional classroom setting as the default method of education, people of all demographics will get a drastically improved educational experience, and virtually all of the complaints found in this thread become obsolete. Those are all good ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1448 "2018-04-26T20:26:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > That’s fine; if I have to re-post my “SlackerInc is fucking stupid” end-of-thread summary… [Moderating] You’ve made your point with that post. Continuing to repost it in this thread is getting into spam territory. If you want to continue to call **SlackerInc** stupid, you’re going to have to start innovating. [/Moderating] ---
**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 26, 2018, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1449 "2018-04-26T20:27:19Z")
K9b, just FTR my daughter does get an individualized education, from several different teachers. I’m very happy with her school and would not want it to be reformulated from the ground up. Your ideas are good, but much of that has already been incorporated into 21st century pedagogical methodology. ---
**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 26, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1450 "2018-04-26T21:05:49Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Or maybe they just want to make some money out of the deal. > > How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not “shoddy” or “pseudo-“) science? Ah, yes; as you show here, you did not read the thread\* :), basically we should go for what Reich and others noted, Murray and their ilk do use good science wrong to “deduce” racist solutions to the problems they see. \*And as you showed, you demonstrated to be clueless about how to look for information even when posted before too. ---
**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 26, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1451 "2018-04-26T22:05:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ah, yes; as you show here, you did not read the thread\* :), basically we should go for what Reich and others noted, Murray and their ilk do use good science wrong to “deduce” racist solutions to the problems they see. I actually agree with that, but you said something different just upthread, that it was “shoddy science”. Why not just phrase it the way you are doing now? Did you just now change your mind? ---
**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 26, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1452 "2018-04-26T23:54:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I actually agree with that, but you said something different just upthread, that it was “shoddy science”. Why not just phrase it the way you are doing now? Did you just now change your mind? Not in the least, remember, we are dealing with pseudo-scientists, they do love to use real science, but their conclusions do not follow the good data they get their paws on. As your reply shows, it is clear that you need to learn about what are the usual steps of science: (We really need to assume that you do not know… really) > **[Learn the Scientific Method Steps](https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045)** > > Learn about the scientific method, with these explanations of each step of the process, the variables involved, and why these steps are important. > [@](#): > > Purpose/Question > Ask a question. > > Research > Conduct background research. Write down your sources so you can cite your references. > > Hypothesis > Propose a hypothesis. This is a sort of educated guess about what you expect. (see examples) > > Experiment > Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. An experiment has an independent and dependent variable. You change or control the independent variable and record the effect it has on the dependent variable. > > Data/Analysis > Record observations and analyse what the data means. Often, you’ll prepare a table or graph of the data. > > Conclusion > Conclude whether to accept or reject your hypothesis. Communicate your results. The shoddiness of Murray and even Sam comes at their Data/Analysis and Conclusion steps as we have seen, they can have good data and facts but their analysis of it and the conclusions are shoddy and racist. In the case of Murray you also were helpful on pointing at the Chicago intervention, that ended up showing that Murray and others were dead wrong about Hispanics. So when Murray (and Sam) continues to say that the evidence for his claims has grown stronger that was complete poppycock. > **[Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech)** > > Podcaster and author Sam Harris is the latest to fall for it. > [@](#): > > In Harris’s view, all of this is simply beyond dispute. Murray’s claims about race and intelligence, however, do not stand up to serious critical or empirical examination. But the main point of this brief piece is not merely to rebut Murray’s conclusions per se — although we will do some of that — but rather to consider the faulty path by which he casually proceeds from a few basic premises to the inflammatory conclusion that IQ differences between groups are likely to be at least partly based on inborn genetic differences. These conclusions, Harris and Murray insist, are disputed only by head-in-the-sand elitists afraid of the policy implications. > > (In the interview, Murray says he has modified none of his views since the publication of the book, in 1994; if anything, he says, the evidence for his claims has grown stronger. In fact, the field of intelligence has moved far beyond what Murray has been saying for the past 23 years.) ---
**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 27, 2018, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1453 "2018-04-27T01:13:44Z")
Round and round we go. So now I will ask again: “How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not ‘shoddy’ or ‘pseudo-‘) science?” You cannot have it both ways, GIGO! ---
**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 27, 2018, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1454 "2018-04-27T01:34:44Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Round and round we go. So now I will ask again: “How do you explain the fact that the editor of the journal Intelligence said Sam was right to defend Murray and Hernstein as having done legit (not ‘shoddy’ or ‘pseudo-‘) science?” You cannot have it both ways, GIGO! Your genes are failing you again. 🙂 I already replied to that, back in post #973 [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20884405&postcount=973](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20884405&postcount=973) And yes, I actually do start that post by commenting: “So we come full circle”, Round and round we go with your inexperience and stupidity. I pointed then to the Emeritus condition of Richard J Haier, who is that editor. In other discussions related to science I have found that that means that he is a former researcher that is not active in their field any more. Too many of those in the fringe sciences to count. But enough of them in some journals to let shoddy science to be published. So thank you once again for showing to all that you are not really trying. Or learning for that matter. ---
**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 27, 2018, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1455 "2018-04-27T01:54:18Z")
It has to be pointed here too that you are not showing enough awareness to realize that having good data does not become good science automatically. So, demanding that “You cannot have it both ways” in this case is actually you showing gross misunderstanding or wilful ignorance of the steps of science even. Conclusions and analysis **are parts of science** , and they can indeed be made with bad faith or bad intentions while other steps are relatively OK. Hence the point that Murray and their ilk did and continue to do shoddy science. ---
**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 27, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1456 "2018-04-27T02:00:53Z")
So Haier is on the “fringe” now too. Seems to me you are using circular reasoning, defining anyone who defends Murray’s science as, ipso facto, a pseudoscientist themselves. Very tidy—you’re guaranteed never to have a conflict! :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 27, 2018, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1457 "2018-04-27T02:16:10Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > So Haier is on the “fringe” now too. Seems to me you are using circular reasoning, defining anyone who defends Murray’s science as, ipso facto, a pseudoscientist themselves. Very tidy—you’re guaranteed never to have a conflict! :dubious: Nope, I was going to point out too that that is one way to see it, but what The Guardian reports points yet to another way to see where Haier is coming from: Haier can be seen as a proponent of “lets toss all of it to the wall and see what sticks”.\* So when he said that "I prefer to let the papers and the data speak for themselves.” That can also mean that even he is aware of the shit in a paper or book, but he will let others decide. (I mean, I would think that is a very lazy and convenient way to work in a journal, but it can be defended… a little) As we have seen by the evidence and by researchers smarter than I am, like Reich, most researchers have decided that Murray and their ilk are racists and their use of genetics to reach their conclusions and their societal solutions are misguided. - Of course, shit can stick too. ---
**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:** [April 27, 2018, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1458 "2018-04-27T03:54:37Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Speaking of Google Scholar, I’m almost tempted to shell out ten bucks to see this paper: Aren’t there any papers on the internet you can misunderstand for free? ---
**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:** [April 27, 2018, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1459 "2018-04-27T04:13:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Furthermore, the report cited there starts with the presumption that it costs 40% more to educate a poor child than an affluent one. Wrong! [spoiler]The $1,00 per student gap that **GIGObuster** actually quoted in his post is the gap before the 40% adjustment. They did the “40% adjustment” as a secondary analysis, and that resulted in a $2,000 gap. Cite: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > School districts with the highest rates of poverty receive about $1,000 less per student in state and local funding than those with the lowest rates of poverty, according to a new report released Tuesday by The Education Trust. And from the paper: > [@](#): > > School districts with the highest rates of poverty receive about $1,000 less per student in state and local funding than those with the lowest rates of poverty > > … > When the researchers ran their analysis to account for these additional needs, using a federally defined assumption that it costs districts 40 percent more to educate a students in poverty than a student not in poverty, the funding gap widened substantially. When accounting for the additional needs, the report shows that highest-poverty districts receive about $2,000, or 16 percent, less per student than low-poverty districts. [/spoiler] ---
**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 27, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1460 "2018-04-27T04:54:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As we have seen by the evidence and by researchers smarter than I am, like Reich, most researchers have decided that Murray and their ilk are racists and their use of genetics to reach their conclusions and their societal solutions are misguided. You are conveniently eliding Reich’s criticisms of anti-Murray academics, who “are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations”. He elaborates: > [@](#): > > The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. > The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.[…] > > I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.” > Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.[…] > > I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.[…] > > A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.[…] > > Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too. > > You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century. Note that several points in those excerpts serve as direct rebuttals to assertions made in this thread. If we were litigating against each other in court, you would not be wise to choose Reich as your expert witness. > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Wrong! Hey, look at that: you’re finally right about something! You got me, good for you. Good for you. I know you’d like to quote this admission and repost it over and over, but you were called to heel on those shenanigans. Still, they can’t stop you from printing this out, putting it in a nice frame, and displaying it in a prominent location in the hole you crawl out of at night. Maybe you can even be buried with it. Your life’s greatest triumph, huzzah! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=72) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=74)