# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/161 "2017-04-24T20:34:19Z")
No one is denying that different populations of people can have different genetic characteristics. But the analysis of populations becomes less and less useful as you zoom out, and less and less useful as you classify arbitrarily. The black race is both zoomed out quite far and also quite arbitrarily defined (to the extent it is defined at all). The reason to examine things at that level with that degree of arbitrariness is, generally speaking, not good faith scientific endeavor. Instead, it’s a desire to justify differential treatment on the basis of race. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/162 "2017-04-24T20:37:12Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > It’s not for nothing that Murray includes an argument against welfare in his book. Murray supports a form of universal basic income. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/163 "2017-04-24T20:37:14Z")
I wait with bated breath for Harris and Murray to explain why black people can’t swim and Jews make the best accountants. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/164 "2017-04-24T20:40:06Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > First, we agree that genetics has some influence on IQ within a population, right? Otherwise we can start there. It doesn’t necessarily follow from this that genetics is related to IQ differences within populations; I agree with that. (It definitely doesn’t mean the opposite either, though.) I think it’s extremely difficult to distangle genetics and environment between populations. I would be interested in hearing what research has made this attempt, and where it indicated that genes played no role. I am not familiar with such research. > > My own reason for believing that genetics plays a role in IQ differences between populations, is that I think that genetics plays a role in more or less all differences between populations. Genes do this. It would be unlikely if everyone ended up on exactly the same level in every trait. I also think genetics plays a role in people from west africa being among the best sprinters, and people from Tibet being able to extract more oxygen from thin air, Bushmen being short, etc. But I did not ask about your beliefs. You did claim that Murray was within the mainstream, and I asked if you have any examples of peer-reviewed publications supporting Murrays claims? ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/165 "2017-04-24T20:42:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It would, however, be perfectly likely for large populations to have no statistically significant difference in average levels of a trait that’s among our species’ traits most significant in survival and reproduction. I think this is a good argument. I personally think there are always trade-offs for marginal increases in intelligence, and the genetic selection on it will therefore differ between populations. I’m not claiming that it is settled though. Just that this is quite a mainstream opinion to hold within the field. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/166 "2017-04-24T20:46:13Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > But I did not ask about your beliefs. You did claim that Murray was within the mainstream, and I asked if you have any examples of peer-reviewed publications supporting Murrays claims? Im saying that I think it’s extremely difficult to distangle the importance of environment vs genetics between populations, and I am not familiar with any publication making an attempt to do this definitely, neither supporting nor disproving the claim. But that doesn’t mean we should assume that genetics has no influence on the differences between populations, that would be a totally unsubstantiated leap. ---
**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 24, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/167 "2017-04-24T20:46:50Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Look, we _know_ why results are worse for African-Americans. They generally go to worse schools, they face racism in many aspects of schooling… See? There it is. This is what pisses me off. You do realize that the “worse schools” you refer to (talking out your ass) are heavily staffed by black teachers and administrators? Is that what makes them “worse” IYO? :dubious: I would invite everyone to read the [Mother Jones article](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/08/mission-high-false-low-performing-school) I posted about one of these supposedly “failing schools”. Here’s an excerpt: > [@](#): > > Judging from what I’d read about “troubled” schools, I’d expected noisy classrooms, hallway fights, and disgruntled staff. Instead I found a welcoming place that many students and staff called “family.” After a few weeks of talking to students, I failed to find a single one who didn’t like the school, and most of the parents I met were happy too. Mission’s student and parent satisfaction surveys rank among the highest in San Francisco. Yet this school is in danger of being shut down by outside bureaucrats, simply because its test scores are low. [WNYC reported last April](http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-happened-when-one-new-jerseys-poorest-school-districts-increased-spending/) on the results in Camden, a district with only 15% white enrollment, after twenty years of a massive increase in funding: > [@](#): > > In 1997, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school funding formula was leaving behind poor students. It ordered millions of dollars in additional funding to 31 of the then-poorest districts — until the state could come up with a new, better formula. > > Today, many of those poorest districts are still outspending some of the state’s most affluent schools. But Eric Hanushek, who studies education funding at Stanford University, says much of that money hasn’t paid off. > > “They’re currently spending 2.5 times the national average, and there’s no real evidence that they’re closing the achievement gap or that they’re doing significantly better,” Hanushek said.[…] > > [Camden superintendent] Rouhanifard says focusing only on test scores overlooks the good the increased funding has done. > > “If you read the stories about Camden from the early 90s, late 80s, it was a really, really horrendous situation where schools couldn’t offer basic meals for their kids,” he said. “They didn’t even have cafeterias. They didn’t have basic textbooks.”[…] > > Camden recently spent $5 million on new textbooks — because students needed them and the district could afford them. > > “That doesn’t translate into student achievement, but we’re in a very, very different place,” he insists. So yes, absolutely: let’s make sure all black kids get to go to schools with good facilities, with new textbooks, programs to provide them meals (not just at school, but food they can take home, like my wife does at her school for her disadvantaged students), even [laundry washing facilities](http://www.today.com/parents/schools-find-one-simple-answer-attendance-problem-washing-machines-t101318). But if parents and students are happy, yet test scores stay low, let’s leave it alone and stop accusing teachers of undermining their students due to racism because they fail to squeeze blood from a turnip. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/168 "2017-04-24T20:48:41Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > First, we agree that genetics has some influence on IQ within a population, right? Question. [Has there been a large influx of high-IQ people into Kenya](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743)? (Actually, the study abstract is pretty clear - “The hypotheses that resonate best with our findings are those related to parents’ literacy, family structure, and children’s nutrition and health.” So… Probably not.) We can agree that genetics has some influence on IQ much in the same way that genetics has some influence on whether or not you’ll grow up to be the world’s greatest hedge fund manager. Sure, it has _some_ influence, but _holy shit_ does that influence pale in comparison to other environmental factors. That’s the key thing here. There are a lot of factors, mostly environmental, that influence your intelligence. If you grow up suffering from chronic malnutrition, [your brain suffers](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001448866990096X). If you grow up in a place with little to no access to schooling, you’re not gonna learn much. If your parents don’t value education, or have no way to give you an education, you’re going to be dumb like they are. And so on and so forth. This is the key point that really demolishes any claim that Murray may have to being right - the apparent effect of genetics on IQ (and given that we can’t isolate any gene or any number of genes that have a significant impact on intelligence in neurotypical individuals, the effect is simply apparent, and not demonstrated) are utterly _swamped_ by the effects present in the environment. Environmental factors matter. They matter a _hell_ of a lot. There’s absolutely no way to discount them. But what space is there left for any hypothetical “racial IQ” once we correct for them? Well… Ask Kenya. ---
**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 24, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/169 "2017-04-24T20:50:36Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > the dopers board is still filled with science deniers I see. Because environment plays a role all populations are identical above the neck and we expect to see virtually zero differences in aptitude. > > OK. I see that this fool narrative is alive and well. Well, not my problem that you want to be in the certifiable column of racist fools. Read it again, I’m not saying that “we expect to see virtually zero differences in aptitude.” Think, you straw man with an appropriate straw brain intelligence, All having the capacity of inheriting intelligence does not = all have the same intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/170 "2017-04-24T20:51:08Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Addressed on the podcast, and a perfect illustration of why I am not interested in engaging with anyone who doesn’t listen to it. The discussion there is already in response to what you said here. If you had specific rebuttals to those responses , that would be contributing something new and interesting. > > But I will just point out that if race is make-believe, the same must needs be true of rac_ism_. You can’t have it both ways. I’m convinced these people are li… not arguing in good faith at this point. They start with the presumption that all populations and races have equal average intelligence and work backward. They are loathe to go back to some ancient racist model of the hierarchy of man and are too dimwitted and uninspired to argue against that conclusion if we accept that there are group differences in iq. I accept group differences in average iq, and I do not want to go back to some hierarchy of man. It is a LAZY and thoughtless fantasy to suggest people will automatically go to that place. You ought to still treat people as individuals, but are there consequences? Yes. I often see articles railing against tech firms for not having enough minorities working for them, especially in engineering fields. This of course, does not include asians, the latter group are over represented but since they do well they do not count against the narrative. An HONEST person would look at the stats and conclude that the tech companies are NOT some white boys club with that many asians. But I digress, one consequence is that the reason we see less blacks and hispanics in such employment is that they have fewer black and hispanic applicants to pick from, and if you go to university graduation rates and degrees, you find there are far fewer black and latino minorities either taking or graduating in stem fields like computer science. Why is that? Is THAT because society is oppressing black people in modern times? I think a larger factor is that there are fewer black people that have the chops to cut it in fields like computer science. NO ONE likes that possibility, and so there are two main responses. Deny it’s a reality (most of the intellectual cowards on this board), or accept it and try to do something about it or compensate for such realities in other ways. I want a ubi, in part because I think modern society is increasingly rewarding people with greater aptitude in our capitalistic economy. So one of my near term solutions is not to try to make all groups equally likely to be physicists, it’s to redistribute to minimize the downsides of not winning the genetic lottery, regardless of race. As a consequence of this, since I think black people have a lower average iq, they will get a disproportionate benefit from this kind of intervention. Is that me saying fuck the blacks, it’s not societies fault so let people wallow in the gutter? IS it? The second thing I want is what is already happening in China. BGI is sequencing the genomes of people and cataloging their iq and aptitude to try to tease out what gene combinations lead to what. Long term, I want us to offer the ability to enhance the children of anyone who wishes to boost stats like health and intelligence. Once we can do that last, it won’t MATTER that after tens of thousands of years of human migration and isolated development and civilization there were some measurable differences in average intelligence between populations, we can just boost people up through gene alterations so that NO person or group is left behind that does not wish to be. How is that racist? This is a LIBERAL policy of trying to help people after accepting that there are group differences. Accepting the latter does NOT imply we turn into conservative assholes. Conversely, those righteous LIBERALS who deny the effects of intelligence on the fates of men, or that there are ANY meaningful group differences, are actively fucking over the very people they claim to be defending. Why? Because they misdiagnose the problem. Intel and google are not anti black, that is not the reason there are fewer black engineers, we need more blacks that go into computer science and can do well. And if a large part of the reason that is not happening is because of different gene averages that contribute to intelligence, then we need to work to fix that, not pretend it has no bearing on reality. It’s like trying to bleed out a founder vs tackling the germ theory of disease. I do not CARE if you do not know how to fix things with the latter model a couple hundred years ago, it’s the correct model, so you need to shift focus towards things that actually help and will ACTUALLY matter. God, sometimes I hate liberals. This thread is full of incalculable wishful thinking, we’re all the same! Children. Nature does not give a fuck that we are more equal, WE do as human beings, and WE have to be the ones to make that happen. Not just pretend nature is egalitarian like we are. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/171 "2017-04-24T20:52:13Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > Murray supports a form of universal basic income. Which isn’t welfare, not by a long shot. IIRC in _Losing Ground_, he proposed that everyone should get a lump sum at their 18th birthday, amounting something like $10,000 – I’m not sure what the modern-day equivalent would be, but it’s a joke thinking something like that would ameliorate wealth inequality. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/172 "2017-04-24T20:53:02Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Or, many might say, of _Bell Curve_ “infamy”. But it sounds like he’s gotten a raw deal. > > I’d be interested in discussing [this podcast,](https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/forbidden-knowledge) but I would ask that you actually \*listen \*to it in its entirety before weighing in. If you listen at 1.5x speed like I do (though you’d have to use a podcatcher of some sort to do that, or wait a few days until Sam puts it up on YouTube), it’s only an hour and a half of your time. > > In case anyone’s wondering why I posted this in the Pit: the title of the episode is “Forbidden Knowledge”, and that kind of says it all. Sam said he thinks _The Bell Curve_ was the most controversial book of the past half-century, and as they dig increasingly into its contents, he talks about “beginning to pull out the control rods” and so on. Can you give us a hint about what you are trying to debate or pit? Is there something new being unveiled in this podcast or is it just a conversation with a guy that most people on this board already have pretty calcified opinions about? ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/173 "2017-04-24T20:53:36Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > Im saying that I think it’s extremely difficult to distangle the importance of environment vs genetics between populations, and I am not familiar with any publication making an attempt to do this definitely, neither supporting nor disproving the claim. But that doesn’t mean we should assume that genetics has no influence on the differences between populations, that would be a totally unsubstantiated leap. Are you aware of any peer reviewed studies showing that there **are** differences between populations ? How large is such a difference and what is the confidence? ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/174 "2017-04-24T20:55:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, not my problem that you want to be in the certifiable column of racist fools. > > Read it again, I’m not saying that “we expect to see virtually zero differences in aptitude.” Think, you straw man with an appropriate straw brain intelligence, All having the capacity of inheriting intelligence does not = all have the same intelligence. You do not know what racism is. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/175 "2017-04-24T20:58:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Question. [Has there been a large influx of high-IQ people into Kenya](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743)? The heritability of IQ _within_ Kenya is still high. Even if the whole population is rapidly rising in IQ. That’s the point. This is accepted, and can be read about on wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/176 "2017-04-24T21:00:17Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > You do not know what racism is. Alright I’ll bite, what do you think **is** racism? If theories of racial hierarchy of intelligence/etc isn’t racist, I’m truly curious on what qualifies. ---
**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 24, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/177 "2017-04-24T21:03:15Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > You do not know what racism is. I guess you are also an ignorant that I’m a Hispanic with English as a second language and I have had encounters with racists in Red Arizona. Thank you very much. Yep, at least we know about the foolish part, for the racist part (to see if you are not one) I expect to see you criticize the OP that has already been on record of putting this thread in the Pit just because he was afraid to run into the hate speech rules for other forums, \*\*I do not wonder anymore why he did that. \*\* ---
**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 24, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/178 "2017-04-24T21:04:31Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > It’s a podcast, plenty of people listen to longer talks in their car or on commutes. It’s not like the average time spent on television and other entertainment each week dwarfs the time spent on this talk. Indeed; and as you note, podcasts are especially easy to fit in. I have a hard time finding time for all the TV shows I want to watch or books I want to read, but because I’m spending a lot of time cooking or doing dishes, I can easily listen to podcasts. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No one is denying that different populations of people can have different genetic characteristics. > > But the analysis of populations becomes less and less useful as you zoom out, and less and less useful as you classify arbitrarily. The black race is both zoomed out quite far and also quite arbitrarily defined (to the extent it is defined at all). Yes, and I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that. It is my view that they should be seen as the default group of humans, where most of the variety in the genome lies, and groups like East Asians and Northern Europeans should be seen as the much less diverse, more homogenous subgroups whose individual characteristics include higher IQ. It’s not hard to imagine that a group intrepid enough to push that far away from home would be self-selected for intelligence, nor that they would face greater environmental pressures once they were far into the hinterlands. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > We can agree that genetics has some influence on IQ much in the same way that genetics has some influence on whether or not you’ll grow up to be the world’s greatest hedge fund manager. Sure, it has _some_ influence, but _holy shit_ does that influence pale in comparison to other environmental factors. That’s the key thing here. There are a lot of factors, mostly environmental, that influence your intelligence. If you grow up suffering from chronic malnutrition, [your brain suffers](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001448866990096X). If you grow up in a place with little to no access to schooling, you’re not gonna learn much. If your parents don’t value education, or have no way to give you an education, you’re going to be dumb like they are. And so on and so forth. > > This is the key point that really demolishes any claim that Murray may have to being right - the apparent effect of genetics on IQ (and given that we can’t isolate any gene or any number of genes that have a significant impact on intelligence in neurotypical individuals, the effect is simply apparent, and not demonstrated) are utterly _swamped_ by the effects present in the environment. Environmental factors matter. They matter a _hell_ of a lot. There’s absolutely no way to discount them. But Murray does not discount them. Just the opposite. I shouldn’t even indulge you when you won’t even listen to what the guy says, but my resistance is wearing down. I do wish there were a transcript so I could quote verbatim, but he talks about how your genetics only give you your potential, and then your environment is hugely responsible for how that plays out. Your genes provide your maximum potential at various abilities, and virtually no one ever reaches their potential in any one thing, much less in all things. If you have the genes to be a world-class marathoner, you still have to get good nutrition and spend years at carefully managed and grueling training to actually get to where you can win a race. But _without the right genes_, all the nutrition and high-tech training in the world won’t get you any further than being a talented amateur, a weekend warrior. I’m going to keep asking people: how do you explain what happened in the study cited in the \*Freakonomics \*transcript? How about the experience in Camden? Why do school reformers never seem to get anywhere, at least if the goal is eliminating (or even significantly narrowing) the score gap between black and white kids? And why do kids raised in affluent black families still lag behind their affluent white peers? ---
**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 24, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/179 "2017-04-24T21:08:11Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But Murray does not discount them. Just the opposite. I shouldn’t even indulge you when you won’t even listen to what the guy says, but my resistance is wearing down. Assholes usually do not resist, I see. ---
**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 24, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/180 "2017-04-24T21:10:10Z")
**Salvor** , awesome, awesome post (#170). Great point about genetic engineering, too, which will make this all moot once people get over their squickiness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=10)