Well, I actually did linked to an economist (and last I checked they do work a lot with statistics) that criticized Murray, did you ever wonder who he was?
I think you do not read, My post was to show that Murray did say that, what you are trying to omit, (and your bias is showing now BTW) is that the problem is that Murray ignored other research and the book does imply that there is a difference with the genes that give us intelligence between races.
Im quite confused about what you are saying or what I am allegedly trying to omit.
To try and clarify:
“Genetics plays a major role in IQ differences within a population”
Charles Murray has indeed said this, and also it is not controversial.
“Genetics plays a major role in IQ differences between populations”
(Or is the most important driver, etc.)
To my knowledge, Charles Murray has not said this
“Genetics likely plays some role in IQ differences between populations”
Charles Murray has said that this. Note that it is not the same claim as the one above it.
If you had read what I posted you would had noticed that me an many others are telling you that he did imply it. And many others like Heckman know what was going on.
And, as it is clear you are not reading yet, you just stopped when you thought you were clever to reply as you did. As Murray goes:
As noted, Murray wants to have it both ways. The proper way then would had been to say clearly that environmental pressures are the items that the current evidence point as being there. By going for “dysgenic” Murray brings genetics in from the back door and does not differentiate if genes or the environment are stronger. No, the implication is to toss a big bone to the scientific racists that are then finding a justification to impose their policies to the American society.
I don’t see anything wrong with that quote about dysgenic pressure. What part do you find disagreeable? We agree that differences in IQ is partly genetic, and we also agree that it’s hypothetically possible for lower IQ genes to spread more in the population, right?
As usual you want to get a “right” by avoiding the context that was mentioned.
The point was that genes were included in his explanation and by not mentioning how much it was the proportion the implication he made remains. (Again, Murray mentioned that since intelligence is highly inherited it does follow then that the blacks and Hispanics are, generally speaking, out of luck; and genes are an important reason why. Again, he does not say it directly, but seeing racists going for his recommended “solutions” should had been enough to see what the game of Murray is*)
What I see also coming from you is even a denial that experts, like Anthropologists, can also see through what Murray was equivocating.
-Jonathan Marks is Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and presently a Templeton Fellow at the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study.
again, not science because Murray did choose to avoid doing the proper thing.
I think we should only make accusations of Murray regarding things he has actually written, not of things people suspect it implies he might secretly think, or what other people have used his work to argue about.
Indeed, that was a major point of the podcast, on which this crazy thread was based.
EXPECT. Expect the world to be. And what do you expect? differences? identical average results between populations? or the null/coward move, you can’t say one way or another when it comes to any genetic influences.
And there it is, you abstain. The group differences we see, could be plausibly based on some environmental factors, or due to our sloppy understanding of intelligence. Or on some strange notion that the way we cut up groups makes no sense.
Newsflash, you can cut up groups any way you like. If I took black astrophysicists as a group, they would be smarter than 99.99% of the average member of every race people on this earth. As race is an extremely broad and fuzzy definition of a group.
None of this implies that because of the near infinite nature of the way groups can be sliced up, that differences between those sections cannot be seen and measured.
As to the highlighted section, if you just said that since we have no way to address group differences that are based on genetics at the moment, we ought to abstain from commentary or speculation, I can at least understand that point of view. At least in the public square. And perhaps the strident resistance to this data of correlations is a move to preserve that standard. But I need to work off whether I think something is true, full stop, and even if the consequences are terrible, I’d rather see the world in the shattered landscape that it is, so I know what to focus on when trying to make it better.
“And that is how I won the Iron cross…” Grandpa Simpson.
On a less humorous retort, that is why there were people that voted for Trump. What’s clear to many is that historians know how stupid are the ones that expected that things would be re-made after the revolution as the misleading new leader promised it to his deluded followers.
Seeing the world as it is means recognizing that differences in test scores or other outcomes are no more an indicator of genetics today than looking at outcomes from the past, like, say, the first invention of carbon steel in ancient Tanzania, or the conquering of Egypt by the Nubians.
Populations might differ in average genes for intelligence. Or they might not, considering how useful such a trait would be around the globe, and considering that most of humanity (certainly the vast majority of Europe, Africa, and Asia) has been exchanging genes for many thousands of years.
But even if they are, that tells us nothing about where various groups stand in such a hierarchy.
Notice how you minimize the expertise of the “people” you are trying to dismiss? Again, if Murray intended to claim all along that he was not giving genetics the importance racists are giving it, then he should had say so instead of equivocating.
And he is still doing it.
BTW your reply here does look more idiotic when one remembers that the ongoing point is that Murray avoided peer review, most of the ones I cited (like the Nobel price winner economist) did criticize Murray by also having others review their papers.)
If there is a big meta lesson here is this one: Pseudo scientists continue their arguments in the court of public opinion, science journals are for them places to run away from or to publish papers (in less reputed journals) that the pseudo scientist then tell their followers* what he really meant.
*Not followers that are deluded, I’m talking here about the ones like Betsy Devos and others at the AEI that are making that think tank a stink one.
Of course not. Different groups could easily have similar averages in their variable traits. I just find it extremely implausible that we’d find that in this one selected sphere of variable traits, like intelligence, that there would be literally zero differences in the averages between ALL human populations
