I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
So people actually comment here that Murray is not some kind of pseudo-intellectual bigot? And these commenters aren't freeper trolls? Weird. I remember first hearing about The Bell Curve's main conclusion that because African-American I.Q. scores tend to be lower than white scores, there must be some sort of genetic factor involved: Murray's silence about social factors makes his bad "science" as plain as day. In other words, anybody that buys his bullshit probably already agrees with him and has been looking for some sort of jargony claptrap to justify their racism.
I just don't understand how anybody could take him as anything other than the white supremacist he actually is.
Your link to Sowell is MOST interesting; look forward to similar common sense links in the future.
But, inevitbaly, we revert to name calling. Sigh. I ASSUME that if Sowell encountered a racist, he --not being shy -- would hestitate not one instant before saying so. As I read his piece, his attitude seems to be: "possible, not proven".
Then again, if everyone simply admitted the irrelvance of race in any context, none of this would be an issue now, would it? If we simply treated everyone as individuals, instead of attempting to construct assertedly coherent interest groups, these debates would cease.
If we agree, then, that race is, and properly should be, officially irrelevant, why the opposition to the Racial Privacy Initiative? If race is nothing more than a social construct, would we not be better served by simply ignoring it?
Homo sapiens are so incredibly inbred that looking for "race" based genetic correlations to overall cognitive ability is laughable.
In fact, given the constrained continuum of expression of nearly all physical features, the concept of race itself is entirely arbitrary and exists still only because human beings as a general rule are stupid and uneducated, regardless of race.
Brenda- it boils down to the first 300 years since Europeans colonized America. One generation of civil rights laws have hardly leveled the playing field that was created between the 17th and 20th century.
Uhh, because Brenda a white man who serves jail time has an easier time getting a job than does a black man without a record. But hey, race doesn't matter.
If race is nothing more than a social construct, would we not be better served by simply ignoring it?
Yes, but only if you can get everyone to ignore it, which won't happen any time soon.
But most importantly, RPI’s passage will signal America’s first step towards a color-blind society.
How sweet it would be.
Be a realist, Brenda. It ain't gonna happen. Soon and probably never. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but the prejudices far outweigh the possibility.
We aren't making enough progress as humans. We always want to blame someone else for the shit that happens to us. That failing is not going to change anytime soon. Sad, but true.
We just need to keep pluggin' away. But we will never eradicate that kind of ignorance unless and until we can take a pill or submit to a brain readjustment.
If we agree, then, that race is, and properly should be, officially irrelevant, why the opposition to the Racial Privacy Initiative? If race is nothing more than a social construct, would we not be better served by simply ignoring it?
We agree that race is officially irrelevant, but you apparently think that means that it is not unofficially relevant. It is only through gathering such statistics that we determine whether or not there is institutional racism.
The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram did a study a few years ago that showed that at every stage in the criminal justice system, minorities faired worse than 'Whites'. Once the police became involved, minorities were more likely to be arrested. Once arrested, minorities were more likely to be charged with a crime. Once charged, minority defendants were more likely to be denied bail and more likely to go to trial. Once they went to trial, they were more likely to be convicted. Once convicted, they were more likely to get hard time instead of probation and those that got time tended to get more time than their 'white' peers.
This study and others like it give abundant evidence that race is still very much an unofficial factor in the workings of our criminal justice system. It should be obvious that the racial privacy initiative would eliminate the possiblity of doing such studies in the future.
The racial privacy initiative is a thinly veiled attempt to put a cloak over the racism in the system.
Just because race is a social construct soesn't mean it isn't a social reality. Traffic laws are a social construct. Should we ignore them?
I am actually somewhat hopeful on the issue of 'race' becoming less and less an issue as we mature (fingers crossed reeeeeeally hard, think good thoughts) as a culture. I can think of one example of how we have changed for the better, it isn't race but gender and it's a little thing but then "The mighty oak was once a nut like you."
I can remember the snarky tone of people on television as they encounterd "lady doctors" or "lady lawyers", or comments about "Who wears the pants in THIS family." That patronizing crap is almost immpossible to hear anymore and it isn't due to fear of lawsuits, it's because most people in this country genuinely don't think that way anymore. In my lifetime, and I'm not close to being a senior citizen yet, we've gone from Jim Crow to the idea of a black president not causing riots in the streets. There is still quite a way to go, but that isn't bad. The conservatives have bitched and bitched as each new group came forward and said "I claim my rights too. They bitched but they grew fewer and fewer in number, went into hiding and yes, Mr. Tanton and those of like mind, eventually you will come to an evolutionary dead end, and good riddance.
Brenda - imagine the world was divided into people who had brown eyes, and everyone else (green, blue, hazel, gray, etc.).
Now, we obviously know that eye color has nothing to do with anything. But, suppose it were a widespread problem that those with brown eyes frequently discriminated, both directly and indirectly, against everyone with differently colored eyes.
In order to stop this ongoing discrimination, we must first recognize it, correct? The issue has nothing to do with whether or not eye color actually means anything, but instead the fact that some in the powerful majority (brown eyes) think it does, and act based upon that belief. An Eye Color Privacy Initiative would directly stymie any efforts to correct said discrimination by forcing anyone who attempts to address it to deny its existence while allowing any who would discriminate to do so without being challenged.
Is that what you support?
Oh, I guess I meant that for the other thread, ooops.
Atrios: "Defend Murray and the Bell Curve and show yourself to be a fool, a bigot, or both."
I think Charles Murray has a nice euphonious name. And, "The Bell Curve" is quite a nice book title, unlike say "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle") which is a both bland and unpleasant book title, remarkably. "When Dinosaurs Roamed The Earth" is clearly the greatest title of all time.
Also, George Bush is quite good looking, in still photos when he's not smiling or squinting.
And, of course, if people were not fed a diet of blame and hate and finger-pointing...
I have to agree that my last comment was pretty damn foolish, thus confirming Atrios's theory. But I enjoyed it, so hey.
I'll also take that bet on the Lions.
Check out the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker for a very rational approach to some of the issues raised in this area of social science. There is a genetic heritable component to behavior, about 35-40% on an amazingly wide range of things one can measure. So you don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and say that it is all "enviromental".
But Murray and his defenders are a bunch of stinking racists. I am continually amazed at how people like Sowell (a historian), and Heckman (an economist) feel free to comment on things they know nothing about -- population genetics and multivariate statistics. Their arrogance is amazing. It's right up their with the pundits you see on the Sunday morning shows, making blithering fools of themselves at the tops of their lungs.
Thersites, your point about race was right on. We have created this reality, even if we can't actually define it in terms of population genetics.
Heckman is an econometrician. He knows about 'multivariate' statistics' than just about anyone on the planet.
this just gets me to a poin made by the black commedian on tough Crowd. 'yeah, white say just get over slavery, we had how many decades of that? yet, they bitch an moan after TWENTY years of AAction.."
Black are stil playing the game on Moguls.
Don't overlook Stephen Jay Gould's demolition of The Bell Curve either.
this is out of context -never the less - i thought id be the first to share:
http://www.whistleass.com/
The Bell Curve was refuted before it was written. Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man demolished centuries of racist "science".
Charles Murray is a reliable source if you applaud Tim McVeigh.
It's the typical conservative reaction to a problem they don't want to deal with -- stop collecting the metrics. No metrics, no problem.
And the Steven Pinker suggestion was right on, of course.
What are you saying . . . that he's not the guy who founded the Washington Monthly?
" Then again, if everyone simply admitted the irrelvance of race in any context, none of this would be an issue now, would it? If we simply treated everyone as individuals, instead of attempting to construct assertedly coherent interest groups, these debates would cease."
But RACE is relevant. As are genetics.
Blacks are prone to Cardiovascular disease among others. Obviously race is a factor here.
Light skin and Blue eyes are factors in certain types of cancer. Again race plays a large part.
Women think in different ways then men.
Race and genetics can not be removed from overall assumptions in anything.
Fact is, we just don't know enough about the differences between races.
"Homo sapiens are so incredibly inbred that looking for "race" based genetic correlations to overall cognitive ability is laughable. "
Not true what so ever.
Fact of the matter is isolated communities develope genetic traits that are specific to those communities.
Best go read some Anthropology.
The gene pool for the rest of the species is vast.
"But most importantly, RPI’s passage will signal America’s first step towards a color-blind society."
How ignorant that we want to ignore culture, and create a homgeneuos society.
What a great loss.
The more color the better. The more varying cultures the better.
"Now, we obviously know that eye color has nothing to do with anything."
Wrong. Blue eyed people are prone to Melanoma's, for example.
This is what is happening. The Mike/ Lionel conversation about liberalism. Can't find it though, this will have to do.
Jello Biafra/Album/Prarie Home Invasion
Song/Love Me I'm A Liberal
Phil Ochs/Jello Biafra/The Toadliquors)
I cried when they shot John Lennon Tears ran down my spine And I cried when I saw "JFK" As though I'd lost a father of mine But Malcolm X and Ice-T had it coming They got what they asked for this time
CHORUS
So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal
I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I'll honk if you love the Dead Hope those funny grunge bands become stars But don't talk about revolution That's going a little bit too far
CHORUS
I cheered when Clinton was chosen My faith in the system reborn I'll do anything to save our schools If my taxes ain't too much more And I love blacks and gays and Latinos As long as they don't move next door
CHORUS
Rush Limbaugh and the L.A.P.D. Should all hang their heads in shame I can't understand where they're at Arsenio should set them straight But if Neigborhood Watch doesn't know you I hope the cops take your name
CHORUS
Yeh, I read the New Republic(an) Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too If I vote it's a Democrat With a sensible economy view But when it comes to terrorist Arabs There's no one more red, white and blue
CHORUS
Once I was young and had an attitude Stickers covered the car I drove in Even went on some direct actions When there weren't rent-a-cops to be seen Ah, but now I've grown older and wiser And that's why I'm turning you in
CHORUS
----------------------------
If you can show that eye color causes melanoma, anonymous, you will get a Nobel.
I don't quite get brenda's argument here: Since race doesn't correlate well with IQ, it's useless as a concept? Why? What is it about IQ such that failure to track it makes a construct completely useless? Brenda, little help?
Brenda's argument, unfortunately, elides history, particularly the fact of the predominance of white supremacism as the operative worldview of white Americans before 1950, and the long-term intitutionalization of that worldview, whose effects are very much still with us.
It's just great that white people now agree that race should be an insignificant social factor -- when in fact they overtly practiced (indeed, celebrated) such racism for much of the time it was building the foundations for our current society. Anyone who is white who denies that this behavior did not affect the advantaged position they now enjoy is ignorant of history. Anyone who denies that racism is not still present and practiced widely is ignorant of reality.
And yes, I'm white.
I'm not a "self-hating" white, by the way. I'm not a guilt-ridden liberal.
I just believe in such old-fashioned concepts as a conscience.
I also agree that race is a illusory construct, but concede that the construct influences too much of society to ignore the fact that there are these categories. If we ignore these categories now while there are so many inequities, then they'll persist. The only way we can have a truly color-blind society is when we treat everyone equally. Then we can shed the construct.
This looks like a good place for a quote from Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, Peoples, and Languages:
Contrast the enthusiast acceptance of the book The Bell Curve and its racist message with the response to the information that the average Japanese IQ is greater than that of White Americans by 11 points, almost as much as the average difference between White Americans and Black Americans. Then, the response was: it is clear that American high schools are very bad.
the enthusiastic acceptance
Confession: I get quite irritated with those who get all high and mighty about the "left's'" idea that race is a "social construct" when they obviously have no idea what the term "social construct" means.
Heckman is an econometrician. He knows about 'multivariate' statistics' than just about anyone on the planet.
Wow, the only words I understand in that sentence come after "statistics"...
Anonymous: Women think in different ways then men.
Don't start with this sexist crap. There is no way to justify this statement; it may be true (who knows?), but it's impossible to determine the extent to which this is culturally influenced.
To quote the linked Sowell commentary (in the words of Mandy Patinkin, "I do not think it means what you think it means..."):
'In one sense, the issues are too important to ignore. In another sense the differences between what Herrnstein and Murray said and what others believe is much smaller than the latter seem to think. The notion that "genes are destiny" is one found among some of the more shrill critics, but not in The Bell Curve itself. Nor is race a kind of intellectual glass ceiling for individuals.'
You people should read the stupid article before assuming that Sowell is attempting a Gould-style demolition of The Bell Curve. He has serious objections, to be sure... but for the most part, it reads like a defense. His point is that most TBC criticism is just an elaborate takedown of a giant straw man.
As an anthropologist with a couple of sheepskins, I will submit here that genetics is merely the latest in a long line of obfuscatory quasi-scientific rationalizations for the status quo as a means of reducing the cognitive dissonance caused by racism. Going back to Franz Boas' time, it was skull measurements that were asserted to be the defining rationale for the superiority of NOrthern European whites to swarthy Italians, fiery Spaniards, the wily Philipino, etc. Didn't work out but you could certainly bury someone arguing against you with mounds of statistics.
The Bell Curve has as its premise the notion that the tests used are accurate measures that measure what they purport to measure. They quite simply do not. Ironically, television may be increasing IQ and other test scores for those people who live in the Arctic, urban environments, and farm areas. The tests are written to an artificial, suburban consensus reality that is irrelevant to many Americans. What they measure is acculturation to this consensus reality (Newt Gingrich used to talk about "Leave it to Beaver," but he didn't live it) that may not only be irrelevant, but may be maladaptive for the social and environmental context of the test subject.
Thank you, Bigfoot. Could this be rephrased as "intelligence is a social construct?"
Traditionally, someone would be considered black if their ancestry is 75% European and 25% African. We tend to see Tiger Woods as black and overlook his Asian heritage. Our usual notion of "race" is only vaguely related to genetics.
Trying to determine the relationship between two extremely ill-defined characteristics is probably not the best use of anyone's time and a very uncertain guide for public policy.
Here's a link to Gould's critique.
baker,
Sowell's critique, though done "nicely," is actually quite devastating.
Read more carefully.
Beware Pinker. He's slippery in a way you really have to watch out for. I agree heartily with the notion that you cannot construct workable, decent, peaceful and productive societies premised on the notion that the human identity is a blank slate that anyone can scribble their will upon. But Pinker throws around the “blank slate” charge a little too carelessly, sorta like the way the Iraq chickenhawks called everyone who wasn't in favor of war, and war right away, Saddam lovers.
Throughout the book, there's stuff like this:
A surprising number of intellectuals, particularly on the left, do deny that there is such a thing as inborn talent, especially intelligence. Stephen J. Gould's 1981 bestseller, The Mismeasure of Man, was written to debunk 'the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual., and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups – races, classes, or sexes – are innately inferior and deserve their status.' The philosopher Hilary Putnam, argued that the concept of a social theory called 'elitism' that is specific to capitalist societies...
...in other words, any of us could become a Richard Feynman or a Tiger Woods if only we were highly enough motivated and worked collectively.
I find it truly surreal to read academics denying the existence of intelligence.
-The Blank Slate, p149
Except of course, intelligence is not what was being argued against, but the specific measure being used of intelligence. Pinker is fully capable of reading for comprehension, so this kind of claptrap is deliberate. Throughout the book he is busy building, and then valiantly destroying some very formidable armies of strawmen. Unsurprisingly, he succeeds. I really wished the subject matter had been treated with more seriousness.
Read the book for its pointers to other good things. Digest what Pinker tells you with significant quantities of salt.
Hey what am I, chopped liver? 
MT's definitive Charles Murray page, complete with where he gets his money.
Then again, if everyone simply admitted the irrelvance of race in any context, none of this would be an issue now, would it
Brenda,
Emphasis mine. Until everyone gets with the program, RPI sweeps the problem under the rug. And once everyone does, it's irrelevant.
Atrios,
(nice to see you responding on such an old and long thread... thanks! 
Certainly, Sowell attacks TBC pretty severely ("devastating," yes) on some points.
But I've read the whole review a couple times through. He takes issue with "critics" of the book as often as he takes issue with points in the book itself. His review basically comes down to a big ole' "everybody's wrong here."
That's what I was trying to say... his review isn't kind to Murray, but it ain't exactly on your side either.
I know that _you_ are fairly circumspect in your criticisms of the book, but Sowell's "straw men" claim could easily apply to most of the discussion in this thread, too.
Ultimately, I feel everyone should just cool it. TBC is about as "scientific" as Wolfram's book, "A New Kind of Science." The only people still arguing about it are either ignorant, or have an axe to grind.
Murray's research is used to advance a racist propaganda, and many people still haven't gotten the message that it's bullshit.
Pinker battles straw men to make himself look smart, but I havne't found much that's insidious in his work other than that.
And, what does woflram have to do with anything?
Oh, and don't forget:
Charles Murray is a known cross-burner. (See the right-hand-side side bar.)
Atrios,
Darwin's research is often "used" to advance a racist agenda, too... but most biologists know not to judge a work by the way it's (mis)used.
If you're trying to spread "the message" of the mistakes in TBC (which I won't dispute), arguing that the book is used for racist purposes is beside the point. (So are attacks on Murray, even if he is a cross-burner and avowed-racist).
And as for Wolfram and ANKOS: it has plenty to do with The Bell Curve. Isn't one of the major objections to TBC based on the fact that it uses an incredibly flawed technique to draw conclusions which the data don't support? I've read large portions of Gould's Mismeasure of Man, and one of his (excellent) points seems to be that the whole notion of IQ doesn't take any kind of model selection argument into account, and is a statistical correlation frequently mistaken for causation.
This was, as I understood it, one of the reasons (of course, there are others) this work is published in book form instead of in peer-reviewed journals; reviewers would have seen the flaws, ripped it to shreds, and it never would have seen the light of day.
It's an analagous situation with Wolfram's book. Of course, Wolfram's work doesn't make an social claims (thank god)... but basically, he worked in isolation for years, and then self-published the book instead of going through the scrutiny of journal publication.
As a result, many researchers (at least, all the ones I know) who know something whereof he writes dismiss it... it's quixotic, flawed, derivative, and makes extravagant claims not supported by the data.
I think that's pretty relevant, actually... and it's the point of Sowell's review too. There's no need to set up strawmen to attack a book that's flawed already. There's no need to judge TBC based on the way it's "used," or the political opinions of its author.
It is attacked in a perfectly devastating way on its internal faults alone.
Quick, everyone go an buy a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs & Steel", which does a good job of refuting Murray's crap. If memory servers, Diamond says in the introduction that he wrote the book explicity as a rebuttal of Murray's "Bell Curve."
Both the critics and supporters of Murray's "Bell Curve theory " share an assumption: that if his theory were true, this would obligate or at least imply some sort of change in public policy. Why? The notion that "All Men are Created Equal" may be a legal fiction, but it is the most powerful statement of the last 250 years. Whaqt makes us human is the abilty to transcend biology, not be a slave to it.
You'd get the same response if you were trashing Arthur Jensen or J. Phillipe Rushton. Racists stick together, for some reason.
You'd get the same response if you were trashing Arthur Jensen or J. Phillipe Rushton. Racists stick together, for some reason.
You'd get the same response if you were trashing Arthur Jensen or J. Phillipe Rushton. Racists stick together, for some reason.
I do not think that Charles Murray is peachy.
http://herewego.tasuki.org/
Hi,
you're invited to visit my Dessous, Babymoden and my Handy site.
jjl
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
