The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
NYT: "Charles Murray's 'Provocative' Talk"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From the New York Times:

Charles Murray’s ‘Provocative’ Talk
Gray Matter
By WENDY M. WILLIAMS and STEPHEN J. CECI APRIL 15, 2017

The talk that the political scientist Charles Murray attempted to deliver last month at Middlebury College in Vermont must have been quite provocative — perhaps even offensive or an instance of hate speech. How else to explain the vehement opposition to it? …

Mr. Murray ended up giving a version of his talk later that day, via livestream, from another room. How extreme were his views?

We have our own opinion, but as social scientists we hoped to get a more objective answer. So we transcribed Mr. Murray’s speech and — without indicating who wrote it — sent it to a group of 70 college professors (women and men, of different ranks, at different universities). We asked them to rate the material on a scale from 1 to 9, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, with 5 defined as “middle of the road.” We also offered them a chance to explain why they gave the material the score they did.

American college professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Still, the 57 professors who responded to our request gave Mr. Murray’s talk an average score of 5.05, or “middle of the road.” Some professors said that they judged the speech to be liberal or left-leaning because it addressed issues like poverty and incarceration, or because it discussed social change in terms of economic forces rather than morality. Others suggested that they detected a hint of discontent with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president. No one raised concerns that the material was contentious, dangerous or otherwise worthy of censure.

We also sent the transcript to a group of 70 college professors who were told that the speech was by Mr. Murray. The 44 who responded gave it an average rating of 5.77. That score is significantly more conservative, statistically speaking, than the rating given by the professors unaware of the author’s identity (suggesting that knowing Mr. Murray was the author colored the evaluation of the content). Even still, 5.77 is not too far from “middle of the road.”…

Our data-gathering exercise suggests that Mr. Murray’s speech was neither offensive nor even particularly conservative. It is not obvious, to put it mildly, that Middlebury students and faculty had a moral obligation to prevent Mr. Murray from airing these views in public.

Of course, many of the protesters may have been offended by Mr. Murray’s other scholarship, in particular his controversial 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” written with the Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, which examined intelligence, social class and race in America. Or rather, they may have been offended, as many people have been, by what they assume “The Bell Curve” says; only a small fraction of the people who have opinions about that book have actually read it. (Indeed, some people protesting Mr. Murray openly acknowledged not having read any of his work.)

“The Bell Curve” has generated an enormous literature of scholarly response and rebuttal, a process that is still underway. Many scholars have deemed the book’s most provocative argument — that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes — to be flawed and racist. Some have judged it to be judicious and reasoned, if still controversial. But its academic critics have nonetheless treated it not as hate speech to be censored but as a data-based argument with which they must engage in order to disagree. ….

Not everyone deserves to get to speak at a college campus. But those like Mr. Murray who use reasoned, evidence-based approaches to investigate matters of scholarly concern shouldn’t be forcibly silenced after they have been invited to do so.

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci are professors of human development at Cornell.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I don’t know, but I have a feeling that if Prof. Williams or Prof. Ceci had delivered Murray’s speech at Middlebury the students still would have protested. I think that their indoctrination is deep and complete.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    One of the chants at Columbia was "Charles Murray, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide," so, no, I think his reputation precedes him.
    , @NOTA
    I disagree. The protests had nothing to do with the content of Murray's speech. The protesters didn't know what Murray believed or had said on any topic. Probably none or almost none had ever bothered reading any of his essays or books, and certainly not the horrible offensive evil book that got the SPLC to call him a white supremacist. At most, they may have read some carefully chosen excerpts that convinced them they were on the side of the angels.

    In a few years, the subset of the protesters who turn out to be worth anything as adults will look back on this with embarrassment.
    , @cucksworth
    I feel like the Middlebury students were whipped up into an irrational frenzy by that raycist Mr Murray who did research then published it.

    This is a weird tack for the NYT to take though?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/nyt-charles-murrays-provocative-talk/#comment-1838464
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. But those like Mr. Murray who use reasoned, evidence-based approaches to investigate matters of scholarly concern shouldn’t be forcibly silenced after they have been invited to do so.

    Respectable people agree it should happen before.

    Read More
    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @Half Canadian
    Any reason why they wouldn't refer to him as Dr.?
  3. Kevin C. says:

    Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci are professors of human development at Cornell.

    And I’m sure this isn’t going to have any negative repercussions for Profs. Williams and Ceci’s careers from here on. /sarc

    Read More
  4. Ivy says:

    The good professors used a few telling phrases in their defense of the academy.

    So we transcribed Mr. Murray’s speech and — without indicating who wrote it — sent it to a group of 70 college professors (women and men, of different ranks, at different universities).

    Not everyone deserves to get to speak at a college campus.

    [emphasis added]

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Not everyone ought to be invited to speak at a college because most don't have anything worthwhile to say. Bozo the clown shouldn't be invited to give a talk, because he's a clown. Murray may be wrong, even wrongheaded, but he's a serious scholar and is likely to have something interesting and thought-provoking to say.
  5. I get suspicious when I see the NY Times reporting in a seemingly reasonable manner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Conceding ground already lost.

    No surprise.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Maybe they're getting a tad nervous that they can't control their Frankenstein.

    The BDS movement likely is disconcerting. Presumably Jewish money and influence can handle the problem, but it does show them that this new generation of SJWs - composed of many black, Hispanics, South Asians NE Asians - doesn't have Holocaust guilt which makes whites cower.
  6. JohnnyD says:

    Hmmm, it sounds like Charles Murray isn’t the Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist/Klansman/White Supremacist/Hater/Racist/Homophobe the SPLC has made him out to be.

    Read More
  7. Many scholars have deemed the book’s most provocative argument — that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes — to be flawed and racist.

    So evidently Williams and Ceci haven’t read The Bell Curve, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Why do you say that? See page 311 result for this search
    , @415 reasons
    How is the idea that intelligence may be influenced by nature as well as nurture controversial--let alone racist? Would anyone say it is controversial (or racist) to suggest that there may be a genetic as well as environmental cause for Steph Curry and Klay Thompson of the Golden State Warriors both being the sons of NBA players? Anything other than doctrinaire blank slateism is apparently controversial and racist now.
    , @Yngvar
    They're admitting that there is something called I.Q. score and that different races aren't scoring equally. They're in for a world of pain.
  8. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Buffalo Joe
    I don't know, but I have a feeling that if Prof. Williams or Prof. Ceci had delivered Murray's speech at Middlebury the students still would have protested. I think that their indoctrination is deep and complete.

    One of the chants at Columbia was “Charles Murray, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide,” so, no, I think his reputation precedes him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Anonymous, do these students even know what genocide is? Have they never heard of Pot Pol or Stalin?
  9. @Peripatetic commenter
    I get suspicious when I see the NY Times reporting in a seemingly reasonable manner.

    Conceding ground already lost.

    No surprise.

    Read More
  10. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The popular view on the Syrian attack is that Trump blinked. He wasn’t able to withstand the constant hammering of the mainstream media which had sent his approval rating down to 35%.

    However, the anti-Russia hysteria that was engulfing the US MSM was equally, if not more, a sign of weakness of the US.

    Russia itself — a regional power with modest economic power — was being built up as having the ability to dominate and control the US political process. Wow, just wow. In Putin’s wildest dream.

    The Times needed to change the subject.

    As far as the anti free speech campus movement, hysteria is once again a sign of weakness. The argument is that the students are too fragile to tolerate an idea that hasn’t been ‘curated’ for political correctness. They need trigger warnings. And those that aren’t mentally disabled, if not mentally ill, are too intellectually fragile to simply ignore or calmly dismiss speakers that aren’t similarly curated.

    Universities are getting pushback from rank and file alums who make their modest annual donations as a matter of course. If it is happening there, the development departments are surely getting some pushback.

    The University of Chicago is already setting itself up as an institution officially backing away from political correctness.

    And how are students who are sensitive to micro aggression able to even enforce these bans? At Berkeley, it was obvious that they had to import muscle from Oakland Black Bloc Anarchists.

    In fact — or in my opinion — a lot of this is coming from a multi year history of mob violence on Facebook. That is, virtual violence, shout downs, etc. Real mob violence is outside the scope of anything close to experience.

    Free Speech has a nice ring to it and Social Media is fluid. Virtue mobs are rooted in their minds and inherently fragile.

    This is hardly a coherent argument. Just the thought that the Times want and need an escape from hysteria. It isn’t like they can’t push their agenda with persistent and grounded criticism.

    Read More
  11. Svigor says:

    Good piece, but I have to say:

    The talk that the political scientist Charles Murray attempted to deliver last month at Middlebury College in Vermont must have been quite provocative — perhaps even offensive or an instance of hate speech. How else to explain the vehement opposition to it?

    Her dress must have been quite provocative, perhaps even offensive. How else to explain the violent rape resulting from it?

    Mr. Murray ended up giving a version of his talk later that day, via livestream, from another room. How extreme were his views?

    The pop star had broadcast a music video earlier that day, via the internet. How extremely slutty was it?

    Read More
  12. The Z Blog says: • Website

    Some professors said that they judged the speech to be liberal or left-leaning because it addressed issues like poverty and incarceration, or because it discussed social change in terms of economic forces rather than morality. Others suggested that they detected a hint of discontent with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president.

    We live in an anti-intellectual age, at least when it comes to public policy debates. The hive mindedness the Left has imposed on society results in “liberal” meaning concerns about poverty and incarceration. Never mind that liberals have not given a tinker’s damn about the poor in decades. It’s the idea that liberal and conservative are just lists of current political positions that often mean nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    A hint of discontent? Do these chaps know anything about the political leanings of one Charles Q. Murray? It's not exactly a secret. Why are we listening to ignoramuses?
  13. newrouter says:

    math is hard credential class edition:

    ” are overwhelmingly liberal. Still, the 57 professors who responded to our request gave Mr. Murray’s talk an average score of 5.05, or “middle of the road.””

    “We also sent the transcript to a group of 70 college professors who were told that the speech was by Mr. Murray. The 44 who responded gave it an average rating of 5.77. That score is significantly more conservative, statistically speaking, than the rating given by the professors unaware of the author’s identity ”

    “Finally, we divided Mr. Murray’s speech into 10 portions and got ratings on each portion from a paid sample of 200 American adults via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online marketplace for jobs and tasks. These participants identified themselves as having an average political orientation of 4.21, or leaning slightly liberal. When their ratings for the 10 sections were averaged, they too gave the talk a centrist score: 5.22. ”

    the ruining class are dumber than door knobs.

    Read More
  14. @anon
    The popular view on the Syrian attack is that Trump blinked. He wasn't able to withstand the constant hammering of the mainstream media which had sent his approval rating down to 35%.

    However, the anti-Russia hysteria that was engulfing the US MSM was equally, if not more, a sign of weakness of the US.

    Russia itself -- a regional power with modest economic power -- was being built up as having the ability to dominate and control the US political process. Wow, just wow. In Putin's wildest dream.

    The Times needed to change the subject.

    As far as the anti free speech campus movement, hysteria is once again a sign of weakness. The argument is that the students are too fragile to tolerate an idea that hasn't been 'curated' for political correctness. They need trigger warnings. And those that aren't mentally disabled, if not mentally ill, are too intellectually fragile to simply ignore or calmly dismiss speakers that aren't similarly curated.

    Universities are getting pushback from rank and file alums who make their modest annual donations as a matter of course. If it is happening there, the development departments are surely getting some pushback.

    The University of Chicago is already setting itself up as an institution officially backing away from political correctness.

    And how are students who are sensitive to micro aggression able to even enforce these bans? At Berkeley, it was obvious that they had to import muscle from Oakland Black Bloc Anarchists.

    In fact -- or in my opinion -- a lot of this is coming from a multi year history of mob violence on Facebook. That is, virtual violence, shout downs, etc. Real mob violence is outside the scope of anything close to experience.

    Free Speech has a nice ring to it and Social Media is fluid. Virtue mobs are rooted in their minds and inherently fragile.

    This is hardly a coherent argument. Just the thought that the Times want and need an escape from hysteria. It isn't like they can't push their agenda with persistent and grounded criticism.

    “Virtue mobs.” Good description.

    Read More
  15. res says:
    @Clark Westwood

    Many scholars have deemed the book’s most provocative argument — that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes — to be flawed and racist.
     
    So evidently Williams and Ceci haven't read The Bell Curve, either.

    Why do you say that? See page 311 result for this search

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    I have the book in front of me now. You (and Williams and Ceci) are right that TBC argues that racial differences in IQ may have some basis in genetics. The key paragraph (p. 311):

    "If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

    My incorrect memory was that they left open the possibility that the "mix" might be 0% genetic and 100% environmental.
  16. @Clark Westwood

    Many scholars have deemed the book’s most provocative argument — that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes — to be flawed and racist.
     
    So evidently Williams and Ceci haven't read The Bell Curve, either.

    How is the idea that intelligence may be influenced by nature as well as nurture controversial–let alone racist? Would anyone say it is controversial (or racist) to suggest that there may be a genetic as well as environmental cause for Steph Curry and Klay Thompson of the Golden State Warriors both being the sons of NBA players? Anything other than doctrinaire blank slateism is apparently controversial and racist now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You sound as if you don't even live in the Current Year. What are you, a time-traveler from some Previous Year?
  17. guest says:

    It requires two people to write this fluff.

    So Murray has been thoroughly inspected and found to be inside the bounds of human decency. Who’s next in the dock?
    Will they be so lucky?

    Read More
  18. guest says:
    @415 reasons
    How is the idea that intelligence may be influenced by nature as well as nurture controversial--let alone racist? Would anyone say it is controversial (or racist) to suggest that there may be a genetic as well as environmental cause for Steph Curry and Klay Thompson of the Golden State Warriors both being the sons of NBA players? Anything other than doctrinaire blank slateism is apparently controversial and racist now.

    You sound as if you don’t even live in the Current Year. What are you, a time-traveler from some Previous Year?

    Read More
  19. guest says:
    @The Z Blog

    Some professors said that they judged the speech to be liberal or left-leaning because it addressed issues like poverty and incarceration, or because it discussed social change in terms of economic forces rather than morality. Others suggested that they detected a hint of discontent with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president.
     
    We live in an anti-intellectual age, at least when it comes to public policy debates. The hive mindedness the Left has imposed on society results in "liberal" meaning concerns about poverty and incarceration. Never mind that liberals have not given a tinker's damn about the poor in decades. It's the idea that liberal and conservative are just lists of current political positions that often mean nothing.

    A hint of discontent? Do these chaps know anything about the political leanings of one Charles Q. Murray? It’s not exactly a secret. Why are we listening to ignoramuses?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Why are we listening to ignoramuses?
     
    Because Steve's brilliant and when he was growing up the Times was still published by Punch instead of Pinch.
  20. NOTA says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    I don't know, but I have a feeling that if Prof. Williams or Prof. Ceci had delivered Murray's speech at Middlebury the students still would have protested. I think that their indoctrination is deep and complete.

    I disagree. The protests had nothing to do with the content of Murray’s speech. The protesters didn’t know what Murray believed or had said on any topic. Probably none or almost none had ever bothered reading any of his essays or books, and certainly not the horrible offensive evil book that got the SPLC to call him a white supremacist. At most, they may have read some carefully chosen excerpts that convinced them they were on the side of the angels.

    In a few years, the subset of the protesters who turn out to be worth anything as adults will look back on this with embarrassment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    "In a few years, the subset of the protesters who turn out to be worth anything as adults will look back on this with embarrassment."

    How kind of you to imagine that some of these folks will turn out to be worth something. I don't have your optimism.
  21. NOTA says:
    @Ivy
    The good professors used a few telling phrases in their defense of the academy.

    So we transcribed Mr. Murray’s speech and — without indicating who wrote it — sent it to a group of 70 college professors (women and men, of different ranks, at different universities).
     

    Not everyone deserves to get to speak at a college campus.
     
    [emphasis added]

    Not everyone ought to be invited to speak at a college because most don’t have anything worthwhile to say. Bozo the clown shouldn’t be invited to give a talk, because he’s a clown. Murray may be wrong, even wrongheaded, but he’s a serious scholar and is likely to have something interesting and thought-provoking to say.

    Read More
  22. @guest
    A hint of discontent? Do these chaps know anything about the political leanings of one Charles Q. Murray? It's not exactly a secret. Why are we listening to ignoramuses?

    Why are we listening to ignoramuses?

    Because Steve’s brilliant and when he was growing up the Times was still published by Punch instead of Pinch.

    Read More
  23. Thea says:

    The violence was more an attack directed at the type of people who like Charles Murray than the man himself or what he said or wrote.

    Read More
  24. @res
    Why do you say that? See page 311 result for this search

    I have the book in front of me now. You (and Williams and Ceci) are right that TBC argues that racial differences in IQ may have some basis in genetics. The key paragraph (p. 311):

    “If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.”

    My incorrect memory was that they left open the possibility that the “mix” might be 0% genetic and 100% environmental.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for double checking and posting the quote.

    I am still amazed that such a reasonable argument (that paragraph and the supporting preceding pages of text) is met with such vitriol. Arguing that it must (or is even likely to) be 0% genetic is difficult to support (especially given heritability > 0.7!) so I think leaving open the possibility of 0% is usually a fig leaf.
  25. @Buffalo Joe
    I don't know, but I have a feeling that if Prof. Williams or Prof. Ceci had delivered Murray's speech at Middlebury the students still would have protested. I think that their indoctrination is deep and complete.

    I feel like the Middlebury students were whipped up into an irrational frenzy by that raycist Mr Murray who did research then published it.

    This is a weird tack for the NYT to take though?

    Read More
  26. @NOTA
    Not everyone ought to be invited to speak at a college because most don't have anything worthwhile to say. Bozo the clown shouldn't be invited to give a talk, because he's a clown. Murray may be wrong, even wrongheaded, but he's a serious scholar and is likely to have something interesting and thought-provoking to say.

    Hell I think Bozo should get an invitation.

    Read More
  27. the obvious question is of course whether a speech which would be rated “1″ or “9″ should be allowed on campus.

    Read More
  28. @Peripatetic commenter
    I get suspicious when I see the NY Times reporting in a seemingly reasonable manner.

    Maybe they’re getting a tad nervous that they can’t control their Frankenstein.

    The BDS movement likely is disconcerting. Presumably Jewish money and influence can handle the problem, but it does show them that this new generation of SJWs – composed of many black, Hispanics, South Asians NE Asians – doesn’t have Holocaust guilt which makes whites cower.

    Read More
  29. Ceci and Williams don’t appear to be (((them))), that’s gotta explain their moderate viewpoint.

    /s

    Read More
  30. Look, I don’t know why everyone is getting upset with these college protesters shutting down people like Murray. From everything that they’ve been taught from day one, what they’re doing is perfectly reasonable.

    Here’s their worldview:

    1. All groups are equally capable. Period.
    2. Certain groups – blacks and browns – both within the U.S. and worldwide are living dramatically worse than others – particularly whites – for no other reason than whites are cruel. (They don’t hear about Asians.)
    3. Not only are blacks and browns being deprived materially, but blacks and browns are being unfairly killed and imprisoned because of the racism – conscious and unconscious – of whites and the system as a whole. People are dying and losing their freedom every day because cruel, racist whites.
    4. For 50 years, liberals have been trying to fight this racism – racism that gets people killed, mind you – using various “nice” methods and have failed. Whites simply refuse to give up their racists ways.

    If that’s your worldview and everybody – TV, books, movies, POTUS, teachers, etc. – confirm that your worldview is correct, then Berkeley and Middlebury are long overdue and, frankly, pretty mild.

    These kids are being irrational. Their behavior is exactly what you’d expect given their officially sanctioned worldview.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    "These kids are being irrational."

    I think you meant to say they are being rational based on their officially sanctioned worldview.
  31. res says:
    @Clark Westwood
    I have the book in front of me now. You (and Williams and Ceci) are right that TBC argues that racial differences in IQ may have some basis in genetics. The key paragraph (p. 311):

    "If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate."

    My incorrect memory was that they left open the possibility that the "mix" might be 0% genetic and 100% environmental.

    Thanks for double checking and posting the quote.

    I am still amazed that such a reasonable argument (that paragraph and the supporting preceding pages of text) is met with such vitriol. Arguing that it must (or is even likely to) be 0% genetic is difficult to support (especially given heritability > 0.7!) so I think leaving open the possibility of 0% is usually a fig leaf.

    Read More
  32. I wonder how many people have read The Bell Curve cover to cover.

    It’s kind of frustrating; even in this era where someone is out tracking every single move you make, it’s still very hard to get reliable basic data on how many copies a book has sold (much less how many of those copies were actually read vs. sitting on dusty shelves). But supposedly outside a few big winners, it’s not very many. Like a few tens of thousands at most.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Bell Curve is usually said to have sold around 400,000 copies, which is a giant number for a graph-intensive work of social science.
  33. @Anonymous
    One of the chants at Columbia was "Charles Murray, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide," so, no, I think his reputation precedes him.

    Anonymous, do these students even know what genocide is? Have they never heard of Pot Pol or Stalin?

    Read More
  34. @guest
    You sound as if you don't even live in the Current Year. What are you, a time-traveler from some Previous Year?

    Sadly, yes I am. In a matter of speaking anyways.

    Read More
  35. @Jokah Macpherson
    I wonder how many people have read The Bell Curve cover to cover.

    It's kind of frustrating; even in this era where someone is out tracking every single move you make, it's still very hard to get reliable basic data on how many copies a book has sold (much less how many of those copies were actually read vs. sitting on dusty shelves). But supposedly outside a few big winners, it's not very many. Like a few tens of thousands at most.

    The Bell Curve is usually said to have sold around 400,000 copies, which is a giant number for a graph-intensive work of social science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This link says 400k copies in the first few months of release: http://www.intelltheory.com/bellcurve.shtml

    Amazon shows it as #4064 best seller in all books currently: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299
    This calculator estimates that as 717 sales per month: https://www.tckpublishing.com/amazon-book-sales-calculator/

    This book says it sold out its first print run of 125k copies.

    It would be interesting to have a more realistic estimate. Does anyone have a recent edition containing information on printings?
  36. res says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The Bell Curve is usually said to have sold around 400,000 copies, which is a giant number for a graph-intensive work of social science.

    This link says 400k copies in the first few months of release: http://www.intelltheory.com/bellcurve.shtml

    Amazon shows it as #4064 best seller in all books currently: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299
    This calculator estimates that as 717 sales per month: https://www.tckpublishing.com/amazon-book-sales-calculator/

    This book says it sold out its first print run of 125k copies.

    It would be interesting to have a more realistic estimate. Does anyone have a recent edition containing information on printings?

    Read More
  37. @Desiderius

    But those like Mr. Murray who use reasoned, evidence-based approaches to investigate matters of scholarly concern shouldn’t be forcibly silenced after they have been invited to do so.
     
    Respectable people agree it should happen before.

    Any reason why they wouldn’t refer to him as Dr.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    AA editor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baquet
  38. Yngvar says:
    @Clark Westwood

    Many scholars have deemed the book’s most provocative argument — that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes — to be flawed and racist.
     
    So evidently Williams and Ceci haven't read The Bell Curve, either.

    They’re admitting that there is something called I.Q. score and that different races aren’t scoring equally. They’re in for a world of pain.

    Read More
  39. @Yngvar
    They're admitting that there is something called I.Q. score and that different races aren't scoring equally. They're in for a world of pain.

    They’re made men, they’re good.

    Read More
  40. Old fogey says:
    @NOTA
    I disagree. The protests had nothing to do with the content of Murray's speech. The protesters didn't know what Murray believed or had said on any topic. Probably none or almost none had ever bothered reading any of his essays or books, and certainly not the horrible offensive evil book that got the SPLC to call him a white supremacist. At most, they may have read some carefully chosen excerpts that convinced them they were on the side of the angels.

    In a few years, the subset of the protesters who turn out to be worth anything as adults will look back on this with embarrassment.

    “In a few years, the subset of the protesters who turn out to be worth anything as adults will look back on this with embarrassment.”

    How kind of you to imagine that some of these folks will turn out to be worth something. I don’t have your optimism.

    Read More
  41. Old fogey says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Look, I don't know why everyone is getting upset with these college protesters shutting down people like Murray. From everything that they've been taught from day one, what they're doing is perfectly reasonable.

    Here's their worldview:

    1. All groups are equally capable. Period.
    2. Certain groups - blacks and browns - both within the U.S. and worldwide are living dramatically worse than others - particularly whites - for no other reason than whites are cruel. (They don't hear about Asians.)
    3. Not only are blacks and browns being deprived materially, but blacks and browns are being unfairly killed and imprisoned because of the racism - conscious and unconscious - of whites and the system as a whole. People are dying and losing their freedom every day because cruel, racist whites.
    4. For 50 years, liberals have been trying to fight this racism - racism that gets people killed, mind you - using various "nice" methods and have failed. Whites simply refuse to give up their racists ways.

    If that's your worldview and everybody - TV, books, movies, POTUS, teachers, etc. - confirm that your worldview is correct, then Berkeley and Middlebury are long overdue and, frankly, pretty mild.

    These kids are being irrational. Their behavior is exactly what you'd expect given their officially sanctioned worldview.

    “These kids are being irrational.”

    I think you meant to say they are being rational based on their officially sanctioned worldview.

    Read More
  42. Svigor says:

    “These kids are being irrational.”

    I think you meant to say they are being rational based on their officially sanctioned worldview.

    The rub is that their worldview is irrational. It’s like saying, “assume you have a can opener,” or, “if you concede that this nut really is Napoleon, then his behavior is perfectly rational.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    No, their worldview is perfectly rational. It fits everything that they've read and heard from their parents, teachers, professors, news reporters, politicians, books and the president. People are punished for espousing a different worldview by corporations and society.

    Their worldview is factly incorrect but perfectly rational given the facts that they are aware of. And given that they are well-educated kids going to high-level universities that back their views 100%, there's zero reason for them to think that their worldview is flawed.

    If every single person of authority tells you that this guy is Napoleon, leader of France, and you've never been taught that there was an original Napoleon; you're going to believe that this guy is Napoleon. What's more, you'll be praised and paid to believe it. That makes everything real.

    Their views perfectly fit their reality. And so long as their "reality" stays real to them, i.e. they go to good universities, get money from their parents, graduate, get a job that pays, etc., they will maintain their views because their views works extremely well in their reality.

    It's a bit of a Scott Adams things. None of see reality. We see just enough of it to work for us.

  43. @Svigor

    “These kids are being irrational.”

    I think you meant to say they are being rational based on their officially sanctioned worldview.

     

    The rub is that their worldview is irrational. It's like saying, "assume you have a can opener," or, "if you concede that this nut really is Napoleon, then his behavior is perfectly rational."

    No, their worldview is perfectly rational. It fits everything that they’ve read and heard from their parents, teachers, professors, news reporters, politicians, books and the president. People are punished for espousing a different worldview by corporations and society.

    Their worldview is factly incorrect but perfectly rational given the facts that they are aware of. And given that they are well-educated kids going to high-level universities that back their views 100%, there’s zero reason for them to think that their worldview is flawed.

    If every single person of authority tells you that this guy is Napoleon, leader of France, and you’ve never been taught that there was an original Napoleon; you’re going to believe that this guy is Napoleon. What’s more, you’ll be praised and paid to believe it. That makes everything real.

    Their views perfectly fit their reality. And so long as their “reality” stays real to them, i.e. they go to good universities, get money from their parents, graduate, get a job that pays, etc., they will maintain their views because their views works extremely well in their reality.

    It’s a bit of a Scott Adams things. None of see reality. We see just enough of it to work for us.

    Read More
  44. eah says:

    My vote is: not a turning point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The are few bodies less likely than Middlebury administration to serve as any kind of avant garde. If it is a turning point, we wouldn't know it by looking there.
  45. @eah
    My vote is: not a turning point.

    https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/853924848241868801

    The are few bodies less likely than Middlebury administration to serve as any kind of avant garde. If it is a turning point, we wouldn’t know it by looking there.

    Read More
  46. Svigor says:

    No, their worldview is perfectly rational. It fits everything that they’ve read and heard from their parents, teachers, professors, news reporters, politicians, books and the president. People are punished for espousing a different worldview by corporations and society.

    They’ve never heard “think for yourself,” “make up your own mind,” “do your own research,” “big brother is lying to you,” “question everything,” “challenge authority,” etc?

    Read More
  47. fondolo says:

    Murray is objectionable for one thing he says. “median 85.” theories don’t matter, 85 is the fact that cannot be faced.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored