The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Slate: If You Want a Vision of the Future, Imagine a Boot Stamping on Charles Murray's Face - Forever.
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

From Slate:

The Kids Are Right

There’s nothing outrageous about stamping out bigoted speech.

By Osita Nwanevu

Charles Murray, an author and political scientist, was scheduled to give a lecture at Middlebury College earlier this month. Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people. On March 2, a mix of students and “outside agitators” shut down Murray’s talk and forced him off campus. A professor was injured and hospitalized, and Murray’s car was mobbed. …

This is, to borrow a phrase, a time for choosing. In the Trump era, should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning? Or should we dare to disagree?

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I can’t shake the feeling that Osita Nwavenu, or his ancestors, came from a culture that had different views about freedom of speech than ours does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Osita Nwanevu?? Is that one of those angry Asian SJW's that are always so upset by everything? I clicked the name. Oh. Yes,I see. Got it,but still,I had to laugh.
    , @guest
    I don't know about Freedom of Speech, but they have a problem with Freedom of Traipsing.

    By the way, this person (what is an Osita? Sounds female, but I wouldn't know) is careless with words, and possibly stupid. Is xe aware "traipse" means to move reluctantly? The Other Side, the side which xe will have no part of, insists Murray be allowed to traipse unhindered? Or, in other words, move reluctantly unhindered. Huh?

    My guess is they didn't want to say "walk unhindered," because the editor insists on pulling out a thesaurus for every third word. More likely, they wanted to subtly denigrate the abstract idea of perambulating bigots. Bigots can't just walk, like normal human beings and citizens in good standing. I get it.

    However, xe should've picked a more sinister verb, like "skulk" or "prowl." (Which calls to mind Rape Culture,* so double points!) But xe went with "traipse," bringing to mind weariness and fear. Demeaning enough, but why would a college need to reject the right of reluctant and weary bigots to step on sacred progressive grounds? That's the kind you want, because they're easy to deal with. Not that you have to suffer any of them. But imagine the rallying cries:

    To arms! We're being invaded by the free passage of reluctants!

    Doesn't really work, does? To say nothing of the mind-bending combination of unhindered reluctance.

    *My college freshman orientation informed me sexual assault is most commonly committed by men with traditional views, and I'm not even kidding. Murray, who is a squishy-con, libertarian, and probable progressive of the soul (that's my term for an indescribable quality of certain people's spirit), of course is tradition personified because he believes race exists. Therefore, he's probably a rapist.
    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
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/slate-if-you-want-a-vision-of-the-future-imagine-a-boot-stamping-on-charles-murrays-face-forever/#comment-1798725
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The writer is the son of Nigerian immigrants who grew up in NoVa. Why should anyone be surprised that such a fellow doesn’t appreciate the rights of Englishmen and their descendants? The British didn’t do that good of a job in carrying out their special Burden among the natives.

    Read More
  3. In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd’s reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one’s ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    This is a good point, and a reason to restrict skilled African and South Asian immigration.

    Denialism is on its last legs as each year lately the number of intelligence genes that have been id'd doubles or more.
    , @Clyde

    HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one’s ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.
     
    That your ancestors wasted their time and that you are (by any measure) just spinning your wheels. Korea was in such ruins after WW2 that it was no richer than some African nations.
    _______________________________

    Following the Korean War, South Korea remained one of the poorest countries in the world for over a decade. In 1960 its gross domestic product per capita was $79,[59] lower than that of some sub-Saharan countries.[60]--- wikipedia
    , @Frau Katze
    I don't think blacks will ever accept it.

    Heck, yesterday, a large number of Steve's commenters wouldn't accept that Far East Asians are slightly higher scorers in STEM subjects (isn't it only 5 points or so, going by IQ?)

    The gap between blacks and whites is a lot bigger.

    Why should they accept it? Answers from yesterday 's deniers, please.
    , @Altai
    I've noticed Americans don't have a substitute for the term 'Appalling Vista'. Coined incidentally by the English judge Alfred Denning who chose not to allow an appealing not for the sake of the evidence but for the implications of entertaining the idea at all. The consensus became that the men were framed by police under pressure to produce suspects and they were later acquitted after many years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

    In 1980, during an appeal by the Birmingham Six (who were later acquitted) Lord Denning judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions. He listed several reasons for not allowing their appeal:

    Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
     

    Basically the term means not dealing with something or not asking a certain question because of the implications it would raise.

    Funnily enough as it relates to other earlier comments, it turns out he was also against having certain groups sit on juries:


    In 1982 he published What Next in the Law; in it, he seemed to suggest some members of the black community were unsuitable to serve on juries, and that immigrant groups may have had different moral standards to native Englishmen.
     
    As always who whom and all that.
    , @Santoculto
    They take it at personal way, what usually happen with me when people talk bad but true things about homossexuality.

    Maybe it's not a question of genuine empathy to the people they belong but also the fear that if this truth become popularized they will be victimized or treated via racist way as happened in the near past, when everyone who belonging certain polemic group were treated equally bad.

    Maybe number 2, they are just anticipating to the [very possible] reality that other people is likely to treat them at old but bad ways.

    It's a emotional reacton, the other side often show generalized and natural hate against this ''sacred cows'.

    But also it can be a pure manifestation of non-universalist thinking style, always avoiding accept the responsibility of their own acts or the acts of their belonging group. A kind of super protective mother who always justify the mistakes of your loved son.

  4. Osita Nwanevu says We. Somehow that does not seem all-inclusive. The casual disregard for bedrock Constitutional values used to be shocking. Now it is commonplace on that side of the aisle. Where are the politicians and Sunday morning pundits denouncing such statements?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Maybe Osita's "UUe" is some sort of Nigerian tribe.
  5. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    In Africa, there is Big Man Speech. But no place for Bigot Speech. Big Man decide what is bigot or not-bigot. It is so simple.

    Read More
  6. Slate
    Salon
    Huffington Post
    Daily Kos
    Crooks and Liars
    The Watch ( a wapo blog)
    Just a few of the places on the web where virtue is signaled by supporting evil.
    For they may smile and smile and smile and be a villain nonetheless.

    Read More
  7. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Osita, if there is no racial difference, why the nation of your people so poor and nasty and violent? Why you leave your own people and culture to live under whites? You SAY ‘races are all equal’, but your ACTION suggest ‘white man have talent to make and run better society than blacks’.

    Osita, your choice of immigration is ‘racist’. You prefer white society as superior to non-whites ones. You favor white nation over non-white one.

    Why you not move to one of many African nation? Why to white majority nation?

    If you say, “I want to contribute to America”, why you want to contribute to a nation that is already richest and most powerful in the world? Don’t you want to help poor nation since you are such ‘progressive’ who care about ‘down and out’? Yet, you leave your poor country and not help develop it? You come to contribute to rich and powerful America?
    Why didn’t you go to poorer Latin American nation to contribute your talent? Why you come to contribute to rich and powerful nation when US will be just fine without your talent?

    Osita, you are bogus.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Well said, sir. Osita doesn't seem to be packing his bags to leave this supposedly oppressive and unjust society of ours anytime soon -- he's too busy trying to take away the remnant of our Constitutional rights and lecture us for being "racist" when we resist such loss of liberty.
    , @Surly
    Silly commenters, he's here to prepare the way.
  8. I don’t know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it’s definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    In other words, she blames Trump.
    , @Broski
    Video of the event shows Stanger chanting along with the crowd at times and raising her fists in one of their various power salutes. She's milking her "whiplash," which she claims caused a concussion, for what it's worth, but she deserves little sympathy for her craven and childish behavior immediately beforehand.
    , @Randal
    Pretty depressing stuff.

    An experience like that is an opportunity for a liberal to grasp reality, to recognise the sheer hatred, aggression and violence inherent in leftist ideology and "protest". It's clear from her words that she saw this at the time and was shocked by it, but since then she's had the chance to rationalise and to find ways to (absurdly) blame the political other side for it instead of confronting the truth.

    She had her chance to wake up, and instead she chose the blue pill. She'll probably remain delusional about reality for the rest of her life.
    , @European-American

    with time to reflect, I have to say that I hear and understand the righteous anger of many of those who shouted us down
     
    "I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to violently shout me down."

    What is wrong with these people?
    , @Lot
    Good link. Is this the first time a liberal has ever called out the SPLC in the NYTimes?

    Stranger is much smarter than the typical left wing female social science prof, she majored in accounting and math and did actuarial work for an insurance co before returning to academia. She seems to specialize in arguing against using private contractors to perform more and more public work, a good position to take.

    She is a throwback from the days when leftism meant something other than hating white people.
    , @Anonym

    I am not saying that students shouldn’t protest white nationalism. That it is immoral is not at issue. But there was a direct line between the fighting words on campus, the suppression of speech and the angry mob that gave me a concussion. All violence is a breakdown of communication.

     

    I wonder if this professor would castigate black nationalism, Han Chinese nationalism, or Arab nationalism as "immoral". As an academic, these questions should be posed. "Because nazis" is no excuse for race replacement of white people. WW2 ended 72 years ago. White nationalism is the logical response to immigration at race replacement levels in every white country.

    There is no excusing what happened at Middlebury, and those who prevented Charles Murray from speaking must be punished for violating college rules. But what the events at Middlebury made clear is that, regardless of political persuasion, Americans today are deeply susceptible to a renunciation of reason and celebration of ignorance. They know what they know without reading, discussing or engaging those who might disagree with them. People from both sides of the aisle reject calm logic, eager to embrace the alternative news that supports their prejudices.
     
    I grew up reading all the establishment arguments. In airport and hotel lounges, I will watch CNN if it's on. I read the mainstream papers. I am not uninformed, far from it. However, I have read the not-yet-establishment view, and it is the correct one. The Bell Curve is on the money.

    Democrat academics like this one, who don't have the courage to ask questions like the ones I have posed above, are responsible for the dumbing down of students. She needs to take a look in the mirror when she remarks about the celebration of ignorance. It was not the right that knocked her unconscious. Though it has been the race-realist right that academia, government and Hollywood have labelled as "ignorant".
    , @Frau Katze
    A reader comment from that article at NYT

    "Political life and discourse in the United States is at a boiling point . . . .":

    Yes, it is, but it's not just college campuses.

    And I am hearing things that I have never heard before from people who have spent years holding their tongues.

    A small group of students invited Murray as a slap in the face to progressives at Middlebury. Murray did not deserve university sanction.

    This is not about free speech; it's about how people like Murray have belittled and harmed people over and over again.

    So what if not every word he's written is horrific? Enough of it was that you got the response you did. And when you think about boiling points, know that we are going to see much, much worse if government does not start responding to the marginalized.

    I'm sorry you got caught in the middle of the melee, but it's kind of like walking into a war zone and expecting not to be injured, isn't it?
     

    Murray has got permanent cooties. He will never escape the shadow of The Bell Curve.
  9. The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people
    ….
    should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning?

    Hmm. No criticism of the argument or evidence in Murray’s book, only of the conclusion it reached.

    Pretty clear which side the bigotry is on.

    Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous. You are free, even, to advocate for their mistreatment and oppression. This is part of the right to free speech and expression. This is also the open back door that Trump walked through, with the forces of a resurgent white nationalism close behind.
    …..
    “For too long, a flawed notion of ‘free speech’ has allowed individuals in positions of power to spread racist pseudoscience in academic institutions, dehumanizing and subjugating people of color and gender minorities,” Middlebury student Elizabeth Siyuan Lee told the New York Times on Tuesday. “While I defend Murray’s right to speak his mind, the fact that the college provided an elevated platform for him did more harm than good.”

    A leftist desperately groping for a way to silence dissident opinions whilst maintaining a pretence of not doing so.

    As of 2014, laws criminalizing offensive hate speech were on the books in 89 countries, including 84 percent of European nations. Is Spain, which bans racist speech, not a liberal state? Should we consider the state of Israel, where one can face criminal penalties for denying the Holocaust, intellectually stunted and fragile?

    Oh he’s gone for the big one. The sainted Israelis can’t be criticised, after all. That would be…antisemitism!

    This is not a call for the criminalization of speech in the United States.

    Translation; the time’s not quite right yet for outright criminalisation. Just excluding from respectability, the better to demonise in preparation for future criminalisation, for now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick in SC
    Actually, I think the translation is even simpler: "Yes, this is a call for the criminalization of speech in the United States."

    It's like when someone says, "This is not to take anything away from ______," you pretty much know in the next breath they are going to take something away from _______.
  10. Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people.

    Perhaps Mr. Nwanevu should actually read the/(a?) book before claiming what it says. Nowhere in the book does Mr. Murray argue this. The book is about class stratification according to intelligence. The small section about blacks in the back of one chapter was simply an explanatory example. The book doesn’t argue anything about them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacobite, ben tillman
    • Replies: @Broski
    I took from that section that the black-white IQ gap is largely genetic.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Agree. Rather than "arguing" that blacks are less intelligent than white people, Murray reluctantly and apologetically acknowledged that all tests indicate that, on average, they have a significantly lower IQ.
    , @gregor
    This is a bit overstated. I've noticed Murray himself often spins it this way in interviews.

    It's true the book is not fundamentally about race. The fundamental points are 1) that IQ is causally associated with many important social and economic outcomes, and 2) there has been significant "cognitive stratification" in American life in the last century.

    The racial material is secondary, but it's not "the back of one chapter."

    Chapter 13 talks about IQ differences and concludes that "the gap" is probably partly genetic.

    Chapter 14 is called "Ethnic Inequalities in Relation to IQ"

    Chapter 15 is called "The Demography of Intelligence." It expresses concern about "dysgenic" breeding. Most of it isn't expressly racial, but contextually it comes on the heels of the race chapters and there is some discussion of fertility rates varying by race.

    Later chapters say we don't know how to raise IQ and that interventions like the Head Start program don't really work (aside from possible non-cognitive benefits). Again, not really explicitly racial, but there are racial implications even if the authors don't spell it all out for us.

    Then there are two chapters on affirmative action, one on higher education and another the labor force.
  11. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    OT: Trump is going to the mattresses against conservatives! He’s going to campaign across the country for RyanCare!?!

    Also 1500 troops are being sent to Kuwait. Staging. He already sent 500 to Syria.

    Also no action on DACA or H1b visas. Could a Trump amnesty be around the corner?

    Also Gen Mattis wants Muslim Brotherhood supporter/Morsi Egypt revolutionary Anne Patterson as Undersecretary at the pentagon!

    The question must be asked: IS TRUMP UNIPARTY?

    Read More
    • Agree: (((Owen))), Old fogey
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    President Trump's failure to stop DACA is the most serious blot on his record so far, and it makes me distrust him. Unlike many of the policy changes that are sorely needed, the President can do this one by executive order. We are still waiting, Donald.

    Is he TRYING to get me to go back to voting third-party in 2020?
    , @Tom-in-VA
    Trump campaigned on destroying ISIS. What did you think he was going to do, make their heads explode like the guy in "Scanners?" As for the rest, tell you what, make yourself useful and find a lice-infested elementary school and pick your nits elsewhere.
  12. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Test Scores

    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): Comparative Government & Politics

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): English Literature and Composition

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): U.S. Government & Politics

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): World History

    Score: 4

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name SAT Subject Test: Literature

    Score: 710

    Taken on Oct 2010 Oct 2010
    Test name SAT Subject Test: U.S. History

    Score: 750

    Taken on Oct 2010 Oct 2010
    Test name SAT

    Score: 2100

    Taken on Jun 2010 Jun 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): English Language & Composition

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2010 May 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): U.S. History

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2010 May 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): Human Geography

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2009 May 2009

    Not terrible. Probably good enough for a white kid to get into Vassar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    To the best of my calculation, his SAT total 2100, in literature 710 and in US History 750 leave him with 660 in Math. Is it right ?
  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Osita, your people captured black slaves and sold them to whites. Your black ancestors make big money by selling other blacks to Arabs and Europeans.

    In America, Affirmative Action designed for black Americans of slave ancestry. But you come here and take affirmative action privilege from black Americans? But YOUR ancestors captured and sold black slaves, Osita. You should pay reparations to black Americans since your ancestors captured and sold fellow blacks.

    And why Slate not hire a black American? Why an African-immigrant-American? Slate can’t find enough decent black Americans and must get an immigrant African to replace a native born one?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Outstanding point! If all whites in America are supposedly on the hook morally for the tiny percentage of whites who bought slaves from Africa, then all blacks in Africa must also be on the hook for the tiny percentage of blacks in Africa who sold those slaves.
    , @Nigerian Nationalist
    Don't be ignorant, Osita is Igbo. Unless he's Aro, Ezaa or Abam, his ancestors did not do the things you claim. Africa is not a monolith.
  14. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A makeup Idi Amin quote but pretty accurate: “I will not allow imperialist speech.”

    Read More
  15. Osita Nwanevu.

    As Spicer recently told a hystrionic woman: “Such a great country that allows you to be here.”

    Read More
  16. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    In other words, she blames Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days. Also, it is amusing that Trump is being id'd as the ultimate cause: "Trump made us do it!"

    However, she does make the point that many of the protestors attributed views to Murray that he does not in fact hold (e.g., re: gays).

    As to the author, it was a nice article except for a few embellishments (traipse? really?) However, he profoundly misunderstands the role of the university in providing a platform for free speech. It's true that some things are outlawed in some countries (e.g., racism, holocaust denial, etc.) but in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions. Either we get on board with that, or we don't.

    Of course, people are always trying to suppress speech and/or characterize the "other side" as hate speech on college campuses for some time now. In this century, it's usually between Muslims/Palis or Jews/Israelis. What's going on now is just an extension of that kind of manipulation and intolerance.

    There is no justification for violence over speech. None. In this case, it makes Murray and the lady prof who defended them look like saints, and it makes the protestors look like punks. Neither did anything to dispel the notion that African Americans are at a decided disadvantage in IQ testing, and in real life. Those are problems that need to be addressed, and not by throwing tantrums.
  17. You’d think after 3 books attempting to “fix” America all aimed at the Political Party that’s had the most control of America for the past 40 years (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart), Murray might consider the possibility that he and his side are simply the problem, not the solution.

    The great tragedy of the American right is that it is attempting to hold the view that blacks are intellectually inferior and that it is the left who is obsessed with race at the same time. It’s a party whose self awareness is so limited it can only feel rational when compared to rioting teenagers.

    Also, it is odd that Murray, champion of tough guy conservatism, needs a safe space from leftists.

    Face it righties. You guys are doomed to lose. Look at what is happening to Steve King. Look at the protests. Look at how Get Out is a smashing success. Look at the birthrates.

    Read More
    • Troll: Forbes, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @anon
    If you had read Coming Apart, or even just its subtitle, you would know that it doesn't discuss blacks at all.
    , @Broski
    I know you're parody, but why so much effort? Is this supposed to gin up more enthusiasm among the ISteve commentariat? We have plenty of enthusiasm already.
    , @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.
    , @fish

    Look at how Get Out is a smashing success.
     
    ....and you were doing so well up until this point.
  18. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tiny Duck
    You'd think after 3 books attempting to "fix" America all aimed at the Political Party that's had the most control of America for the past 40 years (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart), Murray might consider the possibility that he and his side are simply the problem, not the solution.

    The great tragedy of the American right is that it is attempting to hold the view that blacks are intellectually inferior and that it is the left who is obsessed with race at the same time. It's a party whose self awareness is so limited it can only feel rational when compared to rioting teenagers.

    Also, it is odd that Murray, champion of tough guy conservatism, needs a safe space from leftists.

    Face it righties. You guys are doomed to lose. Look at what is happening to Steve King. Look at the protests. Look at how Get Out is a smashing success. Look at the birthrates.

    If you had read Coming Apart, or even just its subtitle, you would know that it doesn’t discuss blacks at all.

    Read More
  19. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    Video of the event shows Stanger chanting along with the crowd at times and raising her fists in one of their various power salutes. She’s milking her “whiplash,” which she claims caused a concussion, for what it’s worth, but she deserves little sympathy for her craven and childish behavior immediately beforehand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    She has to continue to live and work at Berkeley. Who is going to protect her-the university? LOL!
    She doesn't want to become a pariah. Not for Charles Murray!
    , @Clyde

    She’s milking her “whiplash,” which she claims caused a concussion, for what it’s worth
     
    Her lawyer can tell her what it is worth but I doubt she will sue. This would lead to her being blackballed. The administration won't mind picking up her non-covered medical bills.
  20. @Cloudswrest

    Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people.
     
    Perhaps Mr. Nwanevu should actually read the/(a?) book before claiming what it says. Nowhere in the book does Mr. Murray argue this. The book is about class stratification according to intelligence. The small section about blacks in the back of one chapter was simply an explanatory example. The book doesn't argue anything about them.

    I took from that section that the black-white IQ gap is largely genetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I suggest re-reading pages 295 t0 315 of the original "The Bell Curve". Murray and Herrnstein are quite explicit that when they wrote the book it was still an open question how much racial-ethnic variation in average IQ was due to heredity and how much to other factors. They left it at that.

    Since then research increasingly seems to support the hypothesis that racial-ethnic variation in average IQ is, in fact largely hereditary. But Murray and Herrnstein did not know this when they wrote "The Bell Curve". They made this clear and also wrote that the subject needed further research.
  21. @BB753
    In other words, she blames Trump.

    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days. Also, it is amusing that Trump is being id’d as the ultimate cause: “Trump made us do it!”

    However, she does make the point that many of the protestors attributed views to Murray that he does not in fact hold (e.g., re: gays).

    As to the author, it was a nice article except for a few embellishments (traipse? really?) However, he profoundly misunderstands the role of the university in providing a platform for free speech. It’s true that some things are outlawed in some countries (e.g., racism, holocaust denial, etc.) but in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions. Either we get on board with that, or we don’t.

    Of course, people are always trying to suppress speech and/or characterize the “other side” as hate speech on college campuses for some time now. In this century, it’s usually between Muslims/Palis or Jews/Israelis. What’s going on now is just an extension of that kind of manipulation and intolerance.

    There is no justification for violence over speech. None. In this case, it makes Murray and the lady prof who defended them look like saints, and it makes the protestors look like punks. Neither did anything to dispel the notion that African Americans are at a decided disadvantage in IQ testing, and in real life. Those are problems that need to be addressed, and not by throwing tantrums.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions
     
    Yeah, not really, although it's immeasurably valuable for the burden of proof to always be on the restriction side, which is a unique, and uniquely productive, feature of our tradition. Likewise, in our tradition nearly all of the restriction is customarily de facto rather than de jure, by design.
    , @Pericles

    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days.
     
    Hall cred, my man. Hall cred.
  22. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/09/there-are-no-successful-black-nations-africa-diginty-racism-pan-africanism/

    What Osita calls ‘bigotry’ is truth about race. Black pride and ego can’t face the fact that blacks can’t have real civilization and nice things without white people.

    It’s hilarious that Zimbabwe is now begging whites to return.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    I was a big fan of Black Pigeon . I even linked to some of his videos on this site . But in a recent post he said that he personally liked Barry and thought that he meant well . It's as if I said that I personally liked Louis Brandies and thought he meant well , you feel me ? I have many faults as you all know , racist , fascist , anti-Semite and so on but my nose is sharp and I can smell the stink from the hallway .
  23. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    Pretty depressing stuff.

    An experience like that is an opportunity for a liberal to grasp reality, to recognise the sheer hatred, aggression and violence inherent in leftist ideology and “protest”. It’s clear from her words that she saw this at the time and was shocked by it, but since then she’s had the chance to rationalise and to find ways to (absurdly) blame the political other side for it instead of confronting the truth.

    She had her chance to wake up, and instead she chose the blue pill. She’ll probably remain delusional about reality for the rest of her life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Liberals need more than a concussion to wake up. I doubt that even having her neck broken instead of a simple concussion (which might have well happened) and being bound to a wheelchair as a result for the rest of her life would have woken her up. Once you choose sides, you never change. At least, this late in life. Stanger's well over fifty years old.
    , @Jack D
    Ed Koch used to tell a story about a judge in NY who announced in his court room that even though he had recently been mugged, this would in no way influence his actions in the court room. At which point an old lady stood up and yelled, "then mug him again!"

    Maybe if this lady gets beaten repeatedly then maybe the message will finally get thru.
  24. @Tiny Duck
    You'd think after 3 books attempting to "fix" America all aimed at the Political Party that's had the most control of America for the past 40 years (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart), Murray might consider the possibility that he and his side are simply the problem, not the solution.

    The great tragedy of the American right is that it is attempting to hold the view that blacks are intellectually inferior and that it is the left who is obsessed with race at the same time. It's a party whose self awareness is so limited it can only feel rational when compared to rioting teenagers.

    Also, it is odd that Murray, champion of tough guy conservatism, needs a safe space from leftists.

    Face it righties. You guys are doomed to lose. Look at what is happening to Steve King. Look at the protests. Look at how Get Out is a smashing success. Look at the birthrates.

    I know you’re parody, but why so much effort? Is this supposed to gin up more enthusiasm among the ISteve commentariat? We have plenty of enthusiasm already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think he likes being the straw duck for us to knock down.
  25. “Osita Nwanevu grew up in Woodbridge, Virginia. He developed an interest in international issues and politics in middle school when he traveled to his parents’ home country, Nigeria.

    “That was the first time I had ever really seen any kind of real poverty in person,” he said.

    http://www.stampsfoundation.org/2016/12/08/osita-nwanevu-university-of-chicago/

    Okay, so he’s a privileged kid. What other special privileges did he receive? A Stamp Scholarship, provided by E. Roe and (of course!) Penny Stamp. Mr. Stamp made his money in private equity finance, and apparently hands it out to privileged black middle class kids..

    And does he have the Igbo connection – he does! He claims “native or bilingual proficiency” in linkedIn. (I’m a little shocked at the use of the word “native” here. A microagression.)

    Disingenuously, he quotes William F Buckley to bolster his argument:

    “Question: What is the 1) ethical, 2) philosophical, or 3) epistemological argument for requiring continued tolerance of ideas whose discrediting it is the purpose of education to effect,” Buckley asked.

    Buckley couldn’t get a speaking gig on a campus today, of course, having famously proposed that AIDS sufferers should be tattooed on their backsides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I am curious what the Igbo IQ average is. They seem to be a higher IQ caste and a large share of African immigrant intellectuals. Would 95 let them become a market dominant minority against a background 75-80? Are there other African ethnic groups like them?
  26. @Cloudswrest

    Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people.
     
    Perhaps Mr. Nwanevu should actually read the/(a?) book before claiming what it says. Nowhere in the book does Mr. Murray argue this. The book is about class stratification according to intelligence. The small section about blacks in the back of one chapter was simply an explanatory example. The book doesn't argue anything about them.

    Agree. Rather than “arguing” that blacks are less intelligent than white people, Murray reluctantly and apologetically acknowledged that all tests indicate that, on average, they have a significantly lower IQ.

    Read More
  27. @Anon
    Osita, if there is no racial difference, why the nation of your people so poor and nasty and violent? Why you leave your own people and culture to live under whites? You SAY 'races are all equal', but your ACTION suggest 'white man have talent to make and run better society than blacks'.

    Osita, your choice of immigration is 'racist'. You prefer white society as superior to non-whites ones. You favor white nation over non-white one.

    Why you not move to one of many African nation? Why to white majority nation?

    If you say, "I want to contribute to America", why you want to contribute to a nation that is already richest and most powerful in the world? Don't you want to help poor nation since you are such 'progressive' who care about 'down and out'? Yet, you leave your poor country and not help develop it? You come to contribute to rich and powerful America?
    Why didn't you go to poorer Latin American nation to contribute your talent? Why you come to contribute to rich and powerful nation when US will be just fine without your talent?

    Osita, you are bogus.

    Well said, sir. Osita doesn’t seem to be packing his bags to leave this supposedly oppressive and unjust society of ours anytime soon — he’s too busy trying to take away the remnant of our Constitutional rights and lecture us for being “racist” when we resist such loss of liberty.

    Read More
  28. @Anonymous
    OT: Trump is going to the mattresses against conservatives! He's going to campaign across the country for RyanCare!?!

    Also 1500 troops are being sent to Kuwait. Staging. He already sent 500 to Syria.

    Also no action on DACA or H1b visas. Could a Trump amnesty be around the corner?

    Also Gen Mattis wants Muslim Brotherhood supporter/Morsi Egypt revolutionary Anne Patterson as Undersecretary at the pentagon!

    The question must be asked: IS TRUMP UNIPARTY?

    President Trump’s failure to stop DACA is the most serious blot on his record so far, and it makes me distrust him. Unlike many of the policy changes that are sorely needed, the President can do this one by executive order. We are still waiting, Donald.

    Is he TRYING to get me to go back to voting third-party in 2020?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    I suppose Trump is busy trying to tame the Deep State and will only deal with DACA once he solves that problem. If he doesn't, he won't be able to do much of anything he promised. So be patient and pray.
    , @Eric Novak
    Stop whining. Trump's "failure" is his willingness to wait for a deal on legal immigration, E-Verify, birthright citizenship, and whatever other horrendous immigration policies need to be destroyed.
  29. @Anon
    Osita, your people captured black slaves and sold them to whites. Your black ancestors make big money by selling other blacks to Arabs and Europeans.

    In America, Affirmative Action designed for black Americans of slave ancestry. But you come here and take affirmative action privilege from black Americans? But YOUR ancestors captured and sold black slaves, Osita. You should pay reparations to black Americans since your ancestors captured and sold fellow blacks.

    And why Slate not hire a black American? Why an African-immigrant-American? Slate can't find enough decent black Americans and must get an immigrant African to replace a native born one?

    Outstanding point! If all whites in America are supposedly on the hook morally for the tiny percentage of whites who bought slaves from Africa, then all blacks in Africa must also be on the hook for the tiny percentage of blacks in Africa who sold those slaves.

    Read More
  30. @SPMoore8
    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days. Also, it is amusing that Trump is being id'd as the ultimate cause: "Trump made us do it!"

    However, she does make the point that many of the protestors attributed views to Murray that he does not in fact hold (e.g., re: gays).

    As to the author, it was a nice article except for a few embellishments (traipse? really?) However, he profoundly misunderstands the role of the university in providing a platform for free speech. It's true that some things are outlawed in some countries (e.g., racism, holocaust denial, etc.) but in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions. Either we get on board with that, or we don't.

    Of course, people are always trying to suppress speech and/or characterize the "other side" as hate speech on college campuses for some time now. In this century, it's usually between Muslims/Palis or Jews/Israelis. What's going on now is just an extension of that kind of manipulation and intolerance.

    There is no justification for violence over speech. None. In this case, it makes Murray and the lady prof who defended them look like saints, and it makes the protestors look like punks. Neither did anything to dispel the notion that African Americans are at a decided disadvantage in IQ testing, and in real life. Those are problems that need to be addressed, and not by throwing tantrums.

    in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions

    Yeah, not really, although it’s immeasurably valuable for the burden of proof to always be on the restriction side, which is a unique, and uniquely productive, feature of our tradition. Likewise, in our tradition nearly all of the restriction is customarily de facto rather than de jure, by design.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The restrictions of a de facto nature violate the spirit of Mill's thinking, but that is different than imposing laws. On the other hand, I can understand de facto censure, but not censorship, and not violence. And I can't see the justification of either on a college campus.

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one's mind from one's passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one's agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically. Unfortunately all higher education seems to be achieving now is how to assume moralistic (if not pugilistic) poses in defense of unexamined assumptions that "everyone knows to be true."
  31. Instead of disputing racial differences in IQ why not argue that intelligence is not the sole factor in forming a good cohesive society. Of course that would mean to debate and really have discussions which these idiots don’t want, just to shut down views they can’t handle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    You treading on dangerous territory there. Remember Robert Putnam's conclusion (that he found terrible) that diversity itself makes society less cohesive.

    The Left and even much of the Right have staked everything on "diversity is our strength" (official motto of the city of Toronto).

    Their entire outlook on life is under threat.
  32. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    Test Scores

    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): Comparative Government & Politics

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): English Literature and Composition

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): U.S. Government & Politics

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): World History

    Score: 4

    Taken on May 2011 May 2011
    Test name SAT Subject Test: Literature

    Score: 710

    Taken on Oct 2010 Oct 2010
    Test name SAT Subject Test: U.S. History

    Score: 750

    Taken on Oct 2010 Oct 2010
    Test name SAT

    Score: 2100

    Taken on Jun 2010 Jun 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): English Language & Composition

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2010 May 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): U.S. History

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2010 May 2010
    Test name Advanced Placement (AP): Human Geography

    Score: 5

    Taken on May 2009 May 2009
     
    Not terrible. Probably good enough for a white kid to get into Vassar.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmm_IqFbrHY

    To the best of my calculation, his SAT total 2100, in literature 710 and in US History 750 leave him with 660 in Math. Is it right ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sorry for the typo. I meant to write 640 for Math.
    , @Anonymous
    No, his regular SAT score is 2100 out of 2400. The literature score is a separate test, as is US History. The SAT was sub-divided into three sections from 2005-2015: critical reading, math, and writing. So his combined scores from those three sections is 2100. A white kid (without any special in) probably needs at least 2250 to get into uChicago, and an Asian kid probably needs 2300.
  33. Oh Steve , you putting up posts so fast that my head is spinning and I can’t keep up . Just let me keep my hand in .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That was excellent, Donut, especially that last instrumental from 2:35 on! Thanks for putting that up.
    , @PiltdownMan
    A very enjoyable cover of Rocket Man.

    A stray thought. This guy's (non) accent was pretty much the norm for any American male who was part of the Sixties generation, i.e. guys who were born in the 1940s. A hallmark is that the enunciation is perfect. Listen to any ballad from the pop charts of the late 1960s or early 1970s sung by a male. They all sound like this guy.

    Yet, forty years later, no one under the age of 40 has that clear, dead-neutral accent anymore, despite TV and radio making it pretty near ubiquitous during their growing-up years.
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Fantastic! Thanks for posting
    , @Dieter Kief
    They miss part of Elton John's (and Bernie Taupin's...) intentions though, don't they? - Most likely they're all straight, no? I mean - all four of them - - possibly perfectly straight?!
  34. @Anon
    Osita, if there is no racial difference, why the nation of your people so poor and nasty and violent? Why you leave your own people and culture to live under whites? You SAY 'races are all equal', but your ACTION suggest 'white man have talent to make and run better society than blacks'.

    Osita, your choice of immigration is 'racist'. You prefer white society as superior to non-whites ones. You favor white nation over non-white one.

    Why you not move to one of many African nation? Why to white majority nation?

    If you say, "I want to contribute to America", why you want to contribute to a nation that is already richest and most powerful in the world? Don't you want to help poor nation since you are such 'progressive' who care about 'down and out'? Yet, you leave your poor country and not help develop it? You come to contribute to rich and powerful America?
    Why didn't you go to poorer Latin American nation to contribute your talent? Why you come to contribute to rich and powerful nation when US will be just fine without your talent?

    Osita, you are bogus.

    Silly commenters, he’s here to prepare the way.

    Read More
  35. Maybe if enough of the sort of people who appear on the Charlie Rose Show get assaulted there will be change? Maybe four years of:
    - assaulting professors,
    - beating women with sticks,
    - pepper spraying other women,
    - throwing eggs at yet more women,
    - kidnapping and torturing mentally handicapped guys,
    - dragging other guys out of their cars to beat them,
    - sucker punching guys having a civil conversation
    - or hitting a guy in the back of the head with a weighted sock
    … will make people notice which side is losing its cool? Maybe?

    No, let’s go back to listening for echoes of Hitler in the wind.

    Read More
  36. @Randal
    Pretty depressing stuff.

    An experience like that is an opportunity for a liberal to grasp reality, to recognise the sheer hatred, aggression and violence inherent in leftist ideology and "protest". It's clear from her words that she saw this at the time and was shocked by it, but since then she's had the chance to rationalise and to find ways to (absurdly) blame the political other side for it instead of confronting the truth.

    She had her chance to wake up, and instead she chose the blue pill. She'll probably remain delusional about reality for the rest of her life.

    Liberals need more than a concussion to wake up. I doubt that even having her neck broken instead of a simple concussion (which might have well happened) and being bound to a wheelchair as a result for the rest of her life would have woken her up. Once you choose sides, you never change. At least, this late in life. Stanger’s well over fifty years old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    And she has to live and work at Berkeley. Who's going to protect her? The university? LOL!! Charles Murray?!
  37. @Tiny Duck
    You'd think after 3 books attempting to "fix" America all aimed at the Political Party that's had the most control of America for the past 40 years (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart), Murray might consider the possibility that he and his side are simply the problem, not the solution.

    The great tragedy of the American right is that it is attempting to hold the view that blacks are intellectually inferior and that it is the left who is obsessed with race at the same time. It's a party whose self awareness is so limited it can only feel rational when compared to rioting teenagers.

    Also, it is odd that Murray, champion of tough guy conservatism, needs a safe space from leftists.

    Face it righties. You guys are doomed to lose. Look at what is happening to Steve King. Look at the protests. Look at how Get Out is a smashing success. Look at the birthrates.

    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that “blacks are intellectually inferior.” They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies (“Hidden Figures”), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That’s a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray’s other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    You never get to that discussion as long as you pretend the issue is free speech.
    , @ic1000
    Thanks for that. Your comment is obvious to some, yet will never be understood by others. Deserves a gold border.

    > It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    Some people seem to be doing their damnedest to keep that restoration as far away as possible -- the worse, the better.
    , @PiltdownMan
    Agreed. Excellent comment, and the heart of what Murray was getting at, but voiced far too infrequently. In fact, I think even most of Murray's supporters don't fully grasp it.

    If, indeed, large, identifiable sections of society are cognitively permanently disadvantaged relative to other groups, what is the collective moral responsibility and obligations of stewardship incumbent on all to help ensure that dignity of self is ensured and society functions smoothly? It is a profoundly humanistic question. To ignore it would be barbarous.

    , @ScarletNumber
    Well Herrnstein took the easy way out, so it fell on Murray to defend the book.
    , @Desiderius

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.
     
    Amen.

    Our speech is already free enough to have that conversation.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Something which I think almost all readers of Murray miss. Well stated.
  38. @RadicalCenter
    President Trump's failure to stop DACA is the most serious blot on his record so far, and it makes me distrust him. Unlike many of the policy changes that are sorely needed, the President can do this one by executive order. We are still waiting, Donald.

    Is he TRYING to get me to go back to voting third-party in 2020?

    I suppose Trump is busy trying to tame the Deep State and will only deal with DACA once he solves that problem. If he doesn’t, he won’t be able to do much of anything he promised. So be patient and pray.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    I am praying that Trump comes to the realization that listening to Ivanka and Jared on policy matters is not the smartest thing to do. She takes him away from a concentration on the border to an emphasis on "women's issues" and he pushes him on foreign policy until you can't tell U.S. policy apart from Israeli policy. Not smart.
  39. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    To the best of my calculation, his SAT total 2100, in literature 710 and in US History 750 leave him with 660 in Math. Is it right ?

    Sorry for the typo. I meant to write 640 for Math.

    Read More
  40. @Tiny Duck
    You'd think after 3 books attempting to "fix" America all aimed at the Political Party that's had the most control of America for the past 40 years (Losing Ground, The Bell Curve, and Coming Apart), Murray might consider the possibility that he and his side are simply the problem, not the solution.

    The great tragedy of the American right is that it is attempting to hold the view that blacks are intellectually inferior and that it is the left who is obsessed with race at the same time. It's a party whose self awareness is so limited it can only feel rational when compared to rioting teenagers.

    Also, it is odd that Murray, champion of tough guy conservatism, needs a safe space from leftists.

    Face it righties. You guys are doomed to lose. Look at what is happening to Steve King. Look at the protests. Look at how Get Out is a smashing success. Look at the birthrates.

    Look at how Get Out is a smashing success.

    ….and you were doing so well up until this point.

    Read More
  41. Precisely how much collateral damage is acceptable when stamping out “bigoted speech” (really, speech on *any topic* by anyone who has been convicted of bigotry in the court of public opinion)?

    For example, if the good professor’s neck had been broken, would that have been an acceptable consequence in the pursuit of the greater good? What if, God forbid, someone had been killed? Would we have been reading all these articles lambasting “gallant crusaders against political correctness”?

    Read More
  42. Osita Nwanevu

    Nigeria is not sending us their best……… SJW warrior scamsters. How about liberal commentator seen on TV, SJW Joy Ann Reid? Half African-Congo and half USA black. Awful! But you can tell she believes she is genius.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    Best, or no, our best immigrants definitely are not coming from Nigeria. The ones I've met (usually cab drivers with sub-par driving skills) generally strike me as BSC and on the verge of a wild outburst of some type. Never met a Nigerian teacher, med. professional, etc. I wonder if maybe they are sending their best and this is as good as it gets. Never been there and not on my top 50 places I'd like to visit.
    , @DRA
    As an expert witness I worked with a very comment lady Nigerian lawyer. It is good to be aware of average ethnic scores on IQ tests, Marshmallow tests, warrior genes, etc., but if you really do well by all of those measures, you should be able to judge individuals by there personal merit.
  43. @Desiderius

    in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions
     
    Yeah, not really, although it's immeasurably valuable for the burden of proof to always be on the restriction side, which is a unique, and uniquely productive, feature of our tradition. Likewise, in our tradition nearly all of the restriction is customarily de facto rather than de jure, by design.

    The restrictions of a de facto nature violate the spirit of Mill’s thinking, but that is different than imposing laws. On the other hand, I can understand de facto censure, but not censorship, and not violence. And I can’t see the justification of either on a college campus.

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically. Unfortunately all higher education seems to be achieving now is how to assume moralistic (if not pugilistic) poses in defense of unexamined assumptions that “everyone knows to be true.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    There's always fire in a crowded theater exceptions.

    It's all the bases blatantly stolen to get Charles Murray et. al. put into that category which is the issue. And they get away with it because all the would be watchdogs are too busy getting sidetracked on hypothetical discussions about fundamentalist definitions of free speech.
    , @Desiderius

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically.
     
    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore's wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you're a fool.

    Mill's ideas were not intended* to be applied as broadly as you're trying to apply them. The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    * - I suppose it could be argued that Mill himself intended it. Among many reasons that perhaps Mill is not the best guide to the life well lived.

  44. Thanks Steve, for the first time in many years, I am optimistic for the future.

    Read More
  45. @Anonymous
    OT: Trump is going to the mattresses against conservatives! He's going to campaign across the country for RyanCare!?!

    Also 1500 troops are being sent to Kuwait. Staging. He already sent 500 to Syria.

    Also no action on DACA or H1b visas. Could a Trump amnesty be around the corner?

    Also Gen Mattis wants Muslim Brotherhood supporter/Morsi Egypt revolutionary Anne Patterson as Undersecretary at the pentagon!

    The question must be asked: IS TRUMP UNIPARTY?

    Trump campaigned on destroying ISIS. What did you think he was going to do, make their heads explode like the guy in “Scanners?” As for the rest, tell you what, make yourself useful and find a lice-infested elementary school and pick your nits elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Sorry, Tom, but his main campaign on foreign policy was the completely out-of-the-blue and sign of a real change was his willingness to reconsider our relationship with Russia. The ISIS bit was late to the party, and always sounded forced to me.
  46. “the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning”

    I admit it is the first time I came upon the word “traipse”. But then I looked it online.

    trāps/Submit
    verb
    1.
    walk or move wearily or reluctantly.

    So it seems to contradict the author’s intention.

    Anyway, to “disagree” with someone you first should at least hear what he has to say, right? Right?

    I mean how many of the protesters have read anything by Murray at all?

    I am pretty sure those protests are paid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    We live in a world of secondary sources and no one has much of a clue beyond that. Of course no one has a clue what's in the book. No one reads anything -- especially an entire book.

    I'm actually surprised that there wasn't more resistance to Murray. Look at the enormous effort that has been made to deny the obvious. To try to make the differences disappear, bad outcomes have to be 'explained away' by controlling for every other bad outcome. It requires endless efforts, and in the end is futile.

    And the last argument -- 'race doesn't exist' -- has to ignore the easy availability and popularity of ancestry hobbyists and cheap DNA testing -- 23 and me, for example.

    The increasing popularity of living in gentrified central cities requires some level of race realism for survival.

    And even WW G and WW T fly in the face of the inconvenient truth that college students are obsessed with sex, and are tolerant of any form of what used to be called deviance, but still pretty much conform to biology and find the distinction between sex and gender to be irrelevant outside of what have become semi required and despised diversity education. [I'm ignoring the always popular GTG or gay til graduation lesbianism].

    Violence is a sign of weakness. If the entire paradigm wasn't imploding, we would be seeing the iron fist inside a velvet glove. Not noticing. It's heavy lifting, sometimes.

  47. @Broski
    In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd's reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one's ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    This is a good point, and a reason to restrict skilled African and South Asian immigration.

    Denialism is on its last legs as each year lately the number of intelligence genes that have been id’d doubles or more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    Given that group-related differences are intractable, combined with Putnam's Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay, the most workable solution is that advanced societies ethnically/genetically homogenize themselves and then the post-industrial peoples have respect for the autonomy and customs of the hunter-gatherer types in their separate societies.

    Sort of a Prime Directive idea where European peoples and North Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) peoples agree to continue their business dealings but to leave the "Global South" more or less alone.
  48. @Randal

    The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people
    ....
    should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning?
     
    Hmm. No criticism of the argument or evidence in Murray's book, only of the conclusion it reached.

    Pretty clear which side the bigotry is on.

    Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous. You are free, even, to advocate for their mistreatment and oppression. This is part of the right to free speech and expression. This is also the open back door that Trump walked through, with the forces of a resurgent white nationalism close behind.
    .....
    “For too long, a flawed notion of ‘free speech’ has allowed individuals in positions of power to spread racist pseudoscience in academic institutions, dehumanizing and subjugating people of color and gender minorities,” Middlebury student Elizabeth Siyuan Lee told the New York Times on Tuesday. “While I defend Murray’s right to speak his mind, the fact that the college provided an elevated platform for him did more harm than good.”
     
    A leftist desperately groping for a way to silence dissident opinions whilst maintaining a pretence of not doing so.

    As of 2014, laws criminalizing offensive hate speech were on the books in 89 countries, including 84 percent of European nations. Is Spain, which bans racist speech, not a liberal state? Should we consider the state of Israel, where one can face criminal penalties for denying the Holocaust, intellectually stunted and fragile?
     
    Oh he's gone for the big one. The sainted Israelis can't be criticised, after all. That would be...antisemitism!

    This is not a call for the criminalization of speech in the United States.
     
    Translation; the time's not quite right yet for outright criminalisation. Just excluding from respectability, the better to demonise in preparation for future criminalisation, for now.

    Actually, I think the translation is even simpler: “Yes, this is a call for the criminalization of speech in the United States.”

    It’s like when someone says, “This is not to take anything away from ______,” you pretty much know in the next breath they are going to take something away from _______.

    Read More
  49. @Broski
    In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd's reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one's ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one’s ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That your ancestors wasted their time and that you are (by any measure) just spinning your wheels. Korea was in such ruins after WW2 that it was no richer than some African nations.
    _______________________________

    Following the Korean War, South Korea remained one of the poorest countries in the world for over a decade. In 1960 its gross domestic product per capita was $79,[59] lower than that of some sub-Saharan countries.[60]— wikipedia

    Read More
  50. In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd’s reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one’s ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    Yeah, it’s not Nwanevu or his descendants who have been falsely accused of a crime. It’s Whites, and their children, grandchildren, etc. The closest analogue to Nwanevu is someone who testifies against a man falsely accused of murder, to prevent his own inadequacies coming to light. I.e., at best he’s not a good person, at worst he’s a complete lowlife.

    Understanding the angry mob that gave me a concussion

    Hahaha, hey, if she wants to understand them, then it’s a good thing the mob gave her a concussion; it contributed to greater understanding!

    I endorse this use for leftists.

    Read More
  51. @Lot
    This is a good point, and a reason to restrict skilled African and South Asian immigration.

    Denialism is on its last legs as each year lately the number of intelligence genes that have been id'd doubles or more.

    Given that group-related differences are intractable, combined with Putnam’s Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay, the most workable solution is that advanced societies ethnically/genetically homogenize themselves and then the post-industrial peoples have respect for the autonomy and customs of the hunter-gatherer types in their separate societies.

    Sort of a Prime Directive idea where European peoples and North Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) peoples agree to continue their business dealings but to leave the “Global South” more or less alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    ...combined with Putnam’s Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay...
     
    I suspect that you've read neither "Bowling Alone" nor the actual essay where Putnam first reveals his discomfort at discovering diversity is associated with anomie, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century”. Otherwise it's hard for me to understand how you could have written this.
  52. I have a theory. The establishment condones this kind of behavior in connection with Charles Murray’s book, The Bell Curve, not because of the issue of race, which is a very minor part of it, but because of the subtitle, which is seriously taboo: “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Society.” See Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy for details: https://goo.gl/VinLNz

    Read More
  53. @Broski
    I took from that section that the black-white IQ gap is largely genetic.

    You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I suggest re-reading pages 295 t0 315 of the original “The Bell Curve”. Murray and Herrnstein are quite explicit that when they wrote the book it was still an open question how much racial-ethnic variation in average IQ was due to heredity and how much to other factors. They left it at that.

    Since then research increasingly seems to support the hypothesis that racial-ethnic variation in average IQ is, in fact largely hereditary. But Murray and Herrnstein did not know this when they wrote “The Bell Curve”. They made this clear and also wrote that the subject needed further research.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    You are the one who should improve his reading comp. Murray and Herrnstein say that some of the gap is genetic, but refuse to state how much: "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." P. 311.

    I said in my prior post "largely" genetic, so here is a statement using the authors' exact words: it's highly likely that genes have something to do with racial differences in IQ.
  54. @donut
    Oh Steve , you putting up posts so fast that my head is spinning and I can't keep up . Just let me keep my hand in .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forqmom3YuY

    That was excellent, Donut, especially that last instrumental from 2:35 on! Thanks for putting that up.

    Read More
  55. @Cloudswrest

    Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people.
     
    Perhaps Mr. Nwanevu should actually read the/(a?) book before claiming what it says. Nowhere in the book does Mr. Murray argue this. The book is about class stratification according to intelligence. The small section about blacks in the back of one chapter was simply an explanatory example. The book doesn't argue anything about them.

    This is a bit overstated. I’ve noticed Murray himself often spins it this way in interviews.

    It’s true the book is not fundamentally about race. The fundamental points are 1) that IQ is causally associated with many important social and economic outcomes, and 2) there has been significant “cognitive stratification” in American life in the last century.

    The racial material is secondary, but it’s not “the back of one chapter.”

    Chapter 13 talks about IQ differences and concludes that “the gap” is probably partly genetic.

    Chapter 14 is called “Ethnic Inequalities in Relation to IQ”

    Chapter 15 is called “The Demography of Intelligence.” It expresses concern about “dysgenic” breeding. Most of it isn’t expressly racial, but contextually it comes on the heels of the race chapters and there is some discussion of fertility rates varying by race.

    Later chapters say we don’t know how to raise IQ and that interventions like the Head Start program don’t really work (aside from possible non-cognitive benefits). Again, not really explicitly racial, but there are racial implications even if the authors don’t spell it all out for us.

    Then there are two chapters on affirmative action, one on higher education and another the labor force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    Agree. The conclusion that it’s "highly likely" that genes have something to do with racial differences in IQ is made more significant in the context of the entire work, including the dysgenic reproduction discussion.

    That conclusion was not the thrust of the book, the book was about assortative mating into what Murray later called Fishtown and Belmont. The race issue was, however, the issue of greatest political significance, as the subsequent firestorm attests.
    , @jJay
    I still read George F. Will's columns. He let out a bit of a howler this past Sunday in some half-baked defense of Charles Murray.

    At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock.
     
    This is the traditional American conservative view. Psychometrics are out-of-bounds. Perhaps from a libertarian POV, this is not a proper function of the military or of government in general. But I think Will just doesn't like psychometrics as if statistics and witchcraft were closely related.
  56. @Broski
    In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd's reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one's ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    I don’t think blacks will ever accept it.

    Heck, yesterday, a large number of Steve’s commenters wouldn’t accept that Far East Asians are slightly higher scorers in STEM subjects (isn’t it only 5 points or so, going by IQ?)

    The gap between blacks and whites is a lot bigger.

    Why should they accept it? Answers from yesterday ‘s deniers, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discard
    Don't know if I'm one of the commenters you're referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.
  57. @anon
    I can't shake the feeling that Osita Nwavenu, or his ancestors, came from a culture that had different views about freedom of speech than ours does.

    Osita Nwanevu?? Is that one of those angry Asian SJW’s that are always so upset by everything? I clicked the name. Oh. Yes,I see. Got it,but still,I had to laugh.

    Read More
  58. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    To the best of my calculation, his SAT total 2100, in literature 710 and in US History 750 leave him with 660 in Math. Is it right ?

    No, his regular SAT score is 2100 out of 2400. The literature score is a separate test, as is US History. The SAT was sub-divided into three sections from 2005-2015: critical reading, math, and writing. So his combined scores from those three sections is 2100. A white kid (without any special in) probably needs at least 2250 to get into uChicago, and an Asian kid probably needs 2300.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    He lists his total SAT score as 2100. The 25th percentile of admitted students to Chicago is 2140 (http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327).

    As measured by SAT scores he is in roughly the bottom 20% of his class, and in a range that certainly requires a serious "hook" (e.g., parents are financial development targets, varsity athlete in a targeted sport, AA, etc.) for admission.
  59. @Broski
    Given that group-related differences are intractable, combined with Putnam's Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay, the most workable solution is that advanced societies ethnically/genetically homogenize themselves and then the post-industrial peoples have respect for the autonomy and customs of the hunter-gatherer types in their separate societies.

    Sort of a Prime Directive idea where European peoples and North Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) peoples agree to continue their business dealings but to leave the "Global South" more or less alone.

    …combined with Putnam’s Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay…

    I suspect that you’ve read neither “Bowling Alone” nor the actual essay where Putnam first reveals his discomfort at discovering diversity is associated with anomie, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century”. Otherwise it’s hard for me to understand how you could have written this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    "Otherwise it’s hard for me to understand how you could have written this."

    Who cares how Putnam couches his conclusions to avoid being Watsoned/Murrayed? The conclusion is what matters. Bowling Alone establishes that diversity is toxic to human societies.
  60. @Jus' Sayin'...
    You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I suggest re-reading pages 295 t0 315 of the original "The Bell Curve". Murray and Herrnstein are quite explicit that when they wrote the book it was still an open question how much racial-ethnic variation in average IQ was due to heredity and how much to other factors. They left it at that.

    Since then research increasingly seems to support the hypothesis that racial-ethnic variation in average IQ is, in fact largely hereditary. But Murray and Herrnstein did not know this when they wrote "The Bell Curve". They made this clear and also wrote that the subject needed further research.

    You are the one who should improve his reading comp. Murray and Herrnstein say that some of the gap is genetic, but refuse to state how much: “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.” P. 311.

    I said in my prior post “largely” genetic, so here is a statement using the authors’ exact words: it’s highly likely that genes have something to do with racial differences in IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Whether you realize it or not you have just confirmed my original criticism. Your original post specifically stated that your take away from reading Murray and Herrnstein was that IQ was largely genetic. Murray and Herrnstein, as your quote demonstrates, do not take that position.

    You seem to have a habit of attributing to authors ideas which are not in the works you cite. I've been an academic/researcher most of my life and this is an egregious violation of ethics not far behind plagiarism.
  61. @Randal
    Pretty depressing stuff.

    An experience like that is an opportunity for a liberal to grasp reality, to recognise the sheer hatred, aggression and violence inherent in leftist ideology and "protest". It's clear from her words that she saw this at the time and was shocked by it, but since then she's had the chance to rationalise and to find ways to (absurdly) blame the political other side for it instead of confronting the truth.

    She had her chance to wake up, and instead she chose the blue pill. She'll probably remain delusional about reality for the rest of her life.

    Ed Koch used to tell a story about a judge in NY who announced in his court room that even though he had recently been mugged, this would in no way influence his actions in the court room. At which point an old lady stood up and yelled, “then mug him again!”

    Maybe if this lady gets beaten repeatedly then maybe the message will finally get thru.

    Read More
    • Replies: @benjaminl
    The sainted memory of Bruce Wright, a.k.a. "Turn 'em Loose Bruce," was the occasion of James Fulford scolding John Derbyshire for being insufficiently racially realist:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-by-james-fulford-70
    http://www.vdare.com/posts/black-judge-follows-in-fathers-pro-criminal-footsteps-nature-or-nurture
  62. @Anon
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/09/there-are-no-successful-black-nations-africa-diginty-racism-pan-africanism/

    What Osita calls 'bigotry' is truth about race. Black pride and ego can't face the fact that blacks can't have real civilization and nice things without white people.

    It's hilarious that Zimbabwe is now begging whites to return.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRb7W_ji8Hg

    I was a big fan of Black Pigeon . I even linked to some of his videos on this site . But in a recent post he said that he personally liked Barry and thought that he meant well . It’s as if I said that I personally liked Louis Brandies and thought he meant well , you feel me ? I have many faults as you all know , racist , fascist , anti-Semite and so on but my nose is sharp and I can smell the stink from the hallway .

    Read More
  63. @gregor
    This is a bit overstated. I've noticed Murray himself often spins it this way in interviews.

    It's true the book is not fundamentally about race. The fundamental points are 1) that IQ is causally associated with many important social and economic outcomes, and 2) there has been significant "cognitive stratification" in American life in the last century.

    The racial material is secondary, but it's not "the back of one chapter."

    Chapter 13 talks about IQ differences and concludes that "the gap" is probably partly genetic.

    Chapter 14 is called "Ethnic Inequalities in Relation to IQ"

    Chapter 15 is called "The Demography of Intelligence." It expresses concern about "dysgenic" breeding. Most of it isn't expressly racial, but contextually it comes on the heels of the race chapters and there is some discussion of fertility rates varying by race.

    Later chapters say we don't know how to raise IQ and that interventions like the Head Start program don't really work (aside from possible non-cognitive benefits). Again, not really explicitly racial, but there are racial implications even if the authors don't spell it all out for us.

    Then there are two chapters on affirmative action, one on higher education and another the labor force.

    Agree. The conclusion that it’s “highly likely” that genes have something to do with racial differences in IQ is made more significant in the context of the entire work, including the dysgenic reproduction discussion.

    That conclusion was not the thrust of the book, the book was about assortative mating into what Murray later called Fishtown and Belmont. The race issue was, however, the issue of greatest political significance, as the subsequent firestorm attests.

    Read More
  64. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    with time to reflect, I have to say that I hear and understand the righteous anger of many of those who shouted us down

    “I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to violently shout me down.”

    What is wrong with these people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    "“I might disapprove of what you say-"

    SHUT UP BI-GOT! SHUT UP BI-GOT!

    WE WANT SOCIAL JUSTICE!
    WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
    NOW! NOW! NOW!
  65. @Dwright
    Instead of disputing racial differences in IQ why not argue that intelligence is not the sole factor in forming a good cohesive society. Of course that would mean to debate and really have discussions which these idiots don't want, just to shut down views they can't handle.

    You treading on dangerous territory there. Remember Robert Putnam’s conclusion (that he found terrible) that diversity itself makes society less cohesive.

    The Left and even much of the Right have staked everything on “diversity is our strength” (official motto of the city of Toronto).

    Their entire outlook on life is under threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The Left and even much of the Right have staked everything on “diversity is our strength” (official motto of the city of Toronto).

    "Diversity is our strength" is the motto of basically everything now, I'm pretty sure. It's truly a bizarre fetish.
  66. @Jus' Sayin'...

    ...combined with Putnam’s Bowling Alone information that diversity leads to social conflict and decay...
     
    I suspect that you've read neither "Bowling Alone" nor the actual essay where Putnam first reveals his discomfort at discovering diversity is associated with anomie, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century”. Otherwise it's hard for me to understand how you could have written this.

    “Otherwise it’s hard for me to understand how you could have written this.”

    Who cares how Putnam couches his conclusions to avoid being Watsoned/Murrayed? The conclusion is what matters. Bowling Alone establishes that diversity is toxic to human societies.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloudswrest
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    The word "diversity" does not appear in the index to "Bowling Alone". The subject is not addressed at all in that book. By doubling down on your previous error you are confirming for me your profound ignorance of anything Putnam has written.
  67. no mention how we are third behind them Jews and Chinese? We need to spread the hate in proportional doses.

    Read More
  68. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    Good link. Is this the first time a liberal has ever called out the SPLC in the NYTimes?

    Stranger is much smarter than the typical left wing female social science prof, she majored in accounting and math and did actuarial work for an insurance co before returning to academia. She seems to specialize in arguing against using private contractors to perform more and more public work, a good position to take.

    She is a throwback from the days when leftism meant something other than hating white people.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @gregor
    Marginal Revolution posted a link to an open letter she wrote years ago to Milan Kundera about omissions in some of the translations of his novels. So she apparently reads Czech and has something of literary bent.
    , @Desiderius
    And yet she was still participated with enthusiasm in the protest of Murray. If Leftism has to hate white people to get what it wants, it has nothing stopping it from doing so.
  69. @Anon7

    "Osita Nwanevu grew up in Woodbridge, Virginia. He developed an interest in international issues and politics in middle school when he traveled to his parents’ home country, Nigeria.

    “That was the first time I had ever really seen any kind of real poverty in person,” he said.

    http://www.stampsfoundation.org/2016/12/08/osita-nwanevu-university-of-chicago/

     

    Okay, so he's a privileged kid. What other special privileges did he receive? A Stamp Scholarship, provided by E. Roe and (of course!) Penny Stamp. Mr. Stamp made his money in private equity finance, and apparently hands it out to privileged black middle class kids..

    And does he have the Igbo connection - he does! He claims "native or bilingual proficiency" in linkedIn. (I'm a little shocked at the use of the word "native" here. A microagression.)

    Disingenuously, he quotes William F Buckley to bolster his argument:

    “Question: What is the 1) ethical, 2) philosophical, or 3) epistemological argument for requiring continued tolerance of ideas whose discrediting it is the purpose of education to effect,” Buckley asked.
     
    Buckley couldn't get a speaking gig on a campus today, of course, having famously proposed that AIDS sufferers should be tattooed on their backsides.

    I am curious what the Igbo IQ average is. They seem to be a higher IQ caste and a large share of African immigrant intellectuals. Would 95 let them become a market dominant minority against a background 75-80? Are there other African ethnic groups like them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    See this informative article:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/
  70. Has anyone considered sending Osita and his ilk an index and explained list of all the evidence that exists:

    physiological: brain volume, neurons, cortical surface area, mass of different brain regions, etc

    current and past testing: similar test-statistic gaps: IQ tests, GMAT, LSAT, SAT, even adjusted for income, etc

    outcomes: inventions, diplomas, doctorates in science, fields medals, Nobel prizes, prestigious universities, inventions, std rates, traffic incident rates, civilizational accomplishment, etc

    Read More
  71. @Broski
    In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd's reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one's ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    I’ve noticed Americans don’t have a substitute for the term ‘Appalling Vista’. Coined incidentally by the English judge Alfred Denning who chose not to allow an appealing not for the sake of the evidence but for the implications of entertaining the idea at all. The consensus became that the men were framed by police under pressure to produce suspects and they were later acquitted after many years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

    In 1980, during an appeal by the Birmingham Six (who were later acquitted) Lord Denning judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions. He listed several reasons for not allowing their appeal:

    Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial … If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. … That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, “It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.”

    Basically the term means not dealing with something or not asking a certain question because of the implications it would raise.

    Funnily enough as it relates to other earlier comments, it turns out he was also against having certain groups sit on juries:

    In 1982 he published What Next in the Law; in it, he seemed to suggest some members of the black community were unsuitable to serve on juries, and that immigrant groups may have had different moral standards to native Englishmen.

    As always who whom and all that.

    Read More
  72. @gregor
    This is a bit overstated. I've noticed Murray himself often spins it this way in interviews.

    It's true the book is not fundamentally about race. The fundamental points are 1) that IQ is causally associated with many important social and economic outcomes, and 2) there has been significant "cognitive stratification" in American life in the last century.

    The racial material is secondary, but it's not "the back of one chapter."

    Chapter 13 talks about IQ differences and concludes that "the gap" is probably partly genetic.

    Chapter 14 is called "Ethnic Inequalities in Relation to IQ"

    Chapter 15 is called "The Demography of Intelligence." It expresses concern about "dysgenic" breeding. Most of it isn't expressly racial, but contextually it comes on the heels of the race chapters and there is some discussion of fertility rates varying by race.

    Later chapters say we don't know how to raise IQ and that interventions like the Head Start program don't really work (aside from possible non-cognitive benefits). Again, not really explicitly racial, but there are racial implications even if the authors don't spell it all out for us.

    Then there are two chapters on affirmative action, one on higher education and another the labor force.

    I still read George F. Will’s columns. He let out a bit of a howler this past Sunday in some half-baked defense of Charles Murray.

    At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock.

    This is the traditional American conservative view. Psychometrics are out-of-bounds. Perhaps from a libertarian POV, this is not a proper function of the military or of government in general. But I think Will just doesn’t like psychometrics as if statistics and witchcraft were closely related.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I'm sure George Will knows his IQ, is proud of it, and assumes it is higher than that of anyone else he deals with. Can anyone imagine otherwise?
  73. It also seems like it’s hard to protect the right to free speech in a multicultural society!

    Read More
  74. Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are less intelligent than white people.

    Expanded quote:

    “Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 in which he argued that blacks are a lot less intelligent than Asians, less intelligent than white people, and somewhat less intelligent than Hispanics.”

    Read More
  75. This is why I don’t agree with the HBD types who advocate a race-blind, high IQ meritocracy. That brainpower is often misapplied to further subverting OUR VALUES. High IQ people are better at subversion than low IQ people. High IQ groups working at cross purposes is no bueno.

    P.S. Speaking of Slate, they ran an article last week arguing that US demographic change and the political implications thereof are greatly exaggerated by the left (boastfully) and the right (fearfully). I wouldn’t be surprised to see the left try to pivot away from frequently bragging about the browning of America and switch to a “nothing to see here” narrative. If they can restrain themselves.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/03/the_coming_democratic_majority_might_be_coming_a_lot_slower_than_you_think.html

    Read More
  76. @Jack D
    Ed Koch used to tell a story about a judge in NY who announced in his court room that even though he had recently been mugged, this would in no way influence his actions in the court room. At which point an old lady stood up and yelled, "then mug him again!"

    Maybe if this lady gets beaten repeatedly then maybe the message will finally get thru.

    The sainted memory of Bruce Wright, a.k.a. “Turn ‘em Loose Bruce,” was the occasion of James Fulford scolding John Derbyshire for being insufficiently racially realist:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-by-james-fulford-70

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/black-judge-follows-in-fathers-pro-criminal-footsteps-nature-or-nurture

    Read More
  77. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Frau Katze
    You treading on dangerous territory there. Remember Robert Putnam's conclusion (that he found terrible) that diversity itself makes society less cohesive.

    The Left and even much of the Right have staked everything on "diversity is our strength" (official motto of the city of Toronto).

    Their entire outlook on life is under threat.

    The Left and even much of the Right have staked everything on “diversity is our strength” (official motto of the city of Toronto).

    “Diversity is our strength” is the motto of basically everything now, I’m pretty sure. It’s truly a bizarre fetish.

    Read More
  78. The Michael Barone notion that fresh blood from 3rd world nations would yield up natural conservatives after Americanism works its magic is looking like a total bust now.

    What fellas like this son-of-a-Nigerian reveal is that they are perhaps more prone than anyone to drink deeply of the cultMarx/Hate Whitey kool aid as served by the local Hive outpost.

    The number of both 2nd Gen African & Asian-Americans turning into highly motivated shock troops of the Hard Left is a huge problem. Red Alert.

    Read More
  79. The problem with “stamping out” bigoted speech is that once you stamp it out, you need to keep finding new things to stamp on to keep yourself relevant.

    Thus, today’s free speech becomes tomorrow’s hate speech. Today it’s “Huckleberry Finn,” tomorrow it’s all white authors whose writings weren’t “inclusive” enough, and the day after that it’s all classic rock bands because their lack of black members made them racist.

    It’s a never ending job, this “stamping.” Where does it end? It doesn’t. That’s the problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It’s a never ending job, this “stamping.” Where does it end?
     
    "Doin' right ain't got no end." -- Capt. Terrell
    , @ThreeCranes
    "The problem with “stamping out” bigoted speech is that once you stamp it out, you need to keep finding new things to stamp on to keep yourself relevant."

    Similarly, someone said that if you eliminate your extremest opposition then a new opposition will arise out of what is leftover. A sort of Hegelian Zeno's paradox.
  80. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    You never get to that discussion as long as you pretend the issue is free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The issue in the column by the young Nigerian fellow was surely freedom of speech. He makes it clear that public espousal of certain points of view should not be allowed, and if not by law, by mob.

    Granted, spoiled college students are not going to "bring down the system" -- you need a 90% immiserated working class and peasants to do that. That's some time in the future.

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one's most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.
  81. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    Thanks for that. Your comment is obvious to some, yet will never be understood by others. Deserves a gold border.

    > It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    Some people seem to be doing their damnedest to keep that restoration as far away as possible — the worse, the better.

    Read More
  82. @donut
    Oh Steve , you putting up posts so fast that my head is spinning and I can't keep up . Just let me keep my hand in .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forqmom3YuY

    A very enjoyable cover of Rocket Man.

    A stray thought. This guy’s (non) accent was pretty much the norm for any American male who was part of the Sixties generation, i.e. guys who were born in the 1940s. A hallmark is that the enunciation is perfect. Listen to any ballad from the pop charts of the late 1960s or early 1970s sung by a male. They all sound like this guy.

    Yet, forty years later, no one under the age of 40 has that clear, dead-neutral accent anymore, despite TV and radio making it pretty near ubiquitous during their growing-up years.

    Read More
  83. @SPMoore8
    The restrictions of a de facto nature violate the spirit of Mill's thinking, but that is different than imposing laws. On the other hand, I can understand de facto censure, but not censorship, and not violence. And I can't see the justification of either on a college campus.

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one's mind from one's passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one's agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically. Unfortunately all higher education seems to be achieving now is how to assume moralistic (if not pugilistic) poses in defense of unexamined assumptions that "everyone knows to be true."

    There’s always fire in a crowded theater exceptions.

    It’s all the bases blatantly stolen to get Charles Murray et. al. put into that category which is the issue. And they get away with it because all the would be watchdogs are too busy getting sidetracked on hypothetical discussions about fundamentalist definitions of free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The way the arguments are phrased nowadays, if you say A (that there are IQ differences among groups) then you are advocating Z (death camps in Mississippi). It's a silly argument and really shouldn't be allowed to stand.

    The author of the article does it, too. For example he writes:

    Trumpism’s present control of that machinery, as even the harshest critics of political correctness on campus must concede, offers more than a conjectural threat to liberalism’s animating principles, including the belief in the equality of all people before the law and in the eyes of others. But those principles, in truth, have always been threatened. Liberalism comes equipped with a very large self-destruct button. Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous.
     
    In the first place, the belief in the equality of all people before the law is an abstraction that applies to the application of the law, it does not mean equality, either in the sense of identity, sameness, of equality by any other measure. Simply that everyone should be treated the same by the law. I'll get back to that, the "in the eyes of others" is nonsense.

    The next notion is that under liberalism one may promote bigotry, and, yes, that is true. But the way to combat that, classically, is to refute it out in the open, not by suppressing it with intimidation, violence, or vandalism. We have a free market, and we have a free market of ideas, too.

    The third notion is that people like Murray, and HBD people in general, are saying that certain types of people are inferior or dangerous. This is nonsense as it applies to Murray, and most of the groups listed are mentioned as "inferior" or "dangerous" for widely different reasons. Moreover, the rhetoric outside of a very small group is concerned with specific groups for very specific reasons, and many of them are political in nature. For example, any commentary on Muslims, as a group, has nothing to do with their "inferiority" but rather with their culture, which is clearly inferior by our standards, and by their violence, which is also clearly unacceptable to our culture.

    I said above that the notion of "equality" involves equality before the law. But the way the law has been undercut is by the assertion that the law itself is discriminatory. There was merit to this when it applied to non-whites when this country was founded (the famous 3/5 clause) and we know that that led to desegregation and the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. It's hard to contest that result. On the other hand, using that as a model has led to demands to repeal a whole host of legal and civil standards, even down to the level of pronouns, because it violates some individual's unique and innate characteristics.

    But in any case our author doesn't really believe what he says, because there are many people who dispute his definition of equality, and he also clearly believes that anyone who doesn't accept his definition of equality is prepared to commit genocide, and must be stopped.

    So logically, from his point of view, we will end up in a situation where "equality" will demand "unanimity" in an ever larger realm, both in public life, and in speech. The only conceivable solution, short of dissolving society altogether and grabbing your guns, is to reason out the differences, find out where you are not going to disagree, and and take that out of the social and public realm and put it in the cloisters where it belongs.
  84. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    Agreed. Excellent comment, and the heart of what Murray was getting at, but voiced far too infrequently. In fact, I think even most of Murray’s supporters don’t fully grasp it.

    If, indeed, large, identifiable sections of society are cognitively permanently disadvantaged relative to other groups, what is the collective moral responsibility and obligations of stewardship incumbent on all to help ensure that dignity of self is ensured and society functions smoothly? It is a profoundly humanistic question. To ignore it would be barbarous.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Murray is not far from Rawls. If the left were smarter they would have realized that he was a potential ally.
  85. @SPMoore8
    The restrictions of a de facto nature violate the spirit of Mill's thinking, but that is different than imposing laws. On the other hand, I can understand de facto censure, but not censorship, and not violence. And I can't see the justification of either on a college campus.

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one's mind from one's passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one's agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically. Unfortunately all higher education seems to be achieving now is how to assume moralistic (if not pugilistic) poses in defense of unexamined assumptions that "everyone knows to be true."

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically.

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you’re a fool.

    Mill’s ideas were not intended* to be applied as broadly as you’re trying to apply them. The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    * – I suppose it could be argued that Mill himself intended it. Among many reasons that perhaps Mill is not the best guide to the life well lived.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    That's a silly proposition and there's really not much to debate.

    On the other hand it's a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people's passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table. And, precisely for that reason, usually left undecided. If someone has a moral or religious code that renders some positions unacceptable, that's fine, identify what your limits are. But don't throw a fit over it. If anything, such a discussion will make it clear exactly where you draw the line, and why.

    Nowadays, the kinds of things that are usually proscribed from campus discussion (on the theory that it will lead to genocide, or something) have to do with the notion that there are genetic differences among peoples, including IQ as a variable, differences among the sexes, whether there are 2 or 50+ sexes (genders), whether sexuality should have any normative restrictions, and if so, why, etc. etc. How much of this is "innate" versus how much "acquired" with different shadings of personal responsibility or standards to which one should aspire, etc.

    I can easily imagine a black person, an Asian (see yesterday's thread), a woman, or any member of LGBTQQIAA+ taking all of this very personally and getting very angry about it. That's the wrong reaction.

    As to Mill's intentions, I think he was thinking of the continuance of blasphemy laws in Britain at the time, but Mill was a free thinker in many respects, as well as someone who recognized the need for civility and prudence in public utterance.

    As for:

    The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.
     
    I don't see any "debate" as to what are the limits of freedom of speech. There is freedom of speech that is celebrated as long as it promotes diversity and personal dissolution, and then there's freedom of speech that seeks to rationally appraise the world around us, and any such speech that crosses certain hard to determine boundaries is defined as hate speech and gives rise to what are, essentially, riots.

    I do think that freedom of speech should have limits in terms of what a community should be forced to confront, and I think that exercising freedom of speech requires temperance and civility. But I think such standards should be very liberal on a college campus. I repeat: what else is higher education for?

    I would not object if there were community standards, in law, that established some kind of rational regime governing human conduct, and the exercise of free speech. But these must fall short of censorship. However, bearing in mind the legacy of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence (2003), it's pretty much a done deal that morals legislation (and thus, any speech associated therewith) would be impossible to enforce.
    , @Stan Adams

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you’re a fool.
     
    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXz4wFDAo0
    , @Randal

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?
     
    It's profoundly dishonest to try to equate a direct incitement to violent crime (which only the most extreme advocates of free speech would defend) and the emotions that arouses, with the statement of political opinions about how the world is or how it ought to be that upset people, and the emotions those arouse.

    The two are quite different, both in nature and in consequences.

    Nevertheless, they do have in common the need to constrain the emotional response short of violence. If SPMoore were to violently assault the person who advocated raping his wife, he would rightly go to prison (assuming the assault were serious enough), because in a civilised society such disputes are resolved by the law. And in the case of people upset by theoretical political propositions that they see as offensive or threatening, they are also rightly required to refrain from violence in response. That's what grownups do, anyway. The inability of the left to do so is a symptom of arrested development.
  86. @Broski
    I know you're parody, but why so much effort? Is this supposed to gin up more enthusiasm among the ISteve commentariat? We have plenty of enthusiasm already.

    I think he likes being the straw duck for us to knock down.

    Read More
  87. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    I am not saying that students shouldn’t protest white nationalism. That it is immoral is not at issue. But there was a direct line between the fighting words on campus, the suppression of speech and the angry mob that gave me a concussion. All violence is a breakdown of communication.

    I wonder if this professor would castigate black nationalism, Han Chinese nationalism, or Arab nationalism as “immoral”. As an academic, these questions should be posed. “Because nazis” is no excuse for race replacement of white people. WW2 ended 72 years ago. White nationalism is the logical response to immigration at race replacement levels in every white country.

    There is no excusing what happened at Middlebury, and those who prevented Charles Murray from speaking must be punished for violating college rules. But what the events at Middlebury made clear is that, regardless of political persuasion, Americans today are deeply susceptible to a renunciation of reason and celebration of ignorance. They know what they know without reading, discussing or engaging those who might disagree with them. People from both sides of the aisle reject calm logic, eager to embrace the alternative news that supports their prejudices.

    I grew up reading all the establishment arguments. In airport and hotel lounges, I will watch CNN if it’s on. I read the mainstream papers. I am not uninformed, far from it. However, I have read the not-yet-establishment view, and it is the correct one. The Bell Curve is on the money.

    Democrat academics like this one, who don’t have the courage to ask questions like the ones I have posed above, are responsible for the dumbing down of students. She needs to take a look in the mirror when she remarks about the celebration of ignorance. It was not the right that knocked her unconscious. Though it has been the race-realist right that academia, government and Hollywood have labelled as “ignorant”.

    Read More
  88. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    Well Herrnstein took the easy way out, so it fell on Murray to defend the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    ScarletNumber,

    Herrnstein was a very principled man.

    The way I heard it, he was more cutting edge (i.e., more truthful) regarding race than Murray.

    As a vested member in the academy, he believed that he had a duty to pursue truth.
  89. @Lot
    Good link. Is this the first time a liberal has ever called out the SPLC in the NYTimes?

    Stranger is much smarter than the typical left wing female social science prof, she majored in accounting and math and did actuarial work for an insurance co before returning to academia. She seems to specialize in arguing against using private contractors to perform more and more public work, a good position to take.

    She is a throwback from the days when leftism meant something other than hating white people.

    Marginal Revolution posted a link to an open letter she wrote years ago to Milan Kundera about omissions in some of the translations of his novels. So she apparently reads Czech and has something of literary bent.

    Read More
  90. @Desiderius

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically.
     
    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore's wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you're a fool.

    Mill's ideas were not intended* to be applied as broadly as you're trying to apply them. The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    * - I suppose it could be argued that Mill himself intended it. Among many reasons that perhaps Mill is not the best guide to the life well lived.

    That’s a silly proposition and there’s really not much to debate.

    On the other hand it’s a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people’s passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table. And, precisely for that reason, usually left undecided. If someone has a moral or religious code that renders some positions unacceptable, that’s fine, identify what your limits are. But don’t throw a fit over it. If anything, such a discussion will make it clear exactly where you draw the line, and why.

    Nowadays, the kinds of things that are usually proscribed from campus discussion (on the theory that it will lead to genocide, or something) have to do with the notion that there are genetic differences among peoples, including IQ as a variable, differences among the sexes, whether there are 2 or 50+ sexes (genders), whether sexuality should have any normative restrictions, and if so, why, etc. etc. How much of this is “innate” versus how much “acquired” with different shadings of personal responsibility or standards to which one should aspire, etc.

    I can easily imagine a black person, an Asian (see yesterday’s thread), a woman, or any member of LGBTQQIAA+ taking all of this very personally and getting very angry about it. That’s the wrong reaction.

    As to Mill’s intentions, I think he was thinking of the continuance of blasphemy laws in Britain at the time, but Mill was a free thinker in many respects, as well as someone who recognized the need for civility and prudence in public utterance.

    As for:

    The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    I don’t see any “debate” as to what are the limits of freedom of speech. There is freedom of speech that is celebrated as long as it promotes diversity and personal dissolution, and then there’s freedom of speech that seeks to rationally appraise the world around us, and any such speech that crosses certain hard to determine boundaries is defined as hate speech and gives rise to what are, essentially, riots.

    I do think that freedom of speech should have limits in terms of what a community should be forced to confront, and I think that exercising freedom of speech requires temperance and civility. But I think such standards should be very liberal on a college campus. I repeat: what else is higher education for?

    I would not object if there were community standards, in law, that established some kind of rational regime governing human conduct, and the exercise of free speech. But these must fall short of censorship. However, bearing in mind the legacy of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence (2003), it’s pretty much a done deal that morals legislation (and thus, any speech associated therewith) would be impossible to enforce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    That’s a silly proposition and there’s really not much to debate.
     
    I wouldn't let your wife see you say such a thing. There is indeed not much to debate. That was my point, and the antithesis of yours.

    On the other hand it’s a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people’s passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.
     
    They raise passions because they are deliberately and meretriciously misstated and then misclassified for that express purpose. Trying to eliminate all passion is a fool's errand, and an effort easily turned to nefarious ends.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table.
     
    This is not a fight you can (or should) win. Your insistence on continuing to charge that particular windmill leaves those desperately in need of your defense unguarded. Everything else you lament is a direct consequence of that abdication.
  91. @gregor
    Marginal Revolution posted a link to an open letter she wrote years ago to Milan Kundera about omissions in some of the translations of his novels. So she apparently reads Czech and has something of literary bent.

    I met Kundera’s translator Michael Henry Heim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Couldn't understand a word he was saying though.
  92. @Lot
    Good link. Is this the first time a liberal has ever called out the SPLC in the NYTimes?

    Stranger is much smarter than the typical left wing female social science prof, she majored in accounting and math and did actuarial work for an insurance co before returning to academia. She seems to specialize in arguing against using private contractors to perform more and more public work, a good position to take.

    She is a throwback from the days when leftism meant something other than hating white people.

    And yet she was still participated with enthusiasm in the protest of Murray. If Leftism has to hate white people to get what it wants, it has nothing stopping it from doing so.

    Read More
  93. @Desiderius
    There's always fire in a crowded theater exceptions.

    It's all the bases blatantly stolen to get Charles Murray et. al. put into that category which is the issue. And they get away with it because all the would be watchdogs are too busy getting sidetracked on hypothetical discussions about fundamentalist definitions of free speech.

    The way the arguments are phrased nowadays, if you say A (that there are IQ differences among groups) then you are advocating Z (death camps in Mississippi). It’s a silly argument and really shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

    The author of the article does it, too. For example he writes:

    Trumpism’s present control of that machinery, as even the harshest critics of political correctness on campus must concede, offers more than a conjectural threat to liberalism’s animating principles, including the belief in the equality of all people before the law and in the eyes of others. But those principles, in truth, have always been threatened. Liberalism comes equipped with a very large self-destruct button. Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous.

    In the first place, the belief in the equality of all people before the law is an abstraction that applies to the application of the law, it does not mean equality, either in the sense of identity, sameness, of equality by any other measure. Simply that everyone should be treated the same by the law. I’ll get back to that, the “in the eyes of others” is nonsense.

    The next notion is that under liberalism one may promote bigotry, and, yes, that is true. But the way to combat that, classically, is to refute it out in the open, not by suppressing it with intimidation, violence, or vandalism. We have a free market, and we have a free market of ideas, too.

    The third notion is that people like Murray, and HBD people in general, are saying that certain types of people are inferior or dangerous. This is nonsense as it applies to Murray, and most of the groups listed are mentioned as “inferior” or “dangerous” for widely different reasons. Moreover, the rhetoric outside of a very small group is concerned with specific groups for very specific reasons, and many of them are political in nature. For example, any commentary on Muslims, as a group, has nothing to do with their “inferiority” but rather with their culture, which is clearly inferior by our standards, and by their violence, which is also clearly unacceptable to our culture.

    I said above that the notion of “equality” involves equality before the law. But the way the law has been undercut is by the assertion that the law itself is discriminatory. There was merit to this when it applied to non-whites when this country was founded (the famous 3/5 clause) and we know that that led to desegregation and the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. It’s hard to contest that result. On the other hand, using that as a model has led to demands to repeal a whole host of legal and civil standards, even down to the level of pronouns, because it violates some individual’s unique and innate characteristics.

    But in any case our author doesn’t really believe what he says, because there are many people who dispute his definition of equality, and he also clearly believes that anyone who doesn’t accept his definition of equality is prepared to commit genocide, and must be stopped.

    So logically, from his point of view, we will end up in a situation where “equality” will demand “unanimity” in an ever larger realm, both in public life, and in speech. The only conceivable solution, short of dissolving society altogether and grabbing your guns, is to reason out the differences, find out where you are not going to disagree, and and take that out of the social and public realm and put it in the cloisters where it belongs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It’s a silly argument and really shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
     
    Passive voice guarantees that it will continue to be.
    , @Desiderius
    You'll never get to all these beautiful arguments if you insist instead on fighting on the narrow and disadvantageous ground of free speech fundamentalism.

    You first have to show you can manfully stand up to the predators who have taken the public square before your arguments will get a fair hearing.
  94. @Days of Broken Arrows
    The problem with "stamping out" bigoted speech is that once you stamp it out, you need to keep finding new things to stamp on to keep yourself relevant.

    Thus, today's free speech becomes tomorrow's hate speech. Today it's "Huckleberry Finn," tomorrow it's all white authors whose writings weren't "inclusive" enough, and the day after that it's all classic rock bands because their lack of black members made them racist.

    It's a never ending job, this "stamping." Where does it end? It doesn't. That's the problem.

    It’s a never ending job, this “stamping.” Where does it end?

    “Doin’ right ain’t got no end.” — Capt. Terrell

    Read More
  95. Importing people with names such as Osita Nwaneva explains why people such as Charles Murray can no longer speak on college campuses.

    Read More
  96. @SPMoore8
    That's a silly proposition and there's really not much to debate.

    On the other hand it's a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people's passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table. And, precisely for that reason, usually left undecided. If someone has a moral or religious code that renders some positions unacceptable, that's fine, identify what your limits are. But don't throw a fit over it. If anything, such a discussion will make it clear exactly where you draw the line, and why.

    Nowadays, the kinds of things that are usually proscribed from campus discussion (on the theory that it will lead to genocide, or something) have to do with the notion that there are genetic differences among peoples, including IQ as a variable, differences among the sexes, whether there are 2 or 50+ sexes (genders), whether sexuality should have any normative restrictions, and if so, why, etc. etc. How much of this is "innate" versus how much "acquired" with different shadings of personal responsibility or standards to which one should aspire, etc.

    I can easily imagine a black person, an Asian (see yesterday's thread), a woman, or any member of LGBTQQIAA+ taking all of this very personally and getting very angry about it. That's the wrong reaction.

    As to Mill's intentions, I think he was thinking of the continuance of blasphemy laws in Britain at the time, but Mill was a free thinker in many respects, as well as someone who recognized the need for civility and prudence in public utterance.

    As for:

    The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.
     
    I don't see any "debate" as to what are the limits of freedom of speech. There is freedom of speech that is celebrated as long as it promotes diversity and personal dissolution, and then there's freedom of speech that seeks to rationally appraise the world around us, and any such speech that crosses certain hard to determine boundaries is defined as hate speech and gives rise to what are, essentially, riots.

    I do think that freedom of speech should have limits in terms of what a community should be forced to confront, and I think that exercising freedom of speech requires temperance and civility. But I think such standards should be very liberal on a college campus. I repeat: what else is higher education for?

    I would not object if there were community standards, in law, that established some kind of rational regime governing human conduct, and the exercise of free speech. But these must fall short of censorship. However, bearing in mind the legacy of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence (2003), it's pretty much a done deal that morals legislation (and thus, any speech associated therewith) would be impossible to enforce.

    That’s a silly proposition and there’s really not much to debate.

    I wouldn’t let your wife see you say such a thing. There is indeed not much to debate. That was my point, and the antithesis of yours.

    On the other hand it’s a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people’s passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.

    They raise passions because they are deliberately and meretriciously misstated and then misclassified for that express purpose. Trying to eliminate all passion is a fool’s errand, and an effort easily turned to nefarious ends.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table.

    This is not a fight you can (or should) win. Your insistence on continuing to charge that particular windmill leaves those desperately in need of your defense unguarded. Everything else you lament is a direct consequence of that abdication.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    What you are proposing is a restatement of Murray (and others) so to make them palatable.

    But there's no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    For example, we could restate the argument with regard to blacks and whites (in IQ terms) with the caveat that we need to raise all boats. But that has already been done, and was in fact done by Murray and Herrnstein in the first place, but restating the proposition in more diplomatic language did nothing to suppress the attendant rage.

    The same could be said about anything else; whether it concerns men and women, human sexuality, LGBT issues, what kind of country we are going to become (even raising the question of "what kind of country are we going to become" would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy.) There are simply many topics -- these are a few -- where any hint of other than Climate Change Orthodoxy will earn you heated public opprobrium.

    Therefore the larger issue is tolerance of deviation and dissidence, which means free speech.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.
  97. @Lot
    I am curious what the Igbo IQ average is. They seem to be a higher IQ caste and a large share of African immigrant intellectuals. Would 95 let them become a market dominant minority against a background 75-80? Are there other African ethnic groups like them?
    Read More
  98. @ScarletNumber
    Well Herrnstein took the easy way out, so it fell on Murray to defend the book.

    ScarletNumber,

    Herrnstein was a very principled man.

    The way I heard it, he was more cutting edge (i.e., more truthful) regarding race than Murray.

    As a vested member in the academy, he believed that he had a duty to pursue truth.

    Read More
  99. @Desiderius
    You never get to that discussion as long as you pretend the issue is free speech.

    The issue in the column by the young Nigerian fellow was surely freedom of speech. He makes it clear that public espousal of certain points of view should not be allowed, and if not by law, by mob.

    Granted, spoiled college students are not going to “bring down the system” — you need a 90% immiserated working class and peasants to do that. That’s some time in the future.

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one’s most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one’s most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.
     
    Looks to me like they've taken our challenge and shoved it up our collective asses, daring us to do anything about it.

    All we've managed to muster is some half-baked fundamentalist wishcasting.
    , @Desiderius

    spoiled college students are not going to “bring down the system”
     
    That's the problem.
  100. @SPMoore8
    The way the arguments are phrased nowadays, if you say A (that there are IQ differences among groups) then you are advocating Z (death camps in Mississippi). It's a silly argument and really shouldn't be allowed to stand.

    The author of the article does it, too. For example he writes:

    Trumpism’s present control of that machinery, as even the harshest critics of political correctness on campus must concede, offers more than a conjectural threat to liberalism’s animating principles, including the belief in the equality of all people before the law and in the eyes of others. But those principles, in truth, have always been threatened. Liberalism comes equipped with a very large self-destruct button. Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous.
     
    In the first place, the belief in the equality of all people before the law is an abstraction that applies to the application of the law, it does not mean equality, either in the sense of identity, sameness, of equality by any other measure. Simply that everyone should be treated the same by the law. I'll get back to that, the "in the eyes of others" is nonsense.

    The next notion is that under liberalism one may promote bigotry, and, yes, that is true. But the way to combat that, classically, is to refute it out in the open, not by suppressing it with intimidation, violence, or vandalism. We have a free market, and we have a free market of ideas, too.

    The third notion is that people like Murray, and HBD people in general, are saying that certain types of people are inferior or dangerous. This is nonsense as it applies to Murray, and most of the groups listed are mentioned as "inferior" or "dangerous" for widely different reasons. Moreover, the rhetoric outside of a very small group is concerned with specific groups for very specific reasons, and many of them are political in nature. For example, any commentary on Muslims, as a group, has nothing to do with their "inferiority" but rather with their culture, which is clearly inferior by our standards, and by their violence, which is also clearly unacceptable to our culture.

    I said above that the notion of "equality" involves equality before the law. But the way the law has been undercut is by the assertion that the law itself is discriminatory. There was merit to this when it applied to non-whites when this country was founded (the famous 3/5 clause) and we know that that led to desegregation and the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. It's hard to contest that result. On the other hand, using that as a model has led to demands to repeal a whole host of legal and civil standards, even down to the level of pronouns, because it violates some individual's unique and innate characteristics.

    But in any case our author doesn't really believe what he says, because there are many people who dispute his definition of equality, and he also clearly believes that anyone who doesn't accept his definition of equality is prepared to commit genocide, and must be stopped.

    So logically, from his point of view, we will end up in a situation where "equality" will demand "unanimity" in an ever larger realm, both in public life, and in speech. The only conceivable solution, short of dissolving society altogether and grabbing your guns, is to reason out the differences, find out where you are not going to disagree, and and take that out of the social and public realm and put it in the cloisters where it belongs.

    It’s a silly argument and really shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

    Passive voice guarantees that it will continue to be.

    Read More
  101. @SPMoore8
    The issue in the column by the young Nigerian fellow was surely freedom of speech. He makes it clear that public espousal of certain points of view should not be allowed, and if not by law, by mob.

    Granted, spoiled college students are not going to "bring down the system" -- you need a 90% immiserated working class and peasants to do that. That's some time in the future.

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one's most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one’s most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.

    Looks to me like they’ve taken our challenge and shoved it up our collective asses, daring us to do anything about it.

    All we’ve managed to muster is some half-baked fundamentalist wishcasting.

    Read More
  102. @Anon
    Osita, your people captured black slaves and sold them to whites. Your black ancestors make big money by selling other blacks to Arabs and Europeans.

    In America, Affirmative Action designed for black Americans of slave ancestry. But you come here and take affirmative action privilege from black Americans? But YOUR ancestors captured and sold black slaves, Osita. You should pay reparations to black Americans since your ancestors captured and sold fellow blacks.

    And why Slate not hire a black American? Why an African-immigrant-American? Slate can't find enough decent black Americans and must get an immigrant African to replace a native born one?

    Don’t be ignorant, Osita is Igbo. Unless he’s Aro, Ezaa or Abam, his ancestors did not do the things you claim. Africa is not a monolith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Don't be igborant. In the age of PC, there is collective guilt. So, ALL whites are guilty of 'racism', and ALL Africans are guilty of slave trade
    , @5371
    Those are all varieties of Igbo.
    , @Pericles
    I applaud your fine sense of irony.
  103. @SPMoore8
    The issue in the column by the young Nigerian fellow was surely freedom of speech. He makes it clear that public espousal of certain points of view should not be allowed, and if not by law, by mob.

    Granted, spoiled college students are not going to "bring down the system" -- you need a 90% immiserated working class and peasants to do that. That's some time in the future.

    But petulance, violence, and an inability to take a challenge to one's most sacred beliefs is the mark of a child, not a rational human being.

    spoiled college students are not going to “bring down the system”

    That’s the problem.

    Read More
  104. @Days of Broken Arrows
    The problem with "stamping out" bigoted speech is that once you stamp it out, you need to keep finding new things to stamp on to keep yourself relevant.

    Thus, today's free speech becomes tomorrow's hate speech. Today it's "Huckleberry Finn," tomorrow it's all white authors whose writings weren't "inclusive" enough, and the day after that it's all classic rock bands because their lack of black members made them racist.

    It's a never ending job, this "stamping." Where does it end? It doesn't. That's the problem.

    “The problem with “stamping out” bigoted speech is that once you stamp it out, you need to keep finding new things to stamp on to keep yourself relevant.”

    Similarly, someone said that if you eliminate your extremest opposition then a new opposition will arise out of what is leftover. A sort of Hegelian Zeno’s paradox.

    Read More
  105. @SPMoore8
    The way the arguments are phrased nowadays, if you say A (that there are IQ differences among groups) then you are advocating Z (death camps in Mississippi). It's a silly argument and really shouldn't be allowed to stand.

    The author of the article does it, too. For example he writes:

    Trumpism’s present control of that machinery, as even the harshest critics of political correctness on campus must concede, offers more than a conjectural threat to liberalism’s animating principles, including the belief in the equality of all people before the law and in the eyes of others. But those principles, in truth, have always been threatened. Liberalism comes equipped with a very large self-destruct button. Under liberalism in its purest form, you are permitted to promote bigotry, to argue that certain kinds of people—black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, women—should be seen as inferior or dangerous.
     
    In the first place, the belief in the equality of all people before the law is an abstraction that applies to the application of the law, it does not mean equality, either in the sense of identity, sameness, of equality by any other measure. Simply that everyone should be treated the same by the law. I'll get back to that, the "in the eyes of others" is nonsense.

    The next notion is that under liberalism one may promote bigotry, and, yes, that is true. But the way to combat that, classically, is to refute it out in the open, not by suppressing it with intimidation, violence, or vandalism. We have a free market, and we have a free market of ideas, too.

    The third notion is that people like Murray, and HBD people in general, are saying that certain types of people are inferior or dangerous. This is nonsense as it applies to Murray, and most of the groups listed are mentioned as "inferior" or "dangerous" for widely different reasons. Moreover, the rhetoric outside of a very small group is concerned with specific groups for very specific reasons, and many of them are political in nature. For example, any commentary on Muslims, as a group, has nothing to do with their "inferiority" but rather with their culture, which is clearly inferior by our standards, and by their violence, which is also clearly unacceptable to our culture.

    I said above that the notion of "equality" involves equality before the law. But the way the law has been undercut is by the assertion that the law itself is discriminatory. There was merit to this when it applied to non-whites when this country was founded (the famous 3/5 clause) and we know that that led to desegregation and the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. It's hard to contest that result. On the other hand, using that as a model has led to demands to repeal a whole host of legal and civil standards, even down to the level of pronouns, because it violates some individual's unique and innate characteristics.

    But in any case our author doesn't really believe what he says, because there are many people who dispute his definition of equality, and he also clearly believes that anyone who doesn't accept his definition of equality is prepared to commit genocide, and must be stopped.

    So logically, from his point of view, we will end up in a situation where "equality" will demand "unanimity" in an ever larger realm, both in public life, and in speech. The only conceivable solution, short of dissolving society altogether and grabbing your guns, is to reason out the differences, find out where you are not going to disagree, and and take that out of the social and public realm and put it in the cloisters where it belongs.

    You’ll never get to all these beautiful arguments if you insist instead on fighting on the narrow and disadvantageous ground of free speech fundamentalism.

    You first have to show you can manfully stand up to the predators who have taken the public square before your arguments will get a fair hearing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard, but no one has the will to do that. I'm certainly not in any position to do so.

    The fundamental thing here is that Murray should have been allowed to appear, and say what he wished to say, at that college (or any other venue where he was invited). That makes it a free speech problem.

    The fact that he was prevented from doing so, with some violence, makes it a law enforcement problem, but the underlying issue is still enshrined in the First Amendment.

    However, colleges stopped enforcing the law to protect unpopular speakers from appearing on campuses decades ago.
  106. @Desiderius

    That’s a silly proposition and there’s really not much to debate.
     
    I wouldn't let your wife see you say such a thing. There is indeed not much to debate. That was my point, and the antithesis of yours.

    On the other hand it’s a certainty that the kind of debates that people want to suppress on college campuses are precisely the kind that raise people’s passions because of the violent mob reactions to the promotion of such debates.
     
    They raise passions because they are deliberately and meretriciously misstated and then misclassified for that express purpose. Trying to eliminate all passion is a fool's errand, and an effort easily turned to nefarious ends.

    Yes, in a college environment everything should be on the table.
     
    This is not a fight you can (or should) win. Your insistence on continuing to charge that particular windmill leaves those desperately in need of your defense unguarded. Everything else you lament is a direct consequence of that abdication.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    What you are proposing is a restatement of Murray (and others) so to make them palatable.

    But there’s no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    For example, we could restate the argument with regard to blacks and whites (in IQ terms) with the caveat that we need to raise all boats. But that has already been done, and was in fact done by Murray and Herrnstein in the first place, but restating the proposition in more diplomatic language did nothing to suppress the attendant rage.

    The same could be said about anything else; whether it concerns men and women, human sexuality, LGBT issues, what kind of country we are going to become (even raising the question of “what kind of country are we going to become” would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy.) There are simply many topics — these are a few — where any hint of other than Climate Change Orthodoxy will earn you heated public opprobrium.

    Therefore the larger issue is tolerance of deviation and dissidence, which means free speech.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.
     
    You've already recast your arguments as artfully as they possibly could be. Why is it, do you imagine, that no one is listening?

    would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy
     
    Passive voice again. Those considerations don't arise out of thin air. We need to find the courage to name those responsible and join the fight against them.
    , @Desiderius

    But there’s no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.
     
    When will you be rioting to protest your (lack of) NBA career?

    There are all sorts of ways all around us.
    , @NOTA
    The heckler's veto is a tactic, not a philosophical position. There will always be people willing to justify any tactic when carried out by their team. Let the other side use that tactic, and those same people will be writing impassioned defenses of freedom of speech.

    Most people don't have principles--instead, they have a side. That's a pity--the principle of freedom of speech is really important for keeping a functioning society. But the only thing we can do is keep our own commitment to the principles that make our society function.
  107. You guys are being so hard on this poor SJW.

    Here he had lined up all the prerequisite Dem internships (including with Tim Kaine’s Senate run IIRC) and Big Prog outlets (NPR, In These Times, Harper’s) and Chicago levers-to-power-circles pubs (South Side Weekly, Chicago Reader) and was ready to slide into some nice Beltway sinecure in the Clinton Administration…

    …but all he has now is posting preachertalk at Slate and other vanity sites/outlets paid for by big Dem money.

    Another two years and this remedial-college-math bragger will be outright plagiarizing white preachers and demanding Elon Musk build mule carts.

    I like how in his LinkedIn list of everything he ever did he brags also about having written the longest-ever published piece for South Side Weekly…in the same item where he brags about being its “editor.”

    Read More
  108. You know we could all agree that nobody sensible (Asian, African, European or American) works at Slate, but nah you guys prefer to get triggered.

    Read More
  109. @Desiderius
    You'll never get to all these beautiful arguments if you insist instead on fighting on the narrow and disadvantageous ground of free speech fundamentalism.

    You first have to show you can manfully stand up to the predators who have taken the public square before your arguments will get a fair hearing.

    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard, but no one has the will to do that. I’m certainly not in any position to do so.

    The fundamental thing here is that Murray should have been allowed to appear, and say what he wished to say, at that college (or any other venue where he was invited). That makes it a free speech problem.

    The fact that he was prevented from doing so, with some violence, makes it a law enforcement problem, but the underlying issue is still enshrined in the First Amendment.

    However, colleges stopped enforcing the law to protect unpopular speakers from appearing on campuses decades ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard
     
    Please. It doesn't take the National Guard to file suit, or to name the names of those defaming Dr. Murray and his beliefs, and to personally denounce their professional malpractice. To state the truth with courage, confidence, and conviction, as Rep. King has done this week, and not to settle for playing defense.
    , @NOTA
    Simply announcing that anyone who disrupts the speech past a certain point will be arrested for disturbing the peace and will face academic discipline if they're a student would be enough to stop this nonsense, if they followed up on the threat. The first time it happened would be extremely unpleasant, with news coverage and YouTube videos of students being dragged off to jail. After a couple iterations it would stop, because disrupting the speech of some guy whose book you've never read isn't actually worth spending a weekend in jail and doing a month of community service picking up trash by the side of the road on Saturdays.
  110. @SPMoore8
    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    What you are proposing is a restatement of Murray (and others) so to make them palatable.

    But there's no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    For example, we could restate the argument with regard to blacks and whites (in IQ terms) with the caveat that we need to raise all boats. But that has already been done, and was in fact done by Murray and Herrnstein in the first place, but restating the proposition in more diplomatic language did nothing to suppress the attendant rage.

    The same could be said about anything else; whether it concerns men and women, human sexuality, LGBT issues, what kind of country we are going to become (even raising the question of "what kind of country are we going to become" would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy.) There are simply many topics -- these are a few -- where any hint of other than Climate Change Orthodoxy will earn you heated public opprobrium.

    Therefore the larger issue is tolerance of deviation and dissidence, which means free speech.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.

    You’ve already recast your arguments as artfully as they possibly could be. Why is it, do you imagine, that no one is listening?

    would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy

    Passive voice again. Those considerations don’t arise out of thin air. We need to find the courage to name those responsible and join the fight against them.

    Read More
  111. @SPMoore8
    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard, but no one has the will to do that. I'm certainly not in any position to do so.

    The fundamental thing here is that Murray should have been allowed to appear, and say what he wished to say, at that college (or any other venue where he was invited). That makes it a free speech problem.

    The fact that he was prevented from doing so, with some violence, makes it a law enforcement problem, but the underlying issue is still enshrined in the First Amendment.

    However, colleges stopped enforcing the law to protect unpopular speakers from appearing on campuses decades ago.

    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard

    Please. It doesn’t take the National Guard to file suit, or to name the names of those defaming Dr. Murray and his beliefs, and to personally denounce their professional malpractice. To state the truth with courage, confidence, and conviction, as Rep. King has done this week, and not to settle for playing defense.

    Read More
  112. @Frau Katze
    I don't think blacks will ever accept it.

    Heck, yesterday, a large number of Steve's commenters wouldn't accept that Far East Asians are slightly higher scorers in STEM subjects (isn't it only 5 points or so, going by IQ?)

    The gap between blacks and whites is a lot bigger.

    Why should they accept it? Answers from yesterday 's deniers, please.

    Don’t know if I’m one of the commenters you’re referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Well, that is a good point.

    I have often thought that the decision to be become an immigrant is itself likely to indicate on average more intelligence.

    But it's just a hunch, I haven't seen any stats on it.

    Unfortunately it's the type of thing that sociologists avoid like the plague.

    Note how the British working classes have a bad reputation across Europe for bad behaviour and drunkeness.

    I've heard that in areas of the UK where there was a lot of emigration (in places like Glasgow) it's a real problem.

    Did mass emigration dumb them down?
    , @Anon
    (Broski on phone)

    Nonetheless, IQ and the Wealth of Nations etc averages them at 105 or something, heavily weighted toward math and against the more politically important verbal IQ. I can accept they have good computational abilities, but believe they lack a certain nonconformist creativity. Thus the much ballyhooed creativity problem discussed in Asian media and academic outlets.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Discard:

    It has been suggested that Chinese iq tests are invalid since they are conducted in metropolitan areas where one would expect the more intelligent to congregate.

    A few years ago I believe that it was reported that Chinese in non-metropolitan areas also showed high iq.

    I am not up to date on any further findings. Any contrary or affirmative evidence would be appreciated.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    There is an engine for the effect to have been widespread, however, even in more rural areas due to the Clark-Unz eugenic model. The effect was discontinuous, but the imperial examination model and the equal inheritance model continually wiped out the lowest classes with no descendants, and repopulated them with downward social mobility from previous middle classes instead.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    I personally feel the immigration model does indeed cherry pick, but only to even greater extremes versus the host population.
  113. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Don't be ignorant, Osita is Igbo. Unless he's Aro, Ezaa or Abam, his ancestors did not do the things you claim. Africa is not a monolith.

    Don’t be igborant. In the age of PC, there is collective guilt. So, ALL whites are guilty of ‘racism’, and ALL Africans are guilty of slave trade

    Read More
  114. One of the many downfalls of the left is that they have an almost involuntary tendency to find profound “truth” in the voice of youth. They relentlessly cultivate the youth culture that sometimes surrounds their movement, never seeming to recognize that the failings of youth also afflict their politics. (That would require putting two and two together.)

    Part of it is intentional, to be sure, because the left recognizes that some youthful failings – such as being more easily deceived than older people and bending more easily to peer pressure – work greatly to their (the left’s) benefit. But they also seem to think that there’s almost some spiritual quality to youthful opinions.

    Enter the author of this article. Here is his picture:

    https://i1.sndcdn.com/avatars-000051925911-6qvy3y-t500x500.jpg

    It’s difficult to imagine this guy being able to understand that his principles of suppressing civil speech could someday used against him. Youthful people, being more easily deceived, buy into the idea that there is something spiritual or divine about their world view…especially when they have it drilled into them by their elder directors and handlers. And when blackness is introduced into the formula, the leftist world view becomes all omnipotent….in the eyes of the left.

    Simplistic notions about suppression of free speech and the exchange of ideas in a civil society most often come from the youngest leftists. And the blacks among that group are allowed the most latitude in their extremism and stupidity, at least by places like Slate. The left truly believes that the spirit of Sojourner Truth resides in every young black liberal body, while the spirit of Idi Amin is nowhere to be seen, and that belief pretty much qualifies as “superstition.” Very few middle aged white Jewish liberal guys can get away with the kind of journalism or writing or thinking that the author of this article can get away with.

    Read More
  115. @Discard
    Don't know if I'm one of the commenters you're referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.

    Well, that is a good point.

    I have often thought that the decision to be become an immigrant is itself likely to indicate on average more intelligence.

    But it’s just a hunch, I haven’t seen any stats on it.

    Unfortunately it’s the type of thing that sociologists avoid like the plague.

    Note how the British working classes have a bad reputation across Europe for bad behaviour and drunkeness.

    I’ve heard that in areas of the UK where there was a lot of emigration (in places like Glasgow) it’s a real problem.

    Did mass emigration dumb them down?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    If you lived in Britain you would know how funny your last question is.
    You've got precisely the wrong end of the stick: Glasgow (and Liverpool) are both bywords for stupidity and brutality and urban decay, not because their best left, but because the worst of a certain nation not far to the West of them came over in numbers far too large for a successful integration, ever, with the native population.
    Any lessons for us there I wonder?
  116. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Discard
    Don't know if I'm one of the commenters you're referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.

    (Broski on phone)

    Nonetheless, IQ and the Wealth of Nations etc averages them at 105 or something, heavily weighted toward math and against the more politically important verbal IQ. I can accept they have good computational abilities, but believe they lack a certain nonconformist creativity. Thus the much ballyhooed creativity problem discussed in Asian media and academic outlets.

    Read More
  117. @Discard
    Don't know if I'm one of the commenters you're referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.

    Discard:

    It has been suggested that Chinese iq tests are invalid since they are conducted in metropolitan areas where one would expect the more intelligent to congregate.

    A few years ago I believe that it was reported that Chinese in non-metropolitan areas also showed high iq.

    I am not up to date on any further findings. Any contrary or affirmative evidence would be appreciated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    I can't find a list now but I've seen the list of names of the top students graduating from Grade 12 in BC, where there are a lot of Chinese.

    There were plenty of them on the last list I saw. Not sure if they were out of proportion to presence in the population.

    I don't think the IQ difference is that large.

    Diversion, slightly O/T:

    But I can say for sure: Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!

    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn't show the same results. Magic dirt?
  118. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    Amen.

    Our speech is already free enough to have that conversation.

    Read More
  119. “This is, to borrow a phrase, a time for choosing.”

    Oh, I definitely agree. But most Americans are putting off choosing, so the choices are getting starker. Eventually, choosing will become a decisive matter for everyone. At that point, Nwanevu is not going to like the choices.

    Read More
  120. @Dan Hayes
    Discard:

    It has been suggested that Chinese iq tests are invalid since they are conducted in metropolitan areas where one would expect the more intelligent to congregate.

    A few years ago I believe that it was reported that Chinese in non-metropolitan areas also showed high iq.

    I am not up to date on any further findings. Any contrary or affirmative evidence would be appreciated.

    I can’t find a list now but I’ve seen the list of names of the top students graduating from Grade 12 in BC, where there are a lot of Chinese.

    There were plenty of them on the last list I saw. Not sure if they were out of proportion to presence in the population.

    I don’t think the IQ difference is that large.

    Diversion, slightly O/T:

    But I can say for sure: Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!

    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn’t show the same results. Magic dirt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!
    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn’t show the same results. Magic dirt?
     
    The mountains deposit magic dirt along the YangTse, not along the Nile and Tigris.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Frau Katze,

    Thanks for your response.

    Here's another fact which may or may not be important. Along the Canadian Pacific rail line there were/are communities of Chinese rail workers who arrived with the line's building. The bottom line: the higher than normal Chinese iq rates appear to hold over generations.
  121. @Desiderius

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically.
     
    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore's wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you're a fool.

    Mill's ideas were not intended* to be applied as broadly as you're trying to apply them. The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    * - I suppose it could be argued that Mill himself intended it. Among many reasons that perhaps Mill is not the best guide to the life well lived.

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you’re a fool.

    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions
     
    Why do you imagine that was (and continues to be) the case?
    , @NOTA
    The policy we use to prevent nuclear war is about a billion times more horrible than raping and murdering one person. And yet, we'd better be able to discuss it as rationally as possible. Yes, many topics are emotional, but we still have to think clearly about them, in the same way that a doctor needs to think clearly about whether that ugly mole on your arm is melanoma without reference to how horrible it would be for you to have melanoma.
  122. @SPMoore8
    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    What you are proposing is a restatement of Murray (and others) so to make them palatable.

    But there's no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    For example, we could restate the argument with regard to blacks and whites (in IQ terms) with the caveat that we need to raise all boats. But that has already been done, and was in fact done by Murray and Herrnstein in the first place, but restating the proposition in more diplomatic language did nothing to suppress the attendant rage.

    The same could be said about anything else; whether it concerns men and women, human sexuality, LGBT issues, what kind of country we are going to become (even raising the question of "what kind of country are we going to become" would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy.) There are simply many topics -- these are a few -- where any hint of other than Climate Change Orthodoxy will earn you heated public opprobrium.

    Therefore the larger issue is tolerance of deviation and dissidence, which means free speech.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.

    But there’s no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    When will you be rioting to protest your (lack of) NBA career?

    There are all sorts of ways all around us.

    Read More
  123. @Stan Adams

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you’re a fool.
     
    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXz4wFDAo0

    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions

    Why do you imagine that was (and continues to be) the case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    We like our politicians to show a little personality.

    And, oh, yes: We're bloodthirsty simpletons with a medieval sense of justice.

    We should be more like Norway:
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

    Willie Horton should have been given a longer furlough ... a weekend simply wasn't long enough for him to decompress. Prison is an incredibly stressful place to be.

    If we could paint all prison walls light blue and pump Enya Muzak into the cells 24/7, within six months all violent offenders would be totally rehabilitated.

    Wait a minute ... what am I saying?

    Hmm ... it seems that some of my long-suppressed bleeding-heart liberal delusions were temporarily bubbling up from the darkest recesses of my mind. (Liberalism is like alcoholism - you never truly get over it.)

    What should we do with rapists and murderers? Fry the fuckers. And don't bother with putting sponges on their heads - let them writhe in torment!

    I feel better now.

  124. @jJay
    I still read George F. Will's columns. He let out a bit of a howler this past Sunday in some half-baked defense of Charles Murray.

    At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock.
     
    This is the traditional American conservative view. Psychometrics are out-of-bounds. Perhaps from a libertarian POV, this is not a proper function of the military or of government in general. But I think Will just doesn't like psychometrics as if statistics and witchcraft were closely related.

    I’m sure George Will knows his IQ, is proud of it, and assumes it is higher than that of anyone else he deals with. Can anyone imagine otherwise?

    Read More
  125. This is, to borrow a phrase, a time for choosing. In the Trump era, should we side with those who insist that the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning? Or should we dare to disagree?

    I think the other side needs to get more daring. Osita and his fellow bigots have been traipsing unhindered through the dark halls of leftist academia for a while now.

    Read More
  126. @Desiderius

    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions
     
    Why do you imagine that was (and continues to be) the case?

    We like our politicians to show a little personality.

    And, oh, yes: We’re bloodthirsty simpletons with a medieval sense of justice.

    We should be more like Norway:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

    Willie Horton should have been given a longer furlough … a weekend simply wasn’t long enough for him to decompress. Prison is an incredibly stressful place to be.

    If we could paint all prison walls light blue and pump Enya Muzak into the cells 24/7, within six months all violent offenders would be totally rehabilitated.

    Wait a minute … what am I saying?

    Hmm … it seems that some of my long-suppressed bleeding-heart liberal delusions were temporarily bubbling up from the darkest recesses of my mind. (Liberalism is like alcoholism – you never truly get over it.)

    What should we do with rapists and murderers? Fry the fuckers. And don’t bother with putting sponges on their heads – let them writhe in torment!

    I feel better now.

    Read More
  127. @BB753
    Liberals need more than a concussion to wake up. I doubt that even having her neck broken instead of a simple concussion (which might have well happened) and being bound to a wheelchair as a result for the rest of her life would have woken her up. Once you choose sides, you never change. At least, this late in life. Stanger's well over fifty years old.

    And she has to live and work at Berkeley. Who’s going to protect her? The university? LOL!! Charles Murray?!

    Read More
  128. @Nigerian Nationalist
    Don't be ignorant, Osita is Igbo. Unless he's Aro, Ezaa or Abam, his ancestors did not do the things you claim. Africa is not a monolith.

    Those are all varieties of Igbo.

    Read More
  129. @PiltdownMan
    Agreed. Excellent comment, and the heart of what Murray was getting at, but voiced far too infrequently. In fact, I think even most of Murray's supporters don't fully grasp it.

    If, indeed, large, identifiable sections of society are cognitively permanently disadvantaged relative to other groups, what is the collective moral responsibility and obligations of stewardship incumbent on all to help ensure that dignity of self is ensured and society functions smoothly? It is a profoundly humanistic question. To ignore it would be barbarous.

    Murray is not far from Rawls. If the left were smarter they would have realized that he was a potential ally.

    Read More
  130. @Broski
    Video of the event shows Stanger chanting along with the crowd at times and raising her fists in one of their various power salutes. She's milking her "whiplash," which she claims caused a concussion, for what it's worth, but she deserves little sympathy for her craven and childish behavior immediately beforehand.

    She has to continue to live and work at Berkeley. Who is going to protect her-the university? LOL!
    She doesn’t want to become a pariah. Not for Charles Murray!

    Read More
  131. @SPMoore8
    I don't know if you have dealt with the column of the lady prof who got whiplash and a concussion from defending Murray, but it's definitely on topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

    A reader comment from that article at NYT

    “Political life and discourse in the United States is at a boiling point . . . .”:

    Yes, it is, but it’s not just college campuses.

    And I am hearing things that I have never heard before from people who have spent years holding their tongues.

    A small group of students invited Murray as a slap in the face to progressives at Middlebury. Murray did not deserve university sanction.

    This is not about free speech; it’s about how people like Murray have belittled and harmed people over and over again.

    So what if not every word he’s written is horrific? Enough of it was that you got the response you did. And when you think about boiling points, know that we are going to see much, much worse if government does not start responding to the marginalized.

    I’m sorry you got caught in the middle of the melee, but it’s kind of like walking into a war zone and expecting not to be injured, isn’t it?

    Murray has got permanent cooties. He will never escape the shadow of The Bell Curve.

    Read More
  132. @anon
    I can't shake the feeling that Osita Nwavenu, or his ancestors, came from a culture that had different views about freedom of speech than ours does.

    I don’t know about Freedom of Speech, but they have a problem with Freedom of Traipsing.

    By the way, this person (what is an Osita? Sounds female, but I wouldn’t know) is careless with words, and possibly stupid. Is xe aware “traipse” means to move reluctantly? The Other Side, the side which xe will have no part of, insists Murray be allowed to traipse unhindered? Or, in other words, move reluctantly unhindered. Huh?

    My guess is they didn’t want to say “walk unhindered,” because the editor insists on pulling out a thesaurus for every third word. More likely, they wanted to subtly denigrate the abstract idea of perambulating bigots. Bigots can’t just walk, like normal human beings and citizens in good standing. I get it.

    However, xe should’ve picked a more sinister verb, like “skulk” or “prowl.” (Which calls to mind Rape Culture,* so double points!) But xe went with “traipse,” bringing to mind weariness and fear. Demeaning enough, but why would a college need to reject the right of reluctant and weary bigots to step on sacred progressive grounds? That’s the kind you want, because they’re easy to deal with. Not that you have to suffer any of them. But imagine the rallying cries:

    To arms! We’re being invaded by the free passage of reluctants!

    Doesn’t really work, does? To say nothing of the mind-bending combination of unhindered reluctance.

    *My college freshman orientation informed me sexual assault is most commonly committed by men with traditional views, and I’m not even kidding. Murray, who is a squishy-con, libertarian, and probable progressive of the soul (that’s my term for an indescribable quality of certain people’s spirit), of course is tradition personified because he believes race exists. Therefore, he’s probably a rapist.

    Read More
  133. @Anon
    In Africa, there is Big Man Speech. But no place for Bigot Speech. Big Man decide what is bigot or not-bigot. It is so simple.

    “not-bigot”

    Bignot?

    Read More
  134. @donut
    Oh Steve , you putting up posts so fast that my head is spinning and I can't keep up . Just let me keep my hand in .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forqmom3YuY

    Fantastic! Thanks for posting

    Read More
  135. @Clyde

    Osita Nwanevu
     
    Nigeria is not sending us their best......... SJW warrior scamsters. How about liberal commentator seen on TV, SJW Joy Ann Reid? Half African-Congo and half USA black. Awful! But you can tell she believes she is genius.

    Best, or no, our best immigrants definitely are not coming from Nigeria. The ones I’ve met (usually cab drivers with sub-par driving skills) generally strike me as BSC and on the verge of a wild outburst of some type. Never met a Nigerian teacher, med. professional, etc. I wonder if maybe they are sending their best and this is as good as it gets. Never been there and not on my top 50 places I’d like to visit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Are we supposed to know what "BSC" stands for? Did the abbreviation appear earlier on this page?
    , @Clyde
    I'll stick up for the only Nigerian I was acquainted with. Was 20 years ago. He had a legit job as in home medical attendant. He was industrious, so was also was in the used clothing business. Assembling containers full of American T-shirts with logos etc. written on them and sending them back to Nigeria. So if you see an African on TV wearing a t-shirt saying "Rolling Stones -Bridges To Babylon Tour-1997" it is probably one of his/
  136. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dumbo
    "the bigoted must traipse unhindered through our halls of learning"

    I admit it is the first time I came upon the word "traipse". But then I looked it online.

    trāps/Submit
    verb
    1.
    walk or move wearily or reluctantly.
     
    So it seems to contradict the author's intention.

    Anyway, to "disagree" with someone you first should at least hear what he has to say, right? Right?

    I mean how many of the protesters have read anything by Murray at all?

    I am pretty sure those protests are paid.

    We live in a world of secondary sources and no one has much of a clue beyond that. Of course no one has a clue what’s in the book. No one reads anything — especially an entire book.

    I’m actually surprised that there wasn’t more resistance to Murray. Look at the enormous effort that has been made to deny the obvious. To try to make the differences disappear, bad outcomes have to be ‘explained away’ by controlling for every other bad outcome. It requires endless efforts, and in the end is futile.

    And the last argument — ‘race doesn’t exist’ — has to ignore the easy availability and popularity of ancestry hobbyists and cheap DNA testing — 23 and me, for example.

    The increasing popularity of living in gentrified central cities requires some level of race realism for survival.

    And even WW G and WW T fly in the face of the inconvenient truth that college students are obsessed with sex, and are tolerant of any form of what used to be called deviance, but still pretty much conform to biology and find the distinction between sex and gender to be irrelevant outside of what have become semi required and despised diversity education. [I'm ignoring the always popular GTG or gay til graduation lesbianism].

    Violence is a sign of weakness. If the entire paradigm wasn’t imploding, we would be seeing the iron fist inside a velvet glove. Not noticing. It’s heavy lifting, sometimes.

    Read More
  137. How much racist abuse and racist self abuse will white millennials take?
    A- The sky’s the limit. __or__
    B- We will just have to wait and see.

    Read More
  138. @Broski
    Video of the event shows Stanger chanting along with the crowd at times and raising her fists in one of their various power salutes. She's milking her "whiplash," which she claims caused a concussion, for what it's worth, but she deserves little sympathy for her craven and childish behavior immediately beforehand.

    She’s milking her “whiplash,” which she claims caused a concussion, for what it’s worth

    Her lawyer can tell her what it is worth but I doubt she will sue. This would lead to her being blackballed. The administration won’t mind picking up her non-covered medical bills.

    Read More
  139. “There’s nothing outrageous about stamping out … Osita Nwanevu”

    There, that’s better.

    Read More
  140. @Ivy
    Osita Nwanevu says We. Somehow that does not seem all-inclusive. The casual disregard for bedrock Constitutional values used to be shocking. Now it is commonplace on that side of the aisle. Where are the politicians and Sunday morning pundits denouncing such statements?

    Maybe Osita’s “UUe” is some sort of Nigerian tribe.

    Read More
  141. @Frau Katze
    I can't find a list now but I've seen the list of names of the top students graduating from Grade 12 in BC, where there are a lot of Chinese.

    There were plenty of them on the last list I saw. Not sure if they were out of proportion to presence in the population.

    I don't think the IQ difference is that large.

    Diversion, slightly O/T:

    But I can say for sure: Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!

    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn't show the same results. Magic dirt?

    Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!
    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn’t show the same results. Magic dirt?

    The mountains deposit magic dirt along the YangTse, not along the Nile and Tigris.

    Read More
  142. @SPMoore8
    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days. Also, it is amusing that Trump is being id'd as the ultimate cause: "Trump made us do it!"

    However, she does make the point that many of the protestors attributed views to Murray that he does not in fact hold (e.g., re: gays).

    As to the author, it was a nice article except for a few embellishments (traipse? really?) However, he profoundly misunderstands the role of the university in providing a platform for free speech. It's true that some things are outlawed in some countries (e.g., racism, holocaust denial, etc.) but in fact the Anglo American tradition, following Mill, does not allow for any exceptions. Either we get on board with that, or we don't.

    Of course, people are always trying to suppress speech and/or characterize the "other side" as hate speech on college campuses for some time now. In this century, it's usually between Muslims/Palis or Jews/Israelis. What's going on now is just an extension of that kind of manipulation and intolerance.

    There is no justification for violence over speech. None. In this case, it makes Murray and the lady prof who defended them look like saints, and it makes the protestors look like punks. Neither did anything to dispel the notion that African Americans are at a decided disadvantage in IQ testing, and in real life. Those are problems that need to be addressed, and not by throwing tantrums.

    Right, I get the feeling that damning Trump is a necessity for having any street cred in academia these days.

    Hall cred, my man. Hall cred.

    Read More
  143. @European-American

    with time to reflect, I have to say that I hear and understand the righteous anger of many of those who shouted us down
     
    "I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to violently shout me down."

    What is wrong with these people?

    ““I might disapprove of what you say-”

    SHUT UP BI-GOT! SHUT UP BI-GOT!

    WE WANT SOCIAL JUSTICE!
    WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
    NOW! NOW! NOW!

    Read More
  144. @Nigerian Nationalist
    Don't be ignorant, Osita is Igbo. Unless he's Aro, Ezaa or Abam, his ancestors did not do the things you claim. Africa is not a monolith.

    I applaud your fine sense of irony.

    Read More
  145. I’m sorry, Osita, but the Jews fought long and hard to make obscenity legal in this great country, and by Judeo-Christ, you won’t take it away. Long and hard, Osita. Long and hard.

    Read More
  146. “Or should we dare to disagree” what a brave hero this guy is. He dares to side with dozens of young people beating up an old professor, and not with the professor himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    When it's time to burn witches, there are always a few courageous souls willing to stand in front of the mob, and bravely say "That friendless old lady there put a hex on my cow--let's get her!"
  147. @Desiderius

    Not to pretend that college education in America has ever aimed at such lofty goals, but after all the underlying point of higher education is to free one’s mind from one’s passions, and to become willing and able to rationally engage any proposition, and to discern one’s agreement or disagreement with any idea rationally and logically.
     
    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore's wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you're a fool.

    Mill's ideas were not intended* to be applied as broadly as you're trying to apply them. The debate is about how we determine those demarcations, and how that process is being, and has been, grossly abused to the detriment of any conceivable community.

    * - I suppose it could be argued that Mill himself intended it. Among many reasons that perhaps Mill is not the best guide to the life well lived.

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    It’s profoundly dishonest to try to equate a direct incitement to violent crime (which only the most extreme advocates of free speech would defend) and the emotions that arouses, with the statement of political opinions about how the world is or how it ought to be that upset people, and the emotions those arouse.

    The two are quite different, both in nature and in consequences.

    Nevertheless, they do have in common the need to constrain the emotional response short of violence. If SPMoore were to violently assault the person who advocated raping his wife, he would rightly go to prison (assuming the assault were serious enough), because in a civilised society such disputes are resolved by the law. And in the case of people upset by theoretical political propositions that they see as offensive or threatening, they are also rightly required to refrain from violence in response. That’s what grownups do, anyway. The inability of the left to do so is a symptom of arrested development.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It’s profoundly dishonest to try to equate a direct incitement to violent crime (which only the most extreme advocates of free speech would defend) and the emotions that arouses, with the statement of political opinions about how the world is or how it ought to be that upset people, and the emotions those arouse.
     
    Thanks for restating my point so poignantly and succinctly.

    Does it not follow that it would be more productive to attack the dishonesty rather than flying into some abstract discourse about the grandeur of unfettered free speech?

    I.e. attack the bailey, not the motte.

  148. @Broski
    In dealing with the HBD denialist crowd's reaction to IQ differences, particularly the reactions of people like Osita Nwanevu, HBD realists should acknowledge how painful it would be to accept that the blank slate theory is false and that one's ancestors and descendants have been and will be at a pronounced and perpetual social disadvantage in advanced societies.

    That truth is a bitter pill to swallow, and continued ignorance in this case really is relative bliss.

    They take it at personal way, what usually happen with me when people talk bad but true things about homossexuality.

    Maybe it’s not a question of genuine empathy to the people they belong but also the fear that if this truth become popularized they will be victimized or treated via racist way as happened in the near past, when everyone who belonging certain polemic group were treated equally bad.

    Maybe number 2, they are just anticipating to the [very possible] reality that other people is likely to treat them at old but bad ways.

    It’s a emotional reacton, the other side often show generalized and natural hate against this ”sacred cows’.

    But also it can be a pure manifestation of non-universalist thinking style, always avoiding accept the responsibility of their own acts or the acts of their belonging group. A kind of super protective mother who always justify the mistakes of your loved son.

    Read More
  149. @Broski
    "Otherwise it’s hard for me to understand how you could have written this."

    Who cares how Putnam couches his conclusions to avoid being Watsoned/Murrayed? The conclusion is what matters. Bowling Alone establishes that diversity is toxic to human societies.

    The word “diversity” does not appear in the index to “Bowling Alone”. The subject is not addressed at all in that book. By doubling down on your previous error you are confirming for me your profound ignorance of anything Putnam has written.

    Read More
  150. @Broski
    You are the one who should improve his reading comp. Murray and Herrnstein say that some of the gap is genetic, but refuse to state how much: "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." P. 311.

    I said in my prior post "largely" genetic, so here is a statement using the authors' exact words: it's highly likely that genes have something to do with racial differences in IQ.

    Whether you realize it or not you have just confirmed my original criticism. Your original post specifically stated that your take away from reading Murray and Herrnstein was that IQ was largely genetic. Murray and Herrnstein, as your quote demonstrates, do not take that position.

    You seem to have a habit of attributing to authors ideas which are not in the works you cite. I’ve been an academic/researcher most of my life and this is an egregious violation of ethics not far behind plagiarism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    (BroskiPhone)

    You're like that hysterical woman in Manhattan who makes lobster porn "art" screaming "I'm a professor!" Nobody cares. The fact that you're in academia detracts from your credibility, if anything. Indeed, your argument in this thread is that when professors try to verbally obscure their experimental conclusions for reasons of politics or cowardice, fear of the mob, the rest of us should play along and act like the emperor still has clothes. No thanks.
  151. @Discard
    Don't know if I'm one of the commenters you're referring to, but I do not deny that the Orientals in America have a higher average IQ than Whites. I deny that they are typical of their homelands. Are the Chinese really sending us average Chinamen, pulled right out of a rice paddy? Not likely.

    There is an engine for the effect to have been widespread, however, even in more rural areas due to the Clark-Unz eugenic model. The effect was discontinuous, but the imperial examination model and the equal inheritance model continually wiped out the lowest classes with no descendants, and repopulated them with downward social mobility from previous middle classes instead.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    I personally feel the immigration model does indeed cherry pick, but only to even greater extremes versus the host population.

    Read More
  152. @SPMoore8
    Murray, and his often forgotten co-author, Richard Herrnstein, did not argue that "blacks are intellectually inferior." They argued that:

    1. We have created an economy and and a form of social stratification that is keyed to scoring high on IQ tests and on functions that require higher education.
    2. Blacks, as a group, consistently average lower IQ scores than whites.
    3. Blacks, as a group, consistently garner less academic credentials than whites.
    4. Blacks, as a group, are consistently under-represented in the higher earning economic slots, and in the higher social status orders.

    These are facts, and you are welcome to argue against them at your leisure.

    From these facts, there are broadly speaking three explanations offered:

    1. Racism, either blatant or spectral, which is to be addressed by various cultural means, including ensuring that every AA accomplishment is praised to the skies ("Hidden Figures"), that every award and title should be bestowed on an African American, and by Affirmative Action. However, these cultural practices have been ongoing for close to 50 years now. And we still have a great deal of crime and dysfunction in AA ghettos.

    2. That leaves some mix of genetic inheritance or upbringing. The former was implied by Murray and Herrnstein, the latter was followed by such moral arbiters as Bill Cosby. Again, this has been going on for 20, 30, 40 years. Little improvement.

    However, neither of these explanations have anything to do with the case, because the basic problem is the same: What do we do with the cognitively below average in a society that barely prizes the cognitively average? That's a big problem, and seeps outward from the self-obsessed chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of wannabe intellectuals in the AA community to a whole bunch of white folks, too. That in turn explains Murray's other books.

    So what do you recommend to solve the basic problem, never mind whether it is genetic, or home grown, or racist in nature? Again, addressing racism has been non-stop for 50 years. So that is an unlikely explanation. And it certainly is no explanation at all for the millions, or tens of millions white Americans who are in similar straits, and who voted for Trump.

    It seems obvious to me that we have to restore dignity and hope for those classes of Americans, of all colors, and that a society that worships merely brains and money is on a self-destructive trajectory.

    As for birthrates, they are irrelevant to the AA community. They are mostly coming from non-whites, but also non-blacks, and the problem there is neither their skin color nor their intellect, but the fact that they come from cultures in which the notion of freedom of speech and reasoned disagreement are completely foreign.

    Something which I think almost all readers of Murray miss. Well stated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, most readers who read for understanding get that - that's why we've read him.

    The problem is those who refuse to read or to try to understand.
  153. @Randal

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?
     
    It's profoundly dishonest to try to equate a direct incitement to violent crime (which only the most extreme advocates of free speech would defend) and the emotions that arouses, with the statement of political opinions about how the world is or how it ought to be that upset people, and the emotions those arouse.

    The two are quite different, both in nature and in consequences.

    Nevertheless, they do have in common the need to constrain the emotional response short of violence. If SPMoore were to violently assault the person who advocated raping his wife, he would rightly go to prison (assuming the assault were serious enough), because in a civilised society such disputes are resolved by the law. And in the case of people upset by theoretical political propositions that they see as offensive or threatening, they are also rightly required to refrain from violence in response. That's what grownups do, anyway. The inability of the left to do so is a symptom of arrested development.

    It’s profoundly dishonest to try to equate a direct incitement to violent crime (which only the most extreme advocates of free speech would defend) and the emotions that arouses, with the statement of political opinions about how the world is or how it ought to be that upset people, and the emotions those arouse.

    Thanks for restating my point so poignantly and succinctly.

    Does it not follow that it would be more productive to attack the dishonesty rather than flying into some abstract discourse about the grandeur of unfettered free speech?

    I.e. attack the bailey, not the motte.

    Read More
  154. @Daniel Chieh
    Something which I think almost all readers of Murray miss. Well stated.

    No, most readers who read for understanding get that – that’s why we’ve read him.

    The problem is those who refuse to read or to try to understand.

    Read More
  155. @Buck Turgidson
    Best, or no, our best immigrants definitely are not coming from Nigeria. The ones I've met (usually cab drivers with sub-par driving skills) generally strike me as BSC and on the verge of a wild outburst of some type. Never met a Nigerian teacher, med. professional, etc. I wonder if maybe they are sending their best and this is as good as it gets. Never been there and not on my top 50 places I'd like to visit.

    Are we supposed to know what “BSC” stands for? Did the abbreviation appear earlier on this page?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    I think it means Bat-Shit Crazy, but I could be wrong.
    , @guest
    I believe "BSC" is common internet-speak for "bat-shit crazy."
  156. @Frau Katze
    I can't find a list now but I've seen the list of names of the top students graduating from Grade 12 in BC, where there are a lot of Chinese.

    There were plenty of them on the last list I saw. Not sure if they were out of proportion to presence in the population.

    I don't think the IQ difference is that large.

    Diversion, slightly O/T:

    But I can say for sure: Swedish educators were very anxious to learn how all these BC immigrants (or children of immigrants) were doing so well. They made a special trip to BC!

    I guess the Swedish situation (heavily MENA) doesn't show the same results. Magic dirt?

    Frau Katze,

    Thanks for your response.

    Here’s another fact which may or may not be important. Along the Canadian Pacific rail line there were/are communities of Chinese rail workers who arrived with the line’s building. The bottom line: the higher than normal Chinese iq rates appear to hold over generations.

    Read More
  157. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    No, his regular SAT score is 2100 out of 2400. The literature score is a separate test, as is US History. The SAT was sub-divided into three sections from 2005-2015: critical reading, math, and writing. So his combined scores from those three sections is 2100. A white kid (without any special in) probably needs at least 2250 to get into uChicago, and an Asian kid probably needs 2300.

    He lists his total SAT score as 2100. The 25th percentile of admitted students to Chicago is 2140 (http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327).

    As measured by SAT scores he is in roughly the bottom 20% of his class, and in a range that certainly requires a serious “hook” (e.g., parents are financial development targets, varsity athlete in a targeted sport, AA, etc.) for admission.

    Read More
  158. @Harry Baldwin
    Are we supposed to know what "BSC" stands for? Did the abbreviation appear earlier on this page?

    I think it means Bat-Shit Crazy, but I could be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Thank you. These internet abbreviations are killing me.
  159. @Harry Baldwin
    Are we supposed to know what "BSC" stands for? Did the abbreviation appear earlier on this page?

    I believe “BSC” is common internet-speak for “bat-shit crazy.”

    Read More
  160. @BB753
    I suppose Trump is busy trying to tame the Deep State and will only deal with DACA once he solves that problem. If he doesn't, he won't be able to do much of anything he promised. So be patient and pray.

    I am praying that Trump comes to the realization that listening to Ivanka and Jared on policy matters is not the smartest thing to do. She takes him away from a concentration on the border to an emphasis on “women’s issues” and he pushes him on foreign policy until you can’t tell U.S. policy apart from Israeli policy. Not smart.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @BB753
    Yeah, daddy's little girl has a bad influence on The Donald. As a father he has a blind and should I say weak spot. If only he ignored the spoiled little princess and listened more to Donald Jr and Bannon..
    , @NOTA
    Being visibly pro-Israel probably helps immunize Trump against charges of antisemitism. That may be worth a lot of policies he's not fond of, given us politics and culture.
  161. @Tom-in-VA
    Trump campaigned on destroying ISIS. What did you think he was going to do, make their heads explode like the guy in "Scanners?" As for the rest, tell you what, make yourself useful and find a lice-infested elementary school and pick your nits elsewhere.

    Sorry, Tom, but his main campaign on foreign policy was the completely out-of-the-blue and sign of a real change was his willingness to reconsider our relationship with Russia. The ISIS bit was late to the party, and always sounded forced to me.

    Read More
  162. @Frau Katze
    Well, that is a good point.

    I have often thought that the decision to be become an immigrant is itself likely to indicate on average more intelligence.

    But it's just a hunch, I haven't seen any stats on it.

    Unfortunately it's the type of thing that sociologists avoid like the plague.

    Note how the British working classes have a bad reputation across Europe for bad behaviour and drunkeness.

    I've heard that in areas of the UK where there was a lot of emigration (in places like Glasgow) it's a real problem.

    Did mass emigration dumb them down?

    If you lived in Britain you would know how funny your last question is.
    You’ve got precisely the wrong end of the stick: Glasgow (and Liverpool) are both bywords for stupidity and brutality and urban decay, not because their best left, but because the worst of a certain nation not far to the West of them came over in numbers far too large for a successful integration, ever, with the native population.
    Any lessons for us there I wonder?

    Read More
  163. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    Whether you realize it or not you have just confirmed my original criticism. Your original post specifically stated that your take away from reading Murray and Herrnstein was that IQ was largely genetic. Murray and Herrnstein, as your quote demonstrates, do not take that position.

    You seem to have a habit of attributing to authors ideas which are not in the works you cite. I've been an academic/researcher most of my life and this is an egregious violation of ethics not far behind plagiarism.

    (BroskiPhone)

    You’re like that hysterical woman in Manhattan who makes lobster porn “art” screaming “I’m a professor!” Nobody cares. The fact that you’re in academia detracts from your credibility, if anything. Indeed, your argument in this thread is that when professors try to verbally obscure their experimental conclusions for reasons of politics or cowardice, fear of the mob, the rest of us should play along and act like the emperor still has clothes. No thanks.

    Read More
  164. @Clyde

    Osita Nwanevu
     
    Nigeria is not sending us their best......... SJW warrior scamsters. How about liberal commentator seen on TV, SJW Joy Ann Reid? Half African-Congo and half USA black. Awful! But you can tell she believes she is genius.

    As an expert witness I worked with a very comment lady Nigerian lawyer. It is good to be aware of average ethnic scores on IQ tests, Marshmallow tests, warrior genes, etc., but if you really do well by all of those measures, you should be able to judge individuals by there personal merit.

    Read More
  165. @Buck Turgidson
    Best, or no, our best immigrants definitely are not coming from Nigeria. The ones I've met (usually cab drivers with sub-par driving skills) generally strike me as BSC and on the verge of a wild outburst of some type. Never met a Nigerian teacher, med. professional, etc. I wonder if maybe they are sending their best and this is as good as it gets. Never been there and not on my top 50 places I'd like to visit.

    I’ll stick up for the only Nigerian I was acquainted with. Was 20 years ago. He had a legit job as in home medical attendant. He was industrious, so was also was in the used clothing business. Assembling containers full of American T-shirts with logos etc. written on them and sending them back to Nigeria. So if you see an African on TV wearing a t-shirt saying “Rolling Stones -Bridges To Babylon Tour-1997″ it is probably one of his/

    Read More
  166. @Old fogey
    I am praying that Trump comes to the realization that listening to Ivanka and Jared on policy matters is not the smartest thing to do. She takes him away from a concentration on the border to an emphasis on "women's issues" and he pushes him on foreign policy until you can't tell U.S. policy apart from Israeli policy. Not smart.

    Yeah, daddy’s little girl has a bad influence on The Donald. As a father he has a blind and should I say weak spot. If only he ignored the spoiled little princess and listened more to Donald Jr and Bannon..

    Read More
  167. @Stan Adams
    I think it means Bat-Shit Crazy, but I could be wrong.

    Thank you. These internet abbreviations are killing me.

    Read More
  168. @guest
    I believe "BSC" is common internet-speak for "bat-shit crazy."

    Thank you. I need to buy the glossary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Google usually does a pretty good job, but not in this case since there are so many other meanings. The Urban Dictionary serves as a good glossary for internet acronyms. For example: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bsc
  169. @SPMoore8
    We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

    What you are proposing is a restatement of Murray (and others) so to make them palatable.

    But there's no way you can make the implications of genetics palatable for anyone who has gotten the short end of the stick.

    For example, we could restate the argument with regard to blacks and whites (in IQ terms) with the caveat that we need to raise all boats. But that has already been done, and was in fact done by Murray and Herrnstein in the first place, but restating the proposition in more diplomatic language did nothing to suppress the attendant rage.

    The same could be said about anything else; whether it concerns men and women, human sexuality, LGBT issues, what kind of country we are going to become (even raising the question of "what kind of country are we going to become" would doubtless be considered racist and riot-worthy.) There are simply many topics -- these are a few -- where any hint of other than Climate Change Orthodoxy will earn you heated public opprobrium.

    Therefore the larger issue is tolerance of deviation and dissidence, which means free speech.

    You seem to believe that if we artfully recast the arguments we can make them about something other than freedom of speech. I disagree.

    The heckler’s veto is a tactic, not a philosophical position. There will always be people willing to justify any tactic when carried out by their team. Let the other side use that tactic, and those same people will be writing impassioned defenses of freedom of speech.

    Most people don’t have principles–instead, they have a side. That’s a pity–the principle of freedom of speech is really important for keeping a functioning society. But the only thing we can do is keep our own commitment to the principles that make our society function.

    Read More
  170. @SPMoore8
    The only way that can be done is by bringing in the national guard, but no one has the will to do that. I'm certainly not in any position to do so.

    The fundamental thing here is that Murray should have been allowed to appear, and say what he wished to say, at that college (or any other venue where he was invited). That makes it a free speech problem.

    The fact that he was prevented from doing so, with some violence, makes it a law enforcement problem, but the underlying issue is still enshrined in the First Amendment.

    However, colleges stopped enforcing the law to protect unpopular speakers from appearing on campuses decades ago.

    Simply announcing that anyone who disrupts the speech past a certain point will be arrested for disturbing the peace and will face academic discipline if they’re a student would be enough to stop this nonsense, if they followed up on the threat. The first time it happened would be extremely unpleasant, with news coverage and YouTube videos of students being dragged off to jail. After a couple iterations it would stop, because disrupting the speech of some guy whose book you’ve never read isn’t actually worth spending a weekend in jail and doing a month of community service picking up trash by the side of the road on Saturdays.

    Read More
  171. @Stan Adams

    How about the proposition that we should all forcibly rape SPMoore’s wife and enslave his children?

    Do you seek to free yourself from passions aroused by such propositions? To rationally engage them? If you do then you’re a fool.
     
    Undeniably, it is politically foolish to engage in rational, dispassionate discussion of issues posed by such propositions:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXz4wFDAo0

    The policy we use to prevent nuclear war is about a billion times more horrible than raping and murdering one person. And yet, we’d better be able to discuss it as rationally as possible. Yes, many topics are emotional, but we still have to think clearly about them, in the same way that a doctor needs to think clearly about whether that ugly mole on your arm is melanoma without reference to how horrible it would be for you to have melanoma.

    Read More
  172. @Erik Sieven
    "Or should we dare to disagree" what a brave hero this guy is. He dares to side with dozens of young people beating up an old professor, and not with the professor himself.

    When it’s time to burn witches, there are always a few courageous souls willing to stand in front of the mob, and bravely say “That friendless old lady there put a hex on my cow–let’s get her!”

    Read More
  173. @Old fogey
    I am praying that Trump comes to the realization that listening to Ivanka and Jared on policy matters is not the smartest thing to do. She takes him away from a concentration on the border to an emphasis on "women's issues" and he pushes him on foreign policy until you can't tell U.S. policy apart from Israeli policy. Not smart.

    Being visibly pro-Israel probably helps immunize Trump against charges of antisemitism. That may be worth a lot of policies he’s not fond of, given us politics and culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    It doesn't stop the charges, though. Would they be any more effective in the absence of his actual philosemitism, or would it be just more noise? Like pussies and whatnot.
    , @guest
    I realize, of course, the Israel test is more about elite acceptance than mass-acceptance. And though the Trump ship has sailed for the vast majority of the elite, he'll need at least some people who know what they're doing in justice, intelligence, foreign policy, finance, the Deep State in general, etc. to get anything done. Those are the sort of people foolish enough not to help because of the 51st state issue.

    Plus, he's too much like Bibi for them not to be buds. Way, way closer than Trump and Pooty-poot.

  174. @Anon
    Don't be igborant. In the age of PC, there is collective guilt. So, ALL whites are guilty of 'racism', and ALL Africans are guilty of slave trade

    So you’re PC. Good to know.

    Read More
  175. @RadicalCenter
    President Trump's failure to stop DACA is the most serious blot on his record so far, and it makes me distrust him. Unlike many of the policy changes that are sorely needed, the President can do this one by executive order. We are still waiting, Donald.

    Is he TRYING to get me to go back to voting third-party in 2020?

    Stop whining. Trump’s “failure” is his willingness to wait for a deal on legal immigration, E-Verify, birthright citizenship, and whatever other horrendous immigration policies need to be destroyed.

    Read More
  176. @NOTA
    Being visibly pro-Israel probably helps immunize Trump against charges of antisemitism. That may be worth a lot of policies he's not fond of, given us politics and culture.

    It doesn’t stop the charges, though. Would they be any more effective in the absence of his actual philosemitism, or would it be just more noise? Like pussies and whatnot.

    Read More
  177. @NOTA
    Being visibly pro-Israel probably helps immunize Trump against charges of antisemitism. That may be worth a lot of policies he's not fond of, given us politics and culture.

    I realize, of course, the Israel test is more about elite acceptance than mass-acceptance. And though the Trump ship has sailed for the vast majority of the elite, he’ll need at least some people who know what they’re doing in justice, intelligence, foreign policy, finance, the Deep State in general, etc. to get anything done. Those are the sort of people foolish enough not to help because of the 51st state issue.

    Plus, he’s too much like Bibi for them not to be buds. Way, way closer than Trump and Pooty-poot.

    Read More
  178. @donut
    Oh Steve , you putting up posts so fast that my head is spinning and I can't keep up . Just let me keep my hand in .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forqmom3YuY

    They miss part of Elton John’s (and Bernie Taupin’s…) intentions though, don’t they? – Most likely they’re all straight, no? I mean – all four of them – – possibly perfectly straight?!

    Read More
  179. @Harry Baldwin
    Thank you. I need to buy the glossary.

    Google usually does a pretty good job, but not in this case since there are so many other meanings. The Urban Dictionary serves as a good glossary for internet acronyms. For example: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bsc

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.