The characterization of Murray's views seem extremely accurate and the fact that his book is still brought up despite being disproved as racist trash decades ago is ridiculous
That book was not very good science or science interpretation and didn’t do a great job of proving that meaningful race-iq differences exist. I also don’t know where the disaster is, could you elucidate some of the cataclysmic results of DEI?
I’ve seen and read extensive reviews, but yeah I have not read it. I agree that’s a blind spot, so I’ll go ahead and read the book then get back to you after. Give me like a week.
It is wildly untrue that these bullets are all broadly accepted in the actual literature or among modern practitioners. This is more like a list of things you happen to believe. Which is fine, but be clearer about it.
Why do you think it’s “fine” that the parent commentator thinks “ yes, some population groups really are more intelligent than others”? What do you think he means by the “truly taboo comparisons” and why do you think he’s too chickenshit to say what he means? Why is that “fine” instead of “grounds for immediate ostracism”?
Are you ascribing that to innate genetic IQ inferiority or to social and environmental causes?
Eg: Resource starved German schoolchildren in WWII scored almost two std deviations lower than the same demographic from the same classes and schools five years earlier.
I mostly just want to preempt the inevitable citation to IQ & The Wealth Of Nations; it's a little squicky for me to predict it's coming (but it was definitely coming).
Sure, this John C Calhoun level racist will probably just change his mind about Blacks being untermenschen if you’re just polite enough to him.
I understand that the stated HN policy is that polite, fig-leafed White supremacy and 1920’s style race science is fine and name-calling is not, but get real. Your attitude is not just not helpful, it actively helps normalize scumbags like this piece of shit.
You're coming across as someone terrified that the literature is going to back this person up. It does not. Can you just go to Twitter and dunk on HN instead? All you're doing here is this person's work for them.
You're writing like the objective of the thread is to communicate with this particular person. It is not. The point of a thread is every other lurker reading it.
It’s extremely clear you don’t have any personal real-world experience with this, but let me assure you that no one who thinks Blacks are of sub-human intelligence gets there by sitting down and digging into research and weighing the various arguments for and against. They start with the prejudice and they latch on to whatever allows them to justify it. There is no point in making arguments at all, either to this particular piece of shit or to whatever pieces of shit will permit a nasty internet comment to justify prejudices they already hold. The only thing that works is to make it clear to these people that no one is fooled about what their views really are, that those views are repulsive to decent ordinary people and that holding them is grounds for ostracism and abuse.
Politely tolerating and debating them doesn’t sway any bystanders away into thinking “hey, maybe Blacks are fully equal to other humans after all”, it only gives social permission to fellow travelers who would otherwise feel pressured to conceal or temper their racism, and normalizes the idea that the essential humanity and equality of Blacks and other minorities is a legitimate topic of debate.
Once again: I do not care what the person you are threatening thinks. I do not think I am going to persuade him. What I care about is that he's wrong, and that looking super dumb on a thread about science is a lot more interesting and persuasive than a throwaway account pitifully threatening to beat him him.
You write like you don't know why he's wrong. Let me reassure you: he is. Look it up!
What you think you’re doing is showing off how smart and clever you are. What you’re actually doing is normalizing the idea that the essential humanity and equality of Black people is a legitimate topic for debate. Stop doing this.
> I think you're genuinely afraid you could lose an argument with that person, and that's sad.
No, you stupid motherfucker, I think it’s gross and debasing that anyone would think the argument is worth having in the first place, let alone validating, and if you can’t understand why, I think maybe you should consider stepping outside of your own smug interior life for a moment.
No, I don't think psychometrics and heritability research is like stereotype threat or "sky fathers", whatever that is. But I think we're clearer at this point where that list came from, and probably don't need to take this further.
No? You provided a list of things you personally believe to be supported by the balance of evidence (in several different fields of study), and many of them --- maybe more than half --- are things that are unsettled, or even unlikely to be true. Why would I retract anything?
Half? Seriously? I could understand believing a handful of them are "unsettled, or even unlikely to be true" given the current debate climate.
Honest question, no attempt at rhetorical jiu-jitsu or anything -- why do you believe "maybe more than half"? You must base that estimate on something.
Yes: I read papers and keep up with stuff. It's cute that you think we're going to dig into this rigorously after "Communism, sky fathers, and crystals", but we obviously will not. Again, no, I will not be "retracting" anything.
Differences in IQ currently exist, they're not based on racial genetics.
The Bell Curve isn't about organizing society fairly it's about justifying what is clearly an unfair and unjust society as natural and impossible to improve and therefore good
