charlesmurray   34

"How Heritability Misleads about Race" by Ned Block
There is a difference between traits being heritable or "genetically determined". Heritability, as a statistical concept, is defined as the ratio of genetically caused variation to total variation, while genetic determination is an informal concept: a characteristic could be said to be genetically determined if it is coded in the genes and is bound to develop in a "normal" environment. Importantly, both direct (genetically determined) and indirect genetic effects can be included in heritability, depending on which indirect effects are known.

Indirect genetic effects arise since environment interactions change depending on certain genes, affecting how other genes are expressed. This can make traits heritable despite not being genetically determined. A substantial variation in a highly heritable trait between groups doesn't necessarily imply genetic differences for that trait.

For a listing of different types of indirect genetic effects see [Gene-environment correlation](
genetics  iq  CharlesMurray  NedBlock  critique  TheBellCurve  via:MaciejCeglowski 
7 weeks ago by torbiak
Q&A: Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment -
Once a decade, Charles Murray drops a bombshell book on American intellectual life.

In 1984, it was his devastating assessment of welfare programs, "Losing Ground," which helped inspire the famous 1996 welfare reform act.
charlesMurray  intelligence  iq 
december 2017 by Jswindle
A basic income really could end poverty forever - Vox
basic income is an idea that transcends ideological lines. But it’s really more like a Rorschach test
basicincome  charlesmurray  miltonfriedman  ycombinator 
july 2017 by sampenrose
There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes - Vox
Murray and Harris’s current endorsement of a genetic contribution to the black-white IQ gap is based on a weak brew of unexamined intuition and sketchy empirical evidence. In a free country and a free academy, scientists can speculate about whatever they want, but their speculations should not be mistaken for a scientific consensus or a legitimate basis for social policy.
charlesmurray  race  racism  iq  samharris 
june 2017 by sampenrose
Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ - Vox
Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based. But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.

Here, too briefly, are some facts to ponder — facts that Murray was not challenged to consider by Harris, who holds a PhD in neuroscience, although they are known to most experts in the field of intelligence.
charlesmurray  race  racism  iq  intelligence  socialscience  cognition  takedowns  samharris 
may 2017 by sampenrose
Deeply Aggrieved
"Van Jones, whom Bruni quotes, offers to students that “I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back.” And I wonder: Does Jones, does Bruni, think that students aren’t offended—deeply aggrieved and offended and upset—everywhere every single day? How dare we presume that students live idle lives when we’re not watching? How dare we believe it is our responsibility to forge their character through intellectual adversity?

C’mon, really? Among undergraduate women, 23.4% will be or have been raped. Upwards of 24% of students are food insecure, even though 63% of them are working. And that’s just for starters. Hate crime, domestic abuse, fears about the stability and reliability of health care, concerns about the environment—all the things that plague working adults with advanced degrees also plague students. The difference is that those “working adults” don’t have professors telling them to “put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity.”

But what does all of this have to do with a dyslexic student who found herself unable to use the device on which she relied in—ahem—a computer science class?

Academia has long touted its own brand without paying attention to whether or not its product works. Universities and colleges not only stand on tradition, they promote a propaganda of tradition, a dogged effort to raise the quality of human character through intellectualism, rationality, and expertise supported by relentless surveillance and punishment of plagiarism, sloth, and student agency, and a tireless resistance to cultural change, technology, and diversity. The Student is the weak link in the academy, the wild horse that needs breaking, or the lazy scissorbill who must be taught discipline and integrity...and more recently, the privileged Millennial whose character can only be built through an unforgiving exposure to adversity.

But the academy and its students see the world very differently. Devices are not distractions. And adversity is something carried on the back into class. While academics enact social justice through diatribes, literary analysis, and social get-togethers, students are finding themselves on the front lines. They are dealing with their disabilities, they are confronting racism, they are walking out of classrooms to join protests, they are standing up for their undocumented colleagues. They are taking risks. And even if the only thing they’re doing is attending our classes, that is risk enough.

Your students have fought, your students have hidden from bullies, your students have been hungry, they have passed for straight, they have held their tongues, and they have been broken.
In many cases, the students you work with have had to subvert a system that sought to oppress them in order to make it to your classroom.
Institutions that refuse to move—not into the future, but into the present—are enacting a masochistic nostalgia. Things are not the way they were, and to isolate our philosophies in an historic moment is to condemn their practicality. Just as perilous is to assume the academy exists in a safe vacuum, where political tensions that light the nation on fire will not penetrate the halls of ivy-grown intellectualism and rationality. Universities hope to be environments for stable inquiry, where research and dialogue trump matters more visceral. But the students are restless y'all. These upon whose shoulders our futures will be built are staring down an apocalypse—of government, of environment, of justice, and of common sense.

In a world run by people who take the low road, taking the high road is not practical. We need people who will meet others on the low road if we are to cease this downward spiral. I am not advocating for violence—that the Middlebury protest ended in violence muted its usefulness. Instead, I am advocating for a Zen-like honesty about the state of things. The academy will not solve the crises its students face. But the students themselves may.

We do not do what we do so that students can be like us. We do what we do precisely because they can't be. We cannot afford for them to carry on our traditions. And for that reason, I encourage the academy, and all of those who advocate for its primacy, to consider the ways in which it has sheltered itself from the world, and to put on some boots, become deeply aggrieved, and be strong."
seanmichaelmorris  2017  vanjones  frankbruni  highered  highereducation  tradtion  academia  adversity  privilege  technology  education  middleburycollege  charlesmurray  bootstraps  distraction  assistivetechnology  dyslexia  socialjustice  disability  bullying  oppression  nostlagia  masochism  lowroad  highroad  disabilities 
may 2017 by robertogreco
The Tainted Sources of 'The Bell Curve' | by Charles Lane | The New York Review of Books
the most curious of the sources he and Herrnstein consulted is Mankind Quarterly—a journal of anthropology founded in Edinburgh in 1960. Five articles from the journal are actually cited in The Bell Curve’s bibliography (pp. 775, 807, and 828).2 But the influence on the book of scholars linked to Mankind Quarterly is more significant. No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly. Ten are present or former editors, or members of its editorial advisory board. This is interesting because Mankind Quarterly is a notorious journal of “racial history” founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race.3

Mankind Quarterly was established during decolonization and the US civil rights movement. Defenders of the old order were eager to brush a patina of science on their efforts. Thus Mankind Quarterly’s avowed purpose was to counter the “Communist” and “egalitarian” influences that were allegedly causing anthropology to neglect the fact of racial differences. “The crimes of the Nazis,” wrote Robert Gayre, Mankind Quarterly’s founder and editor-in-chief until 1978, “did not, however, justify the enthronement of a doctrine of a-racialism as fact, nor of egalitarianism as ethnically and ethically demonstrable.”4

Gayre was a champion of apartheid in South Africa, and belonged to the ultra-right Candour League of white-ruled Rhodesia.5
Mankind Quarterly was established during decolonization and the US civil rights movement. Defenders of the old order were eager to brush a patina of science on their efforts. Thus Mankind Quarterly’s avowed purpose was to counter the “Communist” and “egalitarian” influences that were allegedly causing anthropology to neglect the fact of racial differences. “The crimes of the Nazis,” wrote Robert Gayre, Mankind Quarterly’s founder and editor-in-chief until 1978, “did not, however, justify the enthronement of a doctrine of a-racialism as fact, nor of egalitarianism as ethnically and ethically demonstrable.”4
bellcurve  charlesmurray  racism  socialscience 
march 2017 by sampenrose
Charles Murray’s Middlebury Trouble -- Will the College Affirm Academic Freedom? | National Review
In the ancient days, before we had 15-minute outrages over controversial tweets, we had year-long outrages over controversial books. Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, wrote a book that is doomed to be forever more read about than read.
charlesMurray  bellCurve  individualism 
march 2017 by Jswindle
The liberals who loved eugenics - The Washington Post
“[Herrnstein & Murray] examined the consensus that, controlling for socioeconomic status and possible IQ test bias, cognitive ability is somewhat heritable, the black/white differential had narrowed and millions of blacks have higher IQs than millions of whites. The authors were ‘resolutely agnostic’ concerning the roles of genes and the social environment. They said that even if there developed unequivocal evidence that genetics are ‘part of the story,’ there would be ‘no reason to treat individuals differently’ or to permit government regulation of procreation.”
Progressivism  Eugenics  GeorgeWill  CharlesMurray 
march 2017 by cbearden
Trump's America / Charles Murray (AEI, Feb 12, 2016)
One of the very best things I've read on Trumpism.

“If you are dismayed by Trumpism, don’t kid yourself that it will fade away if Donald Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. Trumpism is an expression of the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about the course that the country has taken, and its appearance was predictable. It is the endgame of a process that has been going on for a half-century: America’s divestment of its historic national identity.”

“Try using ‘redneck’ in a conversation with your highly educated friends and see if it triggers any of the nervousness that accompanies other ethnic slurs. Refer to ‘flyover country’ and consider the implications when no one asks, ‘What does that mean?’ Or I can send you to chat with a friend in Washington, D.C., who bought a weekend place in West Virginia. He will tell you about the contempt for his new neighbors that he has encountered in the elite precincts of the nation’s capital.”
Trumpism  CharlesMurray  DonaldTrump  MustRead 
may 2016 by cbearden
Rethinking the Idea of a Basic Income for All -
"The recent debate was kicked off in an April 30, 2012, post, by Jessica M. Flanigan of the University of Richmond, who said all libertarians should support a universal basic income on the grounds of social justice. Professor Flanigan, a self-described anarchist, opposes a system of property rights “that causes innocent people to starve.”

She cited a paper by the philosopher Matt Zwolinski of the University of San Diego in the December 2011 issue of the journal Basic Income Studies, which also contained other papers by libertarians supporting the basic income concept. While acknowledging that most libertarians would reject explicit redistribution of income, he pointed to several libertarians, including the economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who favored the idea of a basic universal income.

Friedman’s argument appeared in his 1962 book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” based on lectures given in 1956, and was called a negative income tax. His view was that the concept of progressivity ought to work in both directions and would be based on the existing tax code. Thus if the standard deduction and personal exemption exceeded one’s gross income, one would receive a subsidy equal to what would have been paid if one had comparable positive taxable income."

the economist F.A. Hayek endorsed a universal basic income in Volume 3 of his book, “Law, Legislation and Liberty”:
The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.

"Most recently, Matthew Feeney of Reason, the libertarian magazine, wrote favorably about the Swiss proposal in a Nov. 26 post. As a complete replacement for the existing welfare system, he thought it had merit and might even save money. He was especially critical of the paternalism of the current welfare system and the denial of autonomy to those living in poverty.

“Instead of treating those who, often through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times, like children who are incapable of making the right choices about the food they eat or the drugs they may or may not choose to take, why not just give them cash?” Mr. Feeney asked."
universalbasicincome  inequality  politics  2013  brucebartlett  income  policy  economics  hayek  miltonfriedman  mattzwolinski  us  switzerland  thomaspaine  davidfriedman  meganmcardle  matthewfeeney  charlesmurray  ubi 
december 2013 by robertogreco

related tags

2011  2012  2013  2017  academia  achievement  adversity  america  americawhatwentwrong  antiintellectualism  arneduncan  arthurlevine  arts  assistivetechnology  awesome  basicincome  bellcurve  beverlyhillbillies  billbennett  books  bootstraps  brains  brucebartlett  bullying  chesterfinn  class  cognition  comingapart  conservatism  corporatism  criticalpedagogy  criticaltheory  critique  culture  davidfriedman  davidfrum  davidhorowitz  davidleonhardt  decline  deschooling  disabilities  disability  distraction  donaldtrump  douglaststaiger  dyslexia  economics  edhirsch  education  elibroad  essay  eugenics  frankbruni  frederickhess  fuckedup  future  gender  genetics  georgewill  hayek  highered  highereducation  highroad  history  income  incomes  individualism  inequality  intelligence  interviews  iq  jamesheckman  julieberrycullen  kindergarten  literature  louisgerstner  lowroad  masochism  matthewfeeney  mattzwolinski  mccain  meganmcardle  michellerhee  middleburycollege  miltonfriedman  morality  mustread  nedblock  negativeincometax  neoliberalism  nostlagia  nytimes  opinionjournal  oppression  palin  philiporeopoulos  pittsburgh  policy  politics  poverty  privatization  privilege  progressivism  projectstar  psychology  race  racism  rajchetty  rameshponnuru  reform  research  reviews  roddreher  samharris  school  schoolreform  seanmichaelmorris  sexism  social  socialjustice  socialscience  sociology  switzerland  taboo  takedowns  teachers  technology  tennessee  thebellcurve  thomasedsall  thomaspaine  tradtion  trumpism  ubi  unitedstates  universalbasicincome  unschooling  upperclass  us  usa  vanjones  video  virginiapostrel  vox  wallstreetjournal  washington-dc  welfare  whiteamerica  workingclass  wtf  ycombinator  yuvallevin 

Copy this bookmark: