Race, IQ; Loury - Harris on Race & Murray
Plus a second partial transcript in defense of Murray's The Bell Curve
Glenn Loury has Sam Harris on for Affirmative Action
Some Comments:
It would be good to be more clear about what "racism" can mean:
1) The races are different in some way. Visibly.
2) Some races are superior, others are inferior.
a) in IQ - intelligence, cognitive ability, getting to the "right answer" thru logic
b) in physical measures, like height, weight, breast or penis size, hair color, or eye color, or
amount of melanin in their skin.
3) That, based on racial differences, they can be treated differently as members of a group, irrespective of individual differences.
(Jeffrey Peoples is also a target of this comment - what does "racism" mean to him).
Race is real, and visible by normal eyesight, as well as increasingly by genetic analysis.
(3) treating individuals differently because of race is already illegal, discrimination is illegal - yet different races exhibit different outcomes.
The problem of different outcomes doesn't seem so large in the NBA. Even tho there are more Hispanics in America than Blacks, there are far far fewer Hispanics than Blacks playing professional basketball. Is that racism? Culture/ nurture? Genetics? Is it so bad that the rules need to be changed?
Blacks are, as a group, taller. Genetically. Culturally Blacks play more basketball, younger, than do Hispanics, who play more soccer (football to the rest of the world).
Trying to imagine rules to allow more "equity" in the NBA between Blacks and Hispanics would essentially destroy the main meritocracy criteria of "most winning (w/o cheating)".
Here are some bad possible equality rules:
- Hispanics should score as many points, so they get 10, 20, & 30 points for their shots, not just 1, 2, & 3
- Each team needs as many Hispanics as Blacks
- Each team needs to have Hispanics play as many minutes as Blacks play
- The total amount of money paid to Hispanics must be as much as paid to Blacks
... all of these ‘equality rules’ destroy the game, because they’re unfair.
This is similar to ending sexism by comparing XY males and XX females and trying for equality.
XY people ARE genetically different than XX people - and real men are XY people who identify as men; real women are XX people who identify as women. We don't have language for XY people who do NOT identify as men, and "mentally ill" has been rejected, altho it might be true. (I'd suggest ‘quasi-women’ for such an XY person as Lia Thomas, because q'she is not a real woman. Q'her winning in women's swimming is not fair. Q’she is not a real woman, but q’she is a q’woman. Elliot Page is a q’man, since q’he transitioned in 2021.)
On math ability (math IQ), there's a good Putnam exam. Last year MIT won all of the 5 top spots, with East Asian men, as well as the top woman (in top 15, not even top 10).
https://news.mit.edu/2022/mit-students-take-first-place-82nd-putnam-mathematical-competition-0311 (see picture)
No Blacks, no Whites. It might be that there have been 0 blacks as any of the top 5 since this competition started 82 years ago - it's certainly the case that fewer than 10%, and even less than 1% of the winners have been Black. Far far less than 50% or even 10% have been women (Larry Summers was totally correct about few top female physicists - but he was still pushed out of Harvard for speaking this truth.)
MIT abolished SAT scores last year - this year they are re-instating them.
To be the top in just about anything requires genetics (talent?) AND cultural nurture AND individual effort.
Murray-haters implicitly or explicitly say that genetics have 0% influence. This is certainly false, based on all we know about genetics today, but we even knew that then. For group IQ, how much is genetics versus everything else is much less clear. 50%? 33%?
Why did Glenn Loury or John McWhorter succeed? Genetically gifted, some level of culture- nurture, and individual effort. (Same reasons I'm good but not nearly as great).
We who want Blacks to do better in America, and the world, should be agreeing that culture is important, and improvable. Poor Blacks, like poor Whites, and like all poor dumb people (like Forrest Gump), need to follow 4 main rules of behavior - behavior that is under their control, despite other influences:
1) Finish High School (or GED);
2) no babies until marriage;
3) no criminal behavior;
4) keep a job for at least a year.
Poor Whites, like poor Hispanics, have almost always violated one or more of these clear social rules. Also poor Blacks - but in even greater percentages.
Talk about IQ distracts from the far more important issue of behavior. Like Will Smith's criminal small assault because of a verbal insult against his open-marriage wife. Even if low IQ is part of the reason that poor people are bad at following these rules, the key social issue should be in helping more poor people follow these rules more often.
Reply to Nathan Robinson:
Why the anger against Murray? “The fact that he shouldn't have been chased out of Middlebury College does not mean that he is not a racist or that the Bell Curve is not a shoddy piece of work.” The Murray-haters were wrong to chase him off Middlebury’s platform. If you can’t refer to a better work on IQ than The Bell Curve, your “shoddy piece” insult starts to apply even more strongly to your own 2017 piece. Where is such neutral scholarship? Rage without a better alternative is self-defeating.
I’m enraged against Murray-haters, because today it is claimed by many that Black failures are due to White structural racism. Blacks fail, and it’s MY fault (since I’m white). This is false, and enraging. Those that fail do so because they fail at one or more of the clear 4 steps to take out of poverty:
1) graduate from High School (knowing how to read, write, and do some math);
2) have no babies before marriage;
3) stay out of jail, commit no crimes;
4) get some job and keep it for a year or more.
Whites who are poor are poor for failing at one or more of these – ain’t ‘cause ‘a no racism. But Blacks who are poor when failing to do these steps? Oh yeah, THAT’s racism, structural racism.
So every time Black kids play basketball instead of studying for school, or even going to school to graduate from High School, I’m guilty. Blacks having sex before and outside of marriage and having babies (with fathers not there; some 75% of Black kids) – my guilt. Guilt but no orgasm. Blacks commit crimes, like killing other gang members or bystanders – clearly it’s White folks’ fault. Blacks refuse to stay in some BS job, or something where you have show up on time, or not drugged out nor drunk – Whitey’s fault. Eddie Murphy explained it decades ago: “I hate Whitey because he’s white: W – I – T – E”.
Bullshit. 90% or more of US poverty is based on individual failure to follow the 4 steps out of poverty. The sad reality is too few Blacks choose, due to IQ, culture, parents, school, gov’t programs, too few Blacks choose to follow the steps out of poverty. But society talks about racism, talks about racism, and talks about who is a racist and why.
[The above was my conclusion, the rest discusses Robinson’s article in more detail to him.]
Your piece claims Murray IS a racist, as in para 4:
“For it can be very easily proven that Murray is a man with a strong racial bias against Black people, insofar as he fails to respect them as equal human beings and believes them to be, on average, inferior to white people in matters of intelligence, creativity, and inherent human worth... if Murray is not a racist, the word “racist” is empty of meaning.”
You use the same Murray-hate (Murray Derangement Syndrome?) argumentation that you claim so many other haters do when you “stretch the case against him beyond its limits”. Belief in lower group average intelligence does NOT mean lower inherent human worth.
But it’s very very true that economic success is often equated with moral superiority, and IQ or other “smarts” is expected to lead one to become rich. “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” (Stanford unofficial sweatshirt motto.)
Murray’s ACTUAL appearance on The Glenn Show shows him as quite respectful of Glenn, treating him fully as an equal human being. Which is possible for those who believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated and judged as individuals based on their own behavior and characteristics, as MLK dreamt. The importance of this is that individual treatment is the only realistic way to behave to others if Blacks are, on average, inferior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in the matter of IQ / g – intelligence / SATscores.
Your claims about what Murray writes:
1- Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.2- Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
3- We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
On #3, you never show that Murray wants a conception of equality where black people are subhuman. You show he likes the limited government of the early USA, and its ideals. YOU, Nathan, are adding the part about Blacks as subhuman, and ascribing it the Founding Fathers, and by implication any who admire these most admirable men. Murray, like most Libertarians, is against most post New Deal regulations and expansions of gov’t power.
On #1, you admit the fact that Black SAT (& IQ) scores are lower: “Murray and Herrnstein report the (undisputed) empirical finding that black scores on IQ tests are—as a statistical average—lower than white scores on IQ tests.” yet claim the rage against Murray is justified because of his racism. I claim that a lot of the rage is against that reality of IQ difference, which also often translates into disputing that IQ measures “smart”, or claims IQ & SAT & all math tests are “racist”.
Your Too Long screed didn’t quite define racism, but comes close in describing Murray’s thought:
“Charles Murray thinks black people are inferior to white people, and having them in socially, economically, and politically subordinate positions is acceptable…. “
Still, what is “having them”? In the case of slavery, clearly, but also Democratic Party Jim Crow laws, laws and policies that require them to be subordinate, or forbid them from equal use. That racism is Illegal, and very popularly illegal, treating two similar behaving individuals differently based on group average differences. That’s what “racism” means, and a racist is somebody who advocates that policy. Of course, as almost noted by Glenn and Sam, all Affirmative Action programs are racist, advocating promoting Blacks who are just a little bit less qualified over a White.
But how much is “just a little bit”? That’s a huge important part of the controversy that is seldom quantified, and is not done either by Murray, Loury, nor Harris, either. After CRA of 1964, the expectation was that AA positive discrimination would remove barriers and become ever less needed over time as free and natural equality led towards more equal outcomes. AA + freedom + white guilt + welfare (that rewards bad lifestyle choices with gov’t cash) has seen an increase in inequality.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/
According to The Harvard Crimson, Asian acceptance SAT scores averaged 767 (of 800), Whites at 745, Hispanics 718, Native Americans 712, while Blacks were at 704. Just under a 9% difference with a class size of about 1700, but applicant count at over 40,000. This will probably be ruled, eventually & correctly, as too much anti-Asian racist bias. I’d say about 2% max difference should be acceptable, so around 751 – already above the average admit rate of all other groups. That’s the reality, today.
[We should probably change College entrances to be more parental income based (over prior 5 years), so only 1% (17) can come from parents in the top 1%, only 10% (170) from parents in the top 10%, only 20% (340) from parents in the top 20%; and only 50% (850) from parents in the top 50%. This for schools with high endowments (over $100 million? Harvard has some $40 billion) and current reduced tax status. – such brainstorm ideas seldom make it into serious columns.]
Today racists like Kendi claim disparate impact proves racism, but only for Blacks against Whites and Asians. That stupid idea needs to be fought, strongly. Individual performance based merit causes average group difference.
Thus, the fact that Black players dominate the NBA is not racist, but performance based – Blacks on b-ball teams score more points/ win more games, than teams with more Hispanics or other less successful players.
I haven’t read Human Achievement, but your (2) points about Black musical culture seem very strong – tho it’s related to Black over-representation relative to Hispanics in selling music and being in movies. Yet I don’t remember “creative inferiority” of current Blacks being strongly attributed to Murray as reasons for rage, unlike group IQ differences.
As I read (and read & read), it’s like you can’t stop insulting and condemning Murray while eliding the key truths: a) there ARE IQ group avg differences, and b) Some of the difference IS genetic, thus unchangeable.
This Too Long comment’s conclusion was elevated to the top. To minimize racial gap differences, it’s most important for Blacks to change their own behavior – of which they are, themselves, the victims of the bad outcomes. 1) High School; 2) Marriage before babies; 3) No crime; 4) Hold a job for year.