Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books

[Suburbia]

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on April 30 that he likes Charles Murray's books. Murray is a controversial conservative author who says that African-Americans are dumber than whites. Will this hirt him among a general election audience?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charles-murray-the-bell-curve

[bobloblaw]

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on April 30 that he likes Charles Murray's books. Murray is a controversial conservative author who says that African-Americans are dumber than whites. Will this hirt him among a general election audience?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charles-murray-the-bell-curve

he isnt going to make it to the general election, so it is moot

[Mister Mets]

It'll hurt him with liberal activists.

Most voters have no idea who Charles Murray is. That's especially true of swing voters, who tend to be less informed than partisans.

He also doesn't reference Murray's comments on IQ or race.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This isn't going to be the kind of issue that makes any real impact, but Bush's series of minor unforced errors are going to catch up to him and the money will start shifting.

[Suburbia]

It'll hurt him with liberal activists.

Most voters have no idea who Charles Murray is. That's especially true of swing voters, who tend to be less informed than partisans.

He also doesn't reference Murray's comments on IQ or race.

True. Even if they read it in a college, they don't remember.

[bedstuy]

First rule of running for the GOP nomination, never admit to having read a book besides the Bible.

[IceSpear]

First rule of running for the GOP nomination, never admit to having read a book besides the Bible.

Sarah Palin would dispute this rule.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think people are capable of recognizing that a writer can have both good and bad ideas.  Charles Murray has made some interesting and original contributions, unlike his perspective on race and IQ which are neither.  The interesting part of the Murray's views on IQ was its suggestions of the social impact as being increasingly harder to overcome in the contemporary economy. 

[Mr. Morden]

First rule of running for the GOP nomination, never admit to having read a book besides the Bible.

Really?  You don't think Mitt Romney's positive review of Twilight helped with the critical teenage girl demographic in the 2012 GOP primaries?

[Likely Voter]

If Bush is such a nerd, he should know that Charles Murray is controversial and has been accused of racism. Just last year Paul Ryan got into trouble for citing Murray. It won't hurt him in the primary of course but this is the kind of stuff that will be used against him in the general with non-whites.

[136or142]

I think people are capable of recognizing that a writer can have both good and bad ideas.  Charles Murray has made some interesting and original contributions, unlike his perspective on race and IQ which are neither.

While I don't disagree with this, it is also true that it's more than likely that Mr Murray used his credentials and standing to promote b.s racist theories.  Given that it seems he did this on the one occasion it does raise serious questions as to whether any of his scholarship is valid.

[RFayette]

Charles Murray also wrote books like The Conscience of a Libertarian, so I don't see how this is different than referencing another right-wing author, like say John Stossel. 

Having read the Bell Curve, it's pretty dry and fairly noncontroversial in its nonracial aspects.  Once it starts talking about race, blech. 

[Torie]

I like his books too. I suspect most of those who dump on them, have not read them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think people are capable of recognizing that a writer can have both good and bad ideas.  Charles Murray has made some interesting and original contributions, unlike his perspective on race and IQ which are neither.

While I don't disagree with this, it is also true that it's more than likely that Mr Murray used his credentials and standing to promote b.s racist theories.  Given that it seems he did this on the one occasion it does raise serious questions as to whether any of his scholarship is valid.

Are you accusing him of just making things up?  The fault is with the interpretation of the evidence.  Herrnstein probably deserves more credit for The Bell Curve than his co-author Murray does, and students still study his work in behavioral psychology.

[RFayette]

I think people are capable of recognizing that a writer can have both good and bad ideas.  Charles Murray has made some interesting and original contributions, unlike his perspective on race and IQ which are neither.

While I don't disagree with this, it is also true that it's more than likely that Mr Murray used his credentials and standing to promote b.s racist theories.  Given that it seems he did this on the one occasion it does raise serious questions as to whether any of his scholarship is valid.

Are you accusing him of just making things up?  The fault is with the interpretation of the evidence.  Herrnstein probably deserves more credit for The Bell Curve than his co-author Murray does, and students still study his work in behavioral psychology.

It's obviously far more a question of interpretation than facts, as Murray's facts were quite solid for the most part.

I generally think that discussing race and IQ should be avoided generally, with instead an emphasis on attributes like hard work for the betterment of all individuals.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

[James Monroe]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

[136or142]

I think people are capable of recognizing that a writer can have both good and bad ideas.  Charles Murray has made some interesting and original contributions, unlike his perspective on race and IQ which are neither.

While I don't disagree with this, it is also true that it's more than likely that Mr Murray used his credentials and standing to promote b.s racist theories.  Given that it seems he did this on the one occasion it does raise serious questions as to whether any of his scholarship is valid.

Are you accusing him of just making things up?  The fault is with the interpretation of the evidence.  Herrnstein probably deserves more credit for The Bell Curve than his co-author Murray does, and students still study his work in behavioral psychology.

No.  I am accusing him of claiming that data that he said supported his case were entirely irrelevant.  I don't dispute that he reported the data honestly.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Racism masquerading as enlightened intellectual commentary = worst racism.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Pretty sure Charles Muarry has written a lot of books. Just because one is controversial, it doesn't follow that the others are also controversial.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

[bobloblaw]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray?

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

The irony is that those who believe in creationism can believe that everyone is created in God's image equally. But in evolution it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that all creeds, races and ethnicities have evolved exactly equally from apes and after millions of years are all at the exact same place in their evolution.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. There's ample evidence that suggests that humans have physically evolved and that geographic isolation has increased the likelihood of small physical mutations having large effects of people but there's no evidence of "genetic intelligence". Even if we were to assume that IQ tests weren't a severely flawed metric of intelligence, most deviations in IQ scores can be explained by literacy, nutrition and lack of exposure to detrimental diseases like malaria; all of which have a marked effect on mental performance.

None of these things are genetic or explained by evolutionary factors. It's quite the stretch to assume that a relatively brief period of human history lasting from 10,000 BC to the present has produced large scale effects on, say, on intelligence. This is a brief moment in evolutionary history. In all actuality, the incipient rise of agriculture had a negative effect on individual intelligence: it created vectors for mentally debilitating diseases, resulted in reduced nutrition and severely reduced life expectancy. We've only achieved significant advanced within the last 200 hundred years and none of them may be explained by genetics but rather by resource endowments and chance. Before the 18th century, East Asia had economic output that arguably exceeded Europe. European medicine was backwards. There are other examples but the idea that Europe is a particularly intelligent and intellectual continent is laughable.

[Alcon]

Perking up a bit here at your mention of malaria as an explanatory variable in regional IQ differences.  There's a study that successfully controlled to find malaria as a factor, in a way that somehow eliminates the possibility of genetic intelligence being a factor?  How?

I'm not sure how you justify the statement "there's no indication of genetic intelligence," if you're simultaneously accepting the malaria studies you allude to as compelling, unless you're presenting a really narrow definition of "genetic intelligence" I'm unaware of.