Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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

[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.

[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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

It's pretty clear that malaria is a factor that affects IQ scores. I'm basing this off a development economics study I read that links the long-term effects of surviving malaria to increased mental and physical lethargy, which has obvious economic implications. Mental lethargy should register on an IQ test.

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence". It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

It's pretty clear that malaria is a factor that affects IQ scores. I'm basing this off a development economics study I read that links the long-term effects of surviving malaria to increased mental and physical lethargy, which has obvious economic implications. Mental lethargy should register on an IQ test.

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence". It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Malaria doesnt explain why East Asians have higher IQs than Europeans

Who are you and why do you care about this topic?

[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.

10,000 years??? Human evolution has been much longer than that. Culture is also an issue in determining economic and social development

jao

[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.

If you justify Charles Barron's hatred of white people - not unrelated things about him but the hatred itself - yes, that sounds a hell of a lot like race-based animus.   I am glad relatively few of the racial and ethnic minorities you claim to speak for are as hateful and prejudiced as you are towards people who have different perspectives from themselves. 

Thanks for ignoring most of the body of my post, friend!

The idea that I have some kind of race-based animus is surreal. The vast majority of my friends are white, my father is white, half of my family is white. While I don't agree with most of their views on issues of race, issues that they can't comprehend properly because they stand to benefit from our current racial constructs and subconsciously interpret themselves differently than racial minorities, I don't hate them.

My race-based animus only extends to white people in the context of discussions surrounding race and ethnicity. Although this is a pretty important topic, it's quite minuscule. I'm friends with racists. I look past their hatred and they look past my ethnicity. Does that mean I'm going to respect their perspective or applaud their hate? No.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes, I understand that and I've seen the same studies, but proposing that malaria counts

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

I absolutely buy the possibility that neurological sequelae from disease can affect IQ.  I also understand how that's not genetic (obviously).  I'm just a little puzzled by your apparent implication that the factors you listed somehow add up to preclude a genetic basis for IQ.  It seems like you're throwing the kitchen sink (that is, every possible argument against heritable intelligence) at the issue in a preemptive attempt to discredit some argument.  That's a really unsound way of analyzing things, and it doesn't successfully discredit the argument you're trying to dismiss.

I mean, you may think Bobloblaw is trying to make some terrible racist point (maybe), but you can't really forward a set of explanatory variables, have someone point out your explanatory variables fail to explain some observed variation, and then act like that's an unreasonable critique of your argument.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence".

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence that IQ has some very strong heritable elements, or are you somehow limiting this to race when you say "genetic intelligence"?

It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Could you explain what you mean here more precisely?  Obviously, it's a bad idea to use IQ as a pretext to do manipulative, disruptive, and violating social policy, and there are a lot of racist jerks who would be into that kind of social policy.  But how is that "anti-science" to not pursue those policies?  It's not anti-science to elect to not use a technology because it's a terrible idea.  That would be like saying it's "anti-science" to not shoot a flamethrower on a crowded street.  It's not "anti-science" to not fire a flamethrower recklessly just because a flamethrower is a form of science.  It would be "anti-science" to deny the existence of the flamethrower, or deny its observable effects.  ("Anti-science" is probably the wrong phrase, anyway.  Let's go with "willfully delusional.")

Or are you saying that, even if studies were to find an unexplained linkage between IQ and race after controls, we should do our best to discredit these findings, because they would feed into policies and attitudes you don't like?  Just to be clear, I totally think that kind of finding would feed into racist jerks...but does that warrant dismissing any such finding, and accusing those who observed it of being lying, racist jerks?  I think there are obvious, glaring, gross problems with that approach, too.

In the context of this discussion, I'm referring to race. I agree that there's probably some sort of heritable intelligence but this information makes me very uncomfortable. As far as race is concerned, I don't think there's any connection. Adopted children from Africa do as well as white children on IQ tests.

No offense Alcon but I don't really care about which argumentative approach you find to be "unsound". This is a forum on the internet. I try to present my arguments in a manner that makes them readable and that presents a narrative. This isn't a court room or a logic class. I'm simply presenting a series of ideas in a narrative format. My narrative is pretty simple: there are a litany of deep flaws that characterize genetic tests. Because I'm not a geneticist or a scientist, I cannot really dig deep into these flaws. I'm a laymen and my role in this conversation is to present some evidence in a nice, readable format.

As for your final point, I'm not sure what my approach would be to scientists who found a link between genetic factors which may be construed as "race" and "intelligence". I'd probably emigrate to Mexico and attempt to live my life in peace without thinking about the subject. I don't have faith in Europeans that they'd treat "racial inferiors" with brotherly love and respect. I suppose that my ideal response would be that scientists would attempt to dig deeper into the findings and pray that they are flawed. If they're not flawed, I have no idea what policy prescriptions I'd advance.

However, this is a hypothetical discussion. There's hardly any evidence that suggests that there's a connection between genetic factors that may be construed as "race" and "intelligence".

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

We didn't evolve "equally".

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I suppose you have a point but I'm a bit puzzled about this discussion. There are hundreds of posts on this forum that are ill-thought out, immature, childish and dumb: why did you choose to reply to mine? Admittedly, my argument was an "on a napkin" one that drew from random information I've read on the internet. I didn't formulate a coherent argument because I say things that are off the top of my head on forums. I don't get why you're lecturing me about the nature of empirical evidence. This isn't an essay that I'm submitting for a grade or whatever. 

I mean, you "caught me" in my devious attempt to defeat a racist troll on the internet with an impromptu post but I'm not sure what has been accomplished. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm okay with that but that's not the sense I've gotten from engaging in this conversation with you.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Well, this was a wonderful act of intellectual masturbation on your part, A+ work Alcon; you're a smart man. Although your assumption about the intent of my posts was correct, you've missed the entire point of the post above: I think it's incredibly weird and toxic that you decided to engage in this world-class pedantry on a post I made about the implications of the supposed connection between genetic intelligence and racism. I've made similar posts before about other topics. Why this one?

From my perspective, the optics of this move look terrible. An educated white liberal unpacked the argument of a mixed-race leftist made against the idea of "genetic intelligence with regards to race" for the purpose of arguing in favor of a particular use of empirical evidence.

Fine Alcon: you win. I'm opposed to these studies because I'm worried about the malevolent intentions of others and am uncomfortable about the potential that the findings are correct. I don't want to be dumber than white people because of my genes. I don't want people to think I'm an intellectually inferior product because my skin is a certain tone and have indigenous ancestry. I don't want any of this and a bunch of hacks, who often have malevolent intentions, love summarizing dubious research into this topic. Although the aims of these hacks are diverse, it has the ultimate effect of convincing policymakers on the right to oppose immigration, affirmative action and "anti-racist" policy goals. Do you understand why I instinctually hate these people? They cast doubt on me, my mother and my relatives in Mexico. Furthermore, they cast doubt on some of my friends. These studies justify the latent racism of many white people. I don't want that.

I try to be as impartial as possible but I'm not able to on this topic. Maybe you are and maybe that's fine but don't act like you're a big man because you can do that. A (admittedly senile) substitute  teacher once told me that "Mexican immigrants are uneducated and stupid". I've been frequently told that I'm "not like other Mexicans" because I'm "smart". I can't be "impartial" and use empirical evidence in a scholarly fashion about these studies. They're an attack on my very existence. I can't just sit back and let a bunch of bigots trample my dignity. I'll reply to their posts, argue with them in public and defend my existence. If it's a bit sophistic, I accept that but I'm wary of saying "I hate Study X because I'm a 'minority'" because that appears like a weak attack, like an "appeal to emotion" or like intellectual weak tea.