As I recall it went out of it's way to be fair and as uninflammatory as possible. If there are conclusions which others in the field don't like the most convincing rebuttal would be for them to do the work to prove it wrong. The fact that they don't should tell us something.
Yes, you will not find a point by point refutation of the thesis advanced in the book. All that is done is to focus on the fact that some of those cited in the references have in the past been accused of racism!
I might add... Every insurance and/or civil protection service in civilised nations, calculate risk, according to patterns, populations and past behaviour...
Is it wrong to write a protective and reactive action plan that observes differences based on the risks to different types of people and from place to place or to charge higher insurance by virtue of demographics?
So. Why is any other statistical or scientific endeavour out of bounds?
The problem that race/IQ research has is that in addition to the people, like Murray, interested in the truth for its own sake, there are two other groups who inevitably take an interest in this kind of research:
1) People on the left end of the bell curve for their race, who'd rather be judged on the racial average than on their individual merits.
2) High IQ wannabe technocrats who dream of being chief social (and genetic) engineer of a "rational" totalitarian technocratic state.
This ultimately causes a signalling spiral where people end up backing away from race/IQ research so as not to be confused with members of the above two groups. This is unfortunate because false beliefs that it is taboo to question lead all kinds of down stream problems.
Indeed. The race question is really only covered on one chapter of what is a very interesting book on the role of intelligence on society. Sadly the rest of the of the book get though it raises many interestinng questions.
Mr Webb asks (rhetorically): –"After all, the underachievement of black people [—in USA, as Mr Bell's book "The Bell Curve" is/was researching american society—] is a real enough phenomenon, surely trying to work out what is behind it cannot, of itself, be wrong?".
·
Yes, it can be wrong, morally. It obviously (!) depends on Mr Bell's intention, which he failed to disclose (which is his mistake)—
–"Writing in Scientific American, a former professor of Computer Science at Columbia said, more than 20 years after publication that it, 'endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ'."
—even though Mr Bell is mindful of:
1) that everybody is aware of the racism in USA's history,
2) and that this (racial) discrimination makes it more difficult for black people to form as good life as the 'white' people could.
·
Thus, it is easy/logial for "liberals and left-wing types" to conclude/"work out" ill/racist intent: –ie. Mr Bell might want to put away the focus on the 'white' people's responsibility/guilt.
After all, when/what years did 'white' people's discriminations stop and black people's 'equal opportunities' begin?
·
With that said/on the other hand: –The mistake that "liberals and left-wing types" are still/currently making is: they are destroying the very fundament of a society: ie. the cohesion among people:
– everybody is aware of that being (morally) accused of being a 'racist' (a.k.a. 'far/extreme-right') destroys the individual's moral/social reputation (incl. its freedom of speech):
2024-Jan-07 Forbes Breaking News (YouTube): "Vivek Ramaswamy Compares VP Kamala Harris To Ex-Harvard President Claudine Gay At Iowa Rally":
(Mr Ramaswamy, 02:48) –"But until that last year, there was [it still is] NO GREATER DAMNATION in modern America than to be CALLED a RACIST."
·
It is not being "called"/not a label. It is a personal defamation so severe that it is a crime according to Defamation Law, for which there are overwhelming and ubiquitous proof (!).
·
Now, these Liberal Types are aware of how they themselves would feel/react when accused of moral wrong-doing: ie. worry or anger.
Then, how do they think that they will improve the racial relations by (publicly) accusing 'white' people of being 'racists'?... indiscriminately, ie. disregarding age, ie. also targeting (white) children—
—which would also be a crime: Child abuse.
·
Do these Liberals (et al.) not have morals and empathy?, and failing to understand the consequences of their actions/speech?
·
LASTLY: If Mr Webb has the intention with his writings/texts to reach/affect these Liberals (et al.), then he is failing and needs to change tactic, which might be the above, because his logic reasoning has no effect.
(One is reminded of Einstein's 'theorem': –repeated attempts is idiotic, which is on the other hand the Americans' spirit of success.)
And, races and all their ethnicities are only visual denominators, equal to that of clothing and attributes (scarfs, tattoos, jewelry), for the free individual to relate to as it sees fit, depending on the person and situation.
·
If one does not like other races/ethnicities (without ill intent), or those on the next street/neighbourhood, so be it: –'Birds of a feather flock together', which is only human nature—
14th Dalai LAMA (an asian): 2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview): –"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
—which only (!) west-europeans/Westerners have yet to understand/accept (Ref. the racial maps of USA, and UK) because they can not yet release themselves of the burden of their historical racism ('Jim Crow'-laws, apartheid, nazism).
·
P.S.
-On confusion: racism is political (rule/power), whereas (eg. racial) prejudice is sociological (treatment), based on lived/personal experience.
-On relations/futility of IQ: who would one rather engage with/hire?: –An intelligent one, or a nice one?
So, my credibility is in question because of my mistake of using a wrong surname?
·
I am sadden by your reactions. I had expected politeness from Mr Webb's readers and especially from himself as he is old.
That is not how adults are supposed to treat each other in public discussions with strangers, where we presume if not good intentions but at least not bad ones.
·
This is what the Internet have done to adults: –turning them into teenagers (lack of self-restraint), because they feel safe/confident at home while engaging in public discussions.
·
If you 2 had made these comments to me in a physical environment...
(say at conference-table, where the social group-pressure keeps adults in check, ie. how they address/treat each other)
...people around us would surely look at you 2 and wonder why the lack of politeness when correcting my mistake of a... surname.
·
What's the point (of not being polite)? –Feeling good about yourselfs, by pointing out others' mistakes?, because you 2 could not find counter-arguments/critisism (that's unlikely), or just disagreed with my refelctions.
Remember that teenagers might/are watching us. And we adults have a responsibility as role-models on how to behave properly in public, eg. to be polite and show self-restraint even/especially when the other/opponent does not.
How else are youngsters to learn if we do not teach.
No, your credibility is in question because misnaming the author of The Bell Curve implies you have not read the book nor been aware of the 30 years of raging controversy about it. It's not like Charles Murray is a complete unknown, to quote Bob Dylan.
To 'Louise R': So, you (and Mr Webb) ARE questioning my credibility because of my mistake of using a wrong surname.
If that is your criticism of me/my comment, that is fine.
·
But, you are missing my point to you (and Mr Webb), which is:
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"I am sadden by your reactions. I had expected politeness from Mr Webb's readers and especially from himself as he is old."
·
You did not need to express your criticism of my comment with a slight slight:
[you/'Louise R', 9th Oct.] –"You just might have more credibility if you properly named the author of The Bell Curve".
(Mr Webb agrees with you: –"It certainly might help!".)
·
What you actually wanted to say is, that you think I probably have too little knowledge on the topic of Race and IQ to view my points/criticism as valid/reasonable:
[you/'Louise R', 10th Oct.] –"implies you have not read the book nor been aware of the 30 years of raging controversy".
I am sure that most people (even Mr Webb) agree that you put unreasonable requirements on me/people/readers for discussing Race and IQ.
·
Remember that Mr Webb is wrighting for ordinary people with ordinary knowledge, not necessarily erudite ones. And, he invites comments/Public discussion (ie. where strangers meet).
Also remember Mr Webb's topic: "How Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve, came to be seen as unacceptable and racist".
That is: (presuming you agree with Mr Murray) most people disagree with you ('Louise R'), including erudite/knowledgeable ones, whom you then seem to disqualify/not to be taken seriously for participating in discussion, because of.... disagreement/different conclutions?
That's not very polite.
·
FURTHERMORE: No reader (and myself) will understand your criticism of me if you do not make points on Why you think I do not understand the points in the book 'The Bell Curve', and that I am not aware of [you/'Louise R', 10th Oct.] –"the 30 years of raging controversy".
You need to quote/reference me, and write your points (this is often necessary when communicating via Text, as is not the case when Talking because one remembers what was said).
·
And, you could have responded to me with politeness (and making actual points) rather than with a slight slight, which was my point/criticism of you (and Mr Webb)...
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"That is not how adults are supposed to treat each other in public discussions with strangers, where we presume if not good intentions but at least not bad ones.
... and I explained the reason:
–"This is what the Internet have done to adults: –turning them into teenagers (lack of self-restraint), because they feel safe/confident at home while engaging in Public discussions", ie. where strangers meet.
(–"How else are youngsters to learn [politeness] if we [adults] do not teach.")
·
Just in case there is a misunderstanding/to be clear: –I am not slighted/insulted/offended by you (or Mr Webb).
I was just [me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"sadden by your reactions".
·
LASTLY: I did not say that Mr Charles Murray was/is wrong. I said that he COULD be, it depends:
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 9th Oct.] –"Yes, it can be wrong, morally. It obviously (!) depends on Mr Bell's [SIC!] intention, which he failed to disclose (which is his mistake)".
That is what I presumed, maybe wrongly.
·
And, I pointed out the futility/pointlessness of IQ when it comes to how ordinary people interact:
–"-On relations/futility of IQ: who would one rather engage with/hire?: –An intelligent one, or a nice one?"
·
And, Mr Charles Murray's conclutions/findings (what ever those might be: to be mindful of differences in IQ because of race?) could be a good argument for Affirmative Action:
–Who would not want to give a person a helping hand because of (even if only based on statistics/averages?) his innate/natural disadvantages (compared with the average person)?
That is precisely what we do with 'non-statistical' (physically) handicaped people.
The book seemed to be sensible to me.
As I recall it went out of it's way to be fair and as uninflammatory as possible. If there are conclusions which others in the field don't like the most convincing rebuttal would be for them to do the work to prove it wrong. The fact that they don't should tell us something.
Yes, you will not find a point by point refutation of the thesis advanced in the book. All that is done is to focus on the fact that some of those cited in the references have in the past been accused of racism!
I've only ever read clips and articles about the book...
However. Is there really anything wrong in seeing a pattern and investigating it and reaching conclusions? And only then seeking solutions...
I might add... Every insurance and/or civil protection service in civilised nations, calculate risk, according to patterns, populations and past behaviour...
Is it wrong to write a protective and reactive action plan that observes differences based on the risks to different types of people and from place to place or to charge higher insurance by virtue of demographics?
So. Why is any other statistical or scientific endeavour out of bounds?
The problem that race/IQ research has is that in addition to the people, like Murray, interested in the truth for its own sake, there are two other groups who inevitably take an interest in this kind of research:
1) People on the left end of the bell curve for their race, who'd rather be judged on the racial average than on their individual merits.
2) High IQ wannabe technocrats who dream of being chief social (and genetic) engineer of a "rational" totalitarian technocratic state.
This ultimately causes a signalling spiral where people end up backing away from race/IQ research so as not to be confused with members of the above two groups. This is unfortunate because false beliefs that it is taboo to question lead all kinds of down stream problems.
Indeed. The race question is really only covered on one chapter of what is a very interesting book on the role of intelligence on society. Sadly the rest of the of the book get though it raises many interestinng questions.
I have all of Charles Murray's books. His mortal sin is telling the truth.
This is of course true!
Mr Webb asks (rhetorically): –"After all, the underachievement of black people [—in USA, as Mr Bell's book "The Bell Curve" is/was researching american society—] is a real enough phenomenon, surely trying to work out what is behind it cannot, of itself, be wrong?".
·
Yes, it can be wrong, morally. It obviously (!) depends on Mr Bell's intention, which he failed to disclose (which is his mistake)—
–"Writing in Scientific American, a former professor of Computer Science at Columbia said, more than 20 years after publication that it, 'endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ'."
—even though Mr Bell is mindful of:
1) that everybody is aware of the racism in USA's history,
2) and that this (racial) discrimination makes it more difficult for black people to form as good life as the 'white' people could.
·
Thus, it is easy/logial for "liberals and left-wing types" to conclude/"work out" ill/racist intent: –ie. Mr Bell might want to put away the focus on the 'white' people's responsibility/guilt.
After all, when/what years did 'white' people's discriminations stop and black people's 'equal opportunities' begin?
·
With that said/on the other hand: –The mistake that "liberals and left-wing types" are still/currently making is: they are destroying the very fundament of a society: ie. the cohesion among people:
– everybody is aware of that being (morally) accused of being a 'racist' (a.k.a. 'far/extreme-right') destroys the individual's moral/social reputation (incl. its freedom of speech):
2024-Jan-07 Forbes Breaking News (YouTube): "Vivek Ramaswamy Compares VP Kamala Harris To Ex-Harvard President Claudine Gay At Iowa Rally":
(Mr Ramaswamy, 02:48) –"But until that last year, there was [it still is] NO GREATER DAMNATION in modern America than to be CALLED a RACIST."
·
It is not being "called"/not a label. It is a personal defamation so severe that it is a crime according to Defamation Law, for which there are overwhelming and ubiquitous proof (!).
·
Now, these Liberal Types are aware of how they themselves would feel/react when accused of moral wrong-doing: ie. worry or anger.
Then, how do they think that they will improve the racial relations by (publicly) accusing 'white' people of being 'racists'?... indiscriminately, ie. disregarding age, ie. also targeting (white) children—
—which would also be a crime: Child abuse.
·
Do these Liberals (et al.) not have morals and empathy?, and failing to understand the consequences of their actions/speech?
·
LASTLY: If Mr Webb has the intention with his writings/texts to reach/affect these Liberals (et al.), then he is failing and needs to change tactic, which might be the above, because his logic reasoning has no effect.
(One is reminded of Einstein's 'theorem': –repeated attempts is idiotic, which is on the other hand the Americans' spirit of success.)
And, races and all their ethnicities are only visual denominators, equal to that of clothing and attributes (scarfs, tattoos, jewelry), for the free individual to relate to as it sees fit, depending on the person and situation.
·
If one does not like other races/ethnicities (without ill intent), or those on the next street/neighbourhood, so be it: –'Birds of a feather flock together', which is only human nature—
14th Dalai LAMA (an asian): 2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview): –"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
—which only (!) west-europeans/Westerners have yet to understand/accept (Ref. the racial maps of USA, and UK) because they can not yet release themselves of the burden of their historical racism ('Jim Crow'-laws, apartheid, nazism).
·
P.S.
-On confusion: racism is political (rule/power), whereas (eg. racial) prejudice is sociological (treatment), based on lived/personal experience.
-On relations/futility of IQ: who would one rather engage with/hire?: –An intelligent one, or a nice one?
You just might have more credibility if you properly named the author of The Bell Curve.
It certainly might help!
To 'Louise R' and Mr Webb:
So, my credibility is in question because of my mistake of using a wrong surname?
·
I am sadden by your reactions. I had expected politeness from Mr Webb's readers and especially from himself as he is old.
That is not how adults are supposed to treat each other in public discussions with strangers, where we presume if not good intentions but at least not bad ones.
·
This is what the Internet have done to adults: –turning them into teenagers (lack of self-restraint), because they feel safe/confident at home while engaging in public discussions.
·
If you 2 had made these comments to me in a physical environment...
(say at conference-table, where the social group-pressure keeps adults in check, ie. how they address/treat each other)
...people around us would surely look at you 2 and wonder why the lack of politeness when correcting my mistake of a... surname.
·
What's the point (of not being polite)? –Feeling good about yourselfs, by pointing out others' mistakes?, because you 2 could not find counter-arguments/critisism (that's unlikely), or just disagreed with my refelctions.
Remember that teenagers might/are watching us. And we adults have a responsibility as role-models on how to behave properly in public, eg. to be polite and show self-restraint even/especially when the other/opponent does not.
How else are youngsters to learn if we do not teach.
No, your credibility is in question because misnaming the author of The Bell Curve implies you have not read the book nor been aware of the 30 years of raging controversy about it. It's not like Charles Murray is a complete unknown, to quote Bob Dylan.
To 'Louise R': So, you (and Mr Webb) ARE questioning my credibility because of my mistake of using a wrong surname.
If that is your criticism of me/my comment, that is fine.
·
But, you are missing my point to you (and Mr Webb), which is:
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"I am sadden by your reactions. I had expected politeness from Mr Webb's readers and especially from himself as he is old."
·
You did not need to express your criticism of my comment with a slight slight:
[you/'Louise R', 9th Oct.] –"You just might have more credibility if you properly named the author of The Bell Curve".
(Mr Webb agrees with you: –"It certainly might help!".)
·
What you actually wanted to say is, that you think I probably have too little knowledge on the topic of Race and IQ to view my points/criticism as valid/reasonable:
[you/'Louise R', 10th Oct.] –"implies you have not read the book nor been aware of the 30 years of raging controversy".
I am sure that most people (even Mr Webb) agree that you put unreasonable requirements on me/people/readers for discussing Race and IQ.
·
Remember that Mr Webb is wrighting for ordinary people with ordinary knowledge, not necessarily erudite ones. And, he invites comments/Public discussion (ie. where strangers meet).
Also remember Mr Webb's topic: "How Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve, came to be seen as unacceptable and racist".
That is: (presuming you agree with Mr Murray) most people disagree with you ('Louise R'), including erudite/knowledgeable ones, whom you then seem to disqualify/not to be taken seriously for participating in discussion, because of.... disagreement/different conclutions?
That's not very polite.
·
FURTHERMORE: No reader (and myself) will understand your criticism of me if you do not make points on Why you think I do not understand the points in the book 'The Bell Curve', and that I am not aware of [you/'Louise R', 10th Oct.] –"the 30 years of raging controversy".
You need to quote/reference me, and write your points (this is often necessary when communicating via Text, as is not the case when Talking because one remembers what was said).
·
And, you could have responded to me with politeness (and making actual points) rather than with a slight slight, which was my point/criticism of you (and Mr Webb)...
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"That is not how adults are supposed to treat each other in public discussions with strangers, where we presume if not good intentions but at least not bad ones.
... and I explained the reason:
–"This is what the Internet have done to adults: –turning them into teenagers (lack of self-restraint), because they feel safe/confident at home while engaging in Public discussions", ie. where strangers meet.
(–"How else are youngsters to learn [politeness] if we [adults] do not teach.")
·
Just in case there is a misunderstanding/to be clear: –I am not slighted/insulted/offended by you (or Mr Webb).
I was just [me/'Patrik Johansson', 10th Oct.] –"sadden by your reactions".
·
LASTLY: I did not say that Mr Charles Murray was/is wrong. I said that he COULD be, it depends:
[me/'Patrik Johansson', 9th Oct.] –"Yes, it can be wrong, morally. It obviously (!) depends on Mr Bell's [SIC!] intention, which he failed to disclose (which is his mistake)".
That is what I presumed, maybe wrongly.
·
And, I pointed out the futility/pointlessness of IQ when it comes to how ordinary people interact:
–"-On relations/futility of IQ: who would one rather engage with/hire?: –An intelligent one, or a nice one?"
·
And, Mr Charles Murray's conclutions/findings (what ever those might be: to be mindful of differences in IQ because of race?) could be a good argument for Affirmative Action:
–Who would not want to give a person a helping hand because of (even if only based on statistics/averages?) his innate/natural disadvantages (compared with the average person)?
That is precisely what we do with 'non-statistical' (physically) handicaped people.