Will Goliath Blink? Charles Murray’s Continuing Assault on the Orthodoxy

The proverbial Martian would find contemporary discourse about race in the West peculiar, even paradoxical. On the one hand, many modern intellectuals insist that race is a pernicious reification of superficial human differences that has been decisively refuted by modern science. On the other hand, many of these same intellectuals obsess about racial disparities and injustices and actively promote policies that treat people of different races differently (e.g., affirmative action). Thus, mainstream discourse simultaneously contends that belief in race is an anachronistic superstition and that racial equality is an ethical imperative that can only be achieved through racially conscious policy and analysis. To circle this apparent square, sophisticated defenders of the mainstream argue that although race does not actually exist, it is real because the masses believe that it is real and therefore treat people of different (illusory) races differently. And this differential treatment causes disparate outcomes. The category “race,” like the category “witch,” is therefore analytically indispensable so long as people’s belief in it influences their behavior toward others. Following Charles Murray, I will refer to this position as the orthodoxy.

Against this, there is an alternative position, race realism, which argues that people use the concept of race for the same reason that they use the concept of species or sex, namely, because it picks out a salient and meaningful biological category. More adventurous versions of race realism even contend that many of the racial disparities that the orthodoxy blames on widespread racism are actually caused by intrinsic or at least recalcitrant average differences in psychological traits and tendencies between races. (I’ll call this position hereditarianism.) Needless to say, hereditarianism is not popular among educated elites in the West.

Thanks for posting. I have not yet read the entire article. So what follows is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

I agree with the post that there are real biological differences between the races. How significant are the differences? Are observable differences innate?

“More adventurous versions of race realism even contend that many of the racial disparities that the orthodoxy blames on widespread racism are actually caused by intrinsic or at least recalcitrant average differences in psychological traits and tendencies between races. (I’ll call this position hereditarianism.)”

My position is that there have often been significant differences that were not innate. At one time, American Italians, Jews and others had low measured IQs. That has changed. At one time Blacks were considered to have little aptitude at sports.

There are problems in the Black community. Democrats blame “systemic racism.” It is largely undefined. However, Barack Obama contributed to this discussion.

According to Obama, if a Black man comes into an office and a White woman secures her purse, that is systemic racism. Presumably that act, and others like it, are the cause of family break-up, illiteracy, poor math skills, crime and other problems among Blacks. With that kind of definition floating around, it would be no wonder that sensible people would reject the idea of systemic racism.

I think systemic racism is real and can be found in numerous policies of the Democratic party. Family break-up is among the greatest problem for Blacks. Cause? Democrat crafted government welfare. Examine their policies and ask how these affect the races. Nine times out of ten, they hurt Blacks more so than Whites.

I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. After decades of sabotaging Blacks, Democrats will someday say: “We have helped Blacks so much and they have failed so badly. The race must be deficient.” The left can turn on a dime.

Charles Murray's Human Diversity and Facing Reality, the two books discussed here, are both excellent. I recommend them to all.

The left is locked into shoot the messenger mode, and the left dominates the media, academia and government. Life is becoming dangerous for the truth tellers. But the left is trying to perpetuate a lie and to use the lie to completely remake society. This cannot succeed in the end. The commissars know perfectly well that they are institutionalizing a lie. Sooner or later, the lie will necessarily be exposed.

The question at the moment is how to shift the Overton window enough to at least open the discussion. My current tactic when the subject comes up is to immediately go on the offensive -- not to hammer home Charles Murray's argument, but simply to reframe the debate. I try to pose the question initially in terms of the top half of the table:

"Ok, let's talk about white supremacy and systemic racism. Look at tested IQ. Look at academic achievement as measured by objective testing. Look at faculty in elite institutions -- especially in STEM fields, where grokking the math can't be faked, so politically correct cheating is harder. Look at selection of academic and career fields. Look at success over time in intellectually challenging career fields and average incomes. And then compare Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians, people of Indian descent, and whites, traditionally defined as non-Jewish people of European origin. How do the current theories of white supremacy and systemic racism explain the results?"

The short answer, of course, is that they don't explain the results. Not at all. Not across the top half of the IQ table. The tactic here, obviously, is to take the black-white obsession off the table. We can talk about that later. But we need first to acknowledge that "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" fail utterly to explain group performance across the relevant metrics in America today. The meritocracy is NOT producing white supremacy.

Liberals have absolutely no answer to this. And their default option, which is to accuse white people of racism, isn't relevant when the question is framed as a competition in which white people are in fact in last place (again, across the top half of the table). Explain that first, and then we can work blacks, hispanics and people of mixed race into the discussion.

The question then arises as to how these group differences developed in a relatively short period of time. There is a very simple answer, and it doesn't involve founders effects or a God envisioned as a bearded white guy in the clouds who created a smart gene and distributed it on the basis of melanin. It's simpler than that. Small groups of our homo erectus ancestors finally became adept enough at long distance travel to make across the geographical barriers and get out of Africa. They were no more or less intelligent than the ones who stayed behind. But they encountered dramatically different environmental pressures, starting with winter. They encountered new and very challenging problems related to the food supply. Those who couldn't adapt, and adapt very quickly, died. It is not difficult to hypothesize traits relevant to this kind of adaptability that might correlate with what we would now consider intelligence.

How do you raise the average IQ of a group in a very short period of time. Simple. Kill off the bottom quarter, the bottom half, or the bottom three quarters of the distribution. That will raise the average IQ far more quickly than waiting for the bearded white guy in the sky to create a smart gene.

“How do you raise the average IQ of a group”

In the case of Black Americans, I suggest the following.

Allow school choice. This would benefit all races. However, it is Blacks who are disproportionately locked into low-quality inner-city government schools. Allow motivated parents and children to make another choice. A few would succeed at first: first a trickle, later a flood.

Stop family-busting government welfare. This entices the poor, disproportionately Black. Black children will see working dads and responsible moms.

Stop illegal immigration. The people coming in are at the bottom of the wage scale, pushing employment and wages down further. Low-income Americans suffer. Once again, they are disproportionately Black.

Eliminate “minimum wage” laws. These laws outlaw low-paying jobs. Black teenagers are the hardest hit.

Stop releasing Black thugs. Once released, they return to Black neighborhoods and terrorize honest Blacks citizens.

Stop inciting riots. These kill off shopping and job opportunities for decades.

Stop affirmative action. It places Black students and employees into positions where they are destined to fail.

Stop hammering the economy due to bogus claims by environmental extremists. CO2 is not a pollutant. Send a gallon of gas to under $2 and lift all boats, lifting many out of poverty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.