July 4th Weekend Controversial Thread Super Spectacular!

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Below is an interview by Glenn Loury with Charles Murray.


Here is another interview with Murray by Coleman Hughes.


What would be the political ramifications of Charles Murray's ideas on race and IQ becoming mainstream? How would this affect US policy on local and federal level? Do you think Americans could judge each other as individuals even with an acknowledged racial hierarchy?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
What would be the political ramifications of Charles Murray's ideas on race and IQ becoming mainstream? How would this affect US policy on local and federal level? Do you think Americans could judge each other as individuals even with an acknowledged racial hierarchy?

I'm not about to watch two and half hours of this guy.

I will ask, though: What makes you think Murray's ideas are *not* mainstream already? It seems to me that, at the most fundamental level, he's simply trying to provide scientific justification for assumptions that have been the basis of American racial oppression for hundreds of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wallyj84

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
I'm not about to watch two and half hours of this guy.

I will ask, though: What makes you think Murray's ideas are *not* mainstream already? It seems to me that, at the most fundamental level, he's simply trying to provide scientific justification for assumptions that have been the basis of American racial oppression for hundreds of years.

That is a fair point. I think historically his view was common. I don't think it is common now outside of white supremacist circles.

I think most people nowadays want to blame things like culture (on the right) or systemic racism (on the left). I don't think anyone will say publicly that black people are less intelligent than white people.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
That is a fair point. I think historically his view was common. I don't think it is common now outside of white supremacist circles.

Now there's a glowing recommendation for Murray.

I think most people nowadays want to blame things like culture (on the right) or systemic racism (on the left). I don't think anyone will say publicly that black people are less intelligent than white people.

And as far as your last point goes, I'm perfectly fine with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wallyj84

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Now there's a glowing recommendation for Murray.



And as far as your last point goes, I'm perfectly fine with that.

If we're being honest, Murray is just defending the American racial hierarchy, right? He's much more concerned with saying that the system isn't flawed than fixing any problems.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Ironic that he makes a living out of uneducated white people.

I don't know if it's uneducated white people so as the "but I'm not racist" white people. Those are the people who look at the current racial situation and say, "well that's how it's supposed to be."

Anyway, what do you think would be the effects of Murray's views becoming mainstream?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
If we're being honest, Murray is just defending the American racial hierarchy, right? He's much more concerned with saying that the system isn't flawed than fixing any problems.

So I can't help asking: Why devote a thread to him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tight_N_Juicy

njersey

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Posts
99
Media
0
Likes
196
Points
313
Location
Evansville (Indiana, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think I can safely say that I and the majority of those in the APA would rather place a moratorium on IQ testing and research before ever considering applying this crank bullshit. Our ethical structure is quite a bit more robust than it was in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klingsor

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
So I can't help asking: Why devote a thread to him?

He is getting a lot of play right now. I don't know about the validity of what he says, but the effects of his ideas would be an interesting hypothetical to explore. What would be the correct policy decisions for a situation where a significant chunk of a minority population is literally incapable of contributing and is more so inclined to be a burden on the rest of society? How wouod this affect race relations? Those are interesting hypothetical and of course no one really goes into detail on them. Murray talks a lot about treating people like individuals as being a moral imperative, but when has that ever happened on a large scale? Coleman Hughes brushes up against these problems but never really goes all the way, IMO.

The right is full of Charles Murrays. When they speak on any their favorite topics, race relations or immigration, I always want to hear more about what their policy solutions are. They never seem to give them, except on immigration where they want to deport illegal immigrants and so close the border. The people who critique them on the right, like Glen Loury, don't ever really go against them and they are ignored by the left. So I just want a more detailed discussion.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
I think I can safely say that I and the majority of those in the APA would rather place a moratorium on IQ testing and research before ever considering applying this crank bullshit. Our ethical structure is quite a bit more robust than it was in the past.

What is your opinion on IQ tests in general?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
He is getting a lot of play right now. I don't know about the validity of what he says, but the effects of his ideas would be an interesting hypothetical to explore. What would be the correct policy decisions for a situation where a significant chunk of a minority population is literally incapable of contributing and is more so inclined to be a burden on the rest of society?

Like white supremacists? I think we have to accept their limitations and work around them as best we can.

Murray talks a lot about treating people like individuals as being a moral imperative, but when has that ever happened on a large scale?

I'm sure Murray feels it's imperative to treat people as individuals, especially those unfortunate, less intelligent, criminally inclined black people. Wouldn't want to make any broad, sweeping generalizations, right? : unamused:

The right is full of Charles Murrays. When they speak on any their favorite topics, race relations or immigration, I always want to hear more about what their policy solutions are. They never seem to give them, except on immigration where they want to deport illegal immigrants and so close the border. The people who critique them on the right, like Glen Loury, don't ever really go against them and they are ignored by the left. So I just want a more detailed discussion.

What's the point of exploring policy solutions based on a biased and fundamentally misguided premise? It's like asking what we would do if we all had three dicks or three vaginas, but starting out from a much more unsavory sort of fantasy.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
Like white supremacists? I think we have to accept their limitations and work around them as best we can.



I'm sure Murray feels it's imperative to treat people as individuals, especially those unfortunate, less intelligent, criminally inclined black people. Wouldn't want to make any broad, sweeping generalizations, right? : unamused:



What's the point of exploring policy solutions based on a biased and fundamentally misguided premise? It's like asking what we would do if we all had three dicks or three vaginas, but starting out from a much more unsavory sort of fantasy.

The three dicks thing is totally a thread I would make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klingsor

njersey

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Posts
99
Media
0
Likes
196
Points
313
Location
Evansville (Indiana, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What is your opinion on IQ tests in general?

There’s growing consensus that intelligence is multivariate. A score from any single test could be accurate or inaccurate based on what you’re trying to measure; and it’s not entirely clear if the correlation between, say, spatial reasoning and analytic thinking is structural or a consequence of environment and upbringing. The brain is scarily adaptable to daily tasks; which is both a strength and a danger.

Basically, using them to compare two people is like comparing a truck to a sedan. They have similar systems and characteristics; but have wildly different strengths and purposes. There is no better or worse, only fitness for a specified purpose.

The goal of psychology is, first and foremost, human health. There’s no application for intelligence tests outside diagnosis. Even in an employment context, we’d want to use such diagnostics to make appropriate accommodations for people or to design jobs fit for the workforce, not to discriminate.

At least in a healthcare setting, it’s very rare we use IQ tests. Differential diagnosis techniques work best with more specific tests; and, even then, we would only use them to probe the severity of a disability, not to determine appropriate care. And I would never rely on them to determine, say, a conservatorship is warranted. A low IQ score does not necessarily indicate mental illness.

And it’s important that, in a psychological context, I talk about what I mean by a disability. All a disability is is an inability to perform some task designed by a society that is able. It makes no statement on what a person is capable of outside that.

So even if it were true, what Murray posits (which it is NOT), it would make no statement on the abilities or capacity of any given individual.

That’s rambling and a tiny bit incoherent; but I’ll answer any other questions. lol
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,954
Points
333
Location
United States
There’s growing consensus that intelligence is multivariate. A score from any single test could be accurate or inaccurate based on what you’re trying to measure; and it’s not entirely clear if the correlation between, say, spatial reasoning and analytic thinking is structural or a consequence of environment and upbringing. The brain is scarily adaptable to daily tasks; which is both a strength and a danger.

Basically, using them to compare two people is like comparing a truck to a sedan. They have similar systems and characteristics; but have wildly different strengths and purposes. There is no better or worse, only fitness for a specified purpose.

The goal of psychology is, first and foremost, human health. There’s no application for intelligence tests outside diagnosis. Even in an employment context, we’d want to use such diagnostics to make appropriate accommodations for people or to design jobs fit for the workforce, not to discriminate.

At least in a healthcare setting, it’s very rare we use IQ tests. Differential diagnosis techniques work best with more specific tests; and, even then, we would only use them to probe the severity of a disability, not to determine appropriate care. And I would never rely on them to determine, say, a conservatorship is warranted. A low IQ score does not necessarily indicate mental illness.

And it’s important that, in a psychological context, I talk about what I mean by a disability. All a disability is is an inability to perform some task designed by a society that is able. It makes no statement on what a person is capable of outside that.

So even if it were true, what Murray posits (which it is NOT), it would make no statement on the abilities or capacity of any given individual.

That’s rambling and a tiny bit incoherent; but I’ll answer any other questions. lol

You make some interesting points. I don't know anything about IQ, so I'll just take you at your word.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Obviously, one big dick is more valuable than three small dicks. It's worth more than a million small dicks. Big dicks are worth more than anything in the world.

Here, at last, is a *true* proof of intelligence!
 
D

deleted1074483

Guest
and getting back to @wallyj84's question......

That Charles Murray guy really annoyed me tbh. He's a classic example of taking data and using it in a completely false and disengenuous way.

What he's talking about is cause and effect - and using the data it would appear he's arguing that the history of poor achievement and involvement in crime is the effect but that the cause is a lack of intelligence.

But then totally ignores and shuts down the conversation around why blacks/poc are doing worse which is of course due to the systemic racism, oppression and poor treatment that they've received over the years, which is (some of) the cause of the underachievement and involvement in crime.

so he starts at the 'lack of intelligence' as demonstrated by IQ tests, which 1 test a certain type of intelligence, 2 of which there are so many and all can produce very different results and so 3 become selective in their use and the outcomes from them - but my issue is that this is an effect not a cause.

He doesn't start far enough back in the cause effect cause discussion and totally ignores the lived experiences of millions of people.

And part then of the issue with this type of guy who has over the years published many 'respected' books ( or were at the time written and in line with common thinking of the time perhaps) but he's not moved on in his views, and because he comes across as rationale, calm, logical etc people will believe unquestioningly what he says - especially if it supports their own views.

I did like the two presenters who did a good job of actually challenging him - unfortunately when you get into a debate about 'data' interpretation it will be over a lot of people's heads and quite frankly gets boring, and so the challenge can get a bit semantical and obfuscate the actual issue itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klingsor