I was an undergrad when the Bell Curve dropped, and Murray came to my alma mater on his speaking tour, where he was skewered, and this was in the late 90s.
I read the Bell Curve cover to cover. Murray and the late Herrnstein spent most of the book looking at historic data of IQ tests and standardized tests like the military ASVAB or the SAT which they correlated back to IQ tests. They did this for white people only. Then they compared outcomes in income, health, etc. Their conclusion is lower IQ whites do worse in life in general.
They then took this framework and applied it to other "race". They found that blacks in America and Africa score less (about 1 standard deviation less than people of European ancestry on average), and this correlates with their income levels, health, etc. They found East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) score about half a standard deviation higher than people of European ancestry, and this is why they perform better in Asia, as adoptee children in the U.S., and as immigrants in the U.S., and per income level they live longer.
Hispanics (being mixed race) were higher than African Americans, but lower than whites and Asians. The Hispanics were of Mexican, I believe, not Caribbean Latinos or South Americans.
So, he found the white average IQ was about 100 in the U.S., Asians was about 105, Latinos (Mexicans) was 90, African Americans 85.
The entire premise of the book is a person’s IQ is predictive of various life outcomes, and if we look at a group-based level IQ explained most (not all) of the outcomes we see in society. They did not discount racism entirely, but they believe IQ had FAR more impact than racism on black and Latino outcomes. They also pointed out that Asians are not white, but do better than whites, despite whatever racism they experience.
Murray took this frame and then said, we know, even with whites, that by default, half of white Americans are below average IQ, and if your IQ is below 85 or so you will have trouble graduating from high school, let alone every finished a university degree. So that is why he proposed a minimum standard income. He believes strongly as the society moves from a agricultural and manufacturing base into an information based economy it is going to be harder for lower IQ people to be competitive, and this will lead to social instability. He states many times these people aren’t not "immoral or lazy" they are just "cognitively inferior", and so "can't help it", and if we want a just and stable society, we should compensate them for this.
Since he believes that IQ is between 50-75% heritable, he believes there are some things we can do to maximize IQ, but nothing we can do to make Latino and blacks equal to whites or Asians (on average). Since this is an immutable characteristic that you are born with people should not be punished for it in a fair society.
In a sense it is a type of affirmative action.
So his focus on recent years is not on ethnic minorities, it is more on blue collar whites and social stability - and he was talking about this long before Trump was elected.
I honestly don't think Murray is a racist per se, not really. I think that is a function of his cognitive elitist ideology. He has stated clearly that he is talking about averages, and so there are black people who have high IQs and even genius IQ levels, but there are just far less of them than whites or Asians. So he believes we should be IQ testing everyone, and then we can tell which blacks and Latinos are smart, and give them more resources to strive.
That is not "racist" per se, it is more like some type of cognitive classicism, however you can't really explain that distinction to the "woke masses" as it is just unacceptable on race, class, fairness, etc.
That's a very useful take. Thanks. It's interesting that Jordan Peterson makes the same point about low IQ and the technical economy but does so without mixing in talk about ethnicity. There's much to say about this, and I expect that people who want to talk about race will attempt to take over the conversation. My approach as always is to consider the matter of those demographic dimensionalities into which we converse about ourselves. I contend that our way of understanding ourselves is reduced when we make it only about 5 when in fact we are highly multidimensional. Yet our education and politics are so often gated by the same few, race now chief among them.
I would prefer that we do something with social media and education such that virtues are taken into greater consideration since that is something we are eminently in control of ourselves. How society would benefit if we had FICO scores for trust. If we were graded on honesty and transparency what a change that would make. Yet we keep saying stuff like "white males can't be trusted". Stupid.
So some fungibility of virtue needs to be part of our market. Churches try, but have lost public trust to... what exactly? Institutions are being wrecked by our Culture Wars.
YOu might be interested in the books The Tyranny of Merit and The Cult of Smart both of which argue that it's immoral to condem people to poverty b/c they have lower academic achievement. As you say, there are so many human virtues other than book smarts but only book smarts (plus a few other things -- good looks, athleticism and entertaining talents) are rewarded in the marketplace.
Cobb, I'm so glad you wrote this entry. I've always thought that the smartest thing the left ever did was to jettison all the racial/eugenics/IQ nonsense in the decade before WWII. I've always thought that the dumbest thing the right ever did was to pick it up and run with it sometime in the post war era (1950s?). Yes, IQ tests cull for math ability with high accuracy. But to define 'intelligence' within the narrow confines of an IQ test is a joke. Especially in America. As Eric Hoffer said, you don't get to know the American workingman by putting him in front of a paper with a #2 pencil; you get to know him by working along side him for a week. To define "intelligence" by an 8 or 10 page test is ridiculous; what about cunning, stealth, humor, patience, lying, joking, instinct; intelligence is bound up with all these or it is nothing. I hate seeing interviews with Charles Murray when he sighs, and admits, sigh, that yes, sadly, the black IQ is a standard deviation below that of whites, sigh. And yes, sigh, there's nothing we can do about it, sigh. Bullshit! We are talking about the whole life of humankind here. That blacks survived - no thrived - for hundreds of years in a political & cultural system designed to chew them up and spit them out, speaks to me of something more than 'intelligence'. They possessed an indominable (a William Faulkner word) force of life, an overcoming force that stands as one of humanity's outstanding achievements (even 'achievement’ seems a bit watery-weak for what I am trying to say). IQ, as measured by the IQ test, must somehow be linked to human, or brain, evolution. When the Romans pulled out of Britain circa 400 A.D. -- if you had told them that the isle they were abandoning would one day rule the world by strength of their navy, etc., those Romans would have laughed in your face? "What? These savages who paint themselves blue and barely grasp the good things of civilization that we have brought them. You're nuts." Now what? The British IQ evolved up two or three deviations over 1000 years? Really? Is human life just brain matter then? Asians measure on or near the top of IQ tests, and the world agrees, they are smart. But in all of human history, with all their brains, an Asian man or woman has never done anything so simple, so basic as cast a free vote for the leadership candidate of his or her free choice (except when brought into Western ways via defeat in war). Mao killed 50 or 80 million of his own people in a twenty years bloodfest. Butbutbut their IQ scores ... ! Cambodia's Khmer Rouge slaughtered millions ... butbutbut you cry out, IQ! Next slide please. What about our super-high IQ scoring Germans? They score very well on IQ tests; before 1933 Germans could factually lay claim to undisputed excellence in every aspect of human endeavor. They also punched their ticket for generating the most massive bloodletting in human history. Ah, but, IQ tests show ... the standard deviation .... hrumph ... hurumph ... What in the hell is Charles Murray talking about? He has no evidence that there is a gene for intelligence - according to his definition of intelligence. The genes for skin color, hair texture, are among the easiest to find on the genome map. But what geneticist has found the gene-link between skin color and intelligence? It won't be found because it doesn't exist. As a result, Murray is arguing backwards and asserting things about which he has no evidence. Need to find a skilled mathematician? Fine, send out the IQ tests. Need to discover the mysterious key to all human existence? Read study pray talk think- live... skip the test ...
I have to admit that when I saw "Nurses -black and white. And the difference," for a moment I was expecting a retread of the tired standup warhorse, "White people walk/drive/whatever like this...and black people walk/drive/whatever like this!"
I was an undergrad when the Bell Curve dropped, and Murray came to my alma mater on his speaking tour, where he was skewered, and this was in the late 90s.
I read the Bell Curve cover to cover. Murray and the late Herrnstein spent most of the book looking at historic data of IQ tests and standardized tests like the military ASVAB or the SAT which they correlated back to IQ tests. They did this for white people only. Then they compared outcomes in income, health, etc. Their conclusion is lower IQ whites do worse in life in general.
They then took this framework and applied it to other "race". They found that blacks in America and Africa score less (about 1 standard deviation less than people of European ancestry on average), and this correlates with their income levels, health, etc. They found East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) score about half a standard deviation higher than people of European ancestry, and this is why they perform better in Asia, as adoptee children in the U.S., and as immigrants in the U.S., and per income level they live longer.
Hispanics (being mixed race) were higher than African Americans, but lower than whites and Asians. The Hispanics were of Mexican, I believe, not Caribbean Latinos or South Americans.
So, he found the white average IQ was about 100 in the U.S., Asians was about 105, Latinos (Mexicans) was 90, African Americans 85.
The entire premise of the book is a person’s IQ is predictive of various life outcomes, and if we look at a group-based level IQ explained most (not all) of the outcomes we see in society. They did not discount racism entirely, but they believe IQ had FAR more impact than racism on black and Latino outcomes. They also pointed out that Asians are not white, but do better than whites, despite whatever racism they experience.
Murray took this frame and then said, we know, even with whites, that by default, half of white Americans are below average IQ, and if your IQ is below 85 or so you will have trouble graduating from high school, let alone every finished a university degree. So that is why he proposed a minimum standard income. He believes strongly as the society moves from a agricultural and manufacturing base into an information based economy it is going to be harder for lower IQ people to be competitive, and this will lead to social instability. He states many times these people aren’t not "immoral or lazy" they are just "cognitively inferior", and so "can't help it", and if we want a just and stable society, we should compensate them for this.
Since he believes that IQ is between 50-75% heritable, he believes there are some things we can do to maximize IQ, but nothing we can do to make Latino and blacks equal to whites or Asians (on average). Since this is an immutable characteristic that you are born with people should not be punished for it in a fair society.
In a sense it is a type of affirmative action.
So his focus on recent years is not on ethnic minorities, it is more on blue collar whites and social stability - and he was talking about this long before Trump was elected.
I honestly don't think Murray is a racist per se, not really. I think that is a function of his cognitive elitist ideology. He has stated clearly that he is talking about averages, and so there are black people who have high IQs and even genius IQ levels, but there are just far less of them than whites or Asians. So he believes we should be IQ testing everyone, and then we can tell which blacks and Latinos are smart, and give them more resources to strive.
That is not "racist" per se, it is more like some type of cognitive classicism, however you can't really explain that distinction to the "woke masses" as it is just unacceptable on race, class, fairness, etc.
That's a very useful take. Thanks. It's interesting that Jordan Peterson makes the same point about low IQ and the technical economy but does so without mixing in talk about ethnicity. There's much to say about this, and I expect that people who want to talk about race will attempt to take over the conversation. My approach as always is to consider the matter of those demographic dimensionalities into which we converse about ourselves. I contend that our way of understanding ourselves is reduced when we make it only about 5 when in fact we are highly multidimensional. Yet our education and politics are so often gated by the same few, race now chief among them.
I would prefer that we do something with social media and education such that virtues are taken into greater consideration since that is something we are eminently in control of ourselves. How society would benefit if we had FICO scores for trust. If we were graded on honesty and transparency what a change that would make. Yet we keep saying stuff like "white males can't be trusted". Stupid.
So some fungibility of virtue needs to be part of our market. Churches try, but have lost public trust to... what exactly? Institutions are being wrecked by our Culture Wars.
YOu might be interested in the books The Tyranny of Merit and The Cult of Smart both of which argue that it's immoral to condem people to poverty b/c they have lower academic achievement. As you say, there are so many human virtues other than book smarts but only book smarts (plus a few other things -- good looks, athleticism and entertaining talents) are rewarded in the marketplace.
Cobb, I'm so glad you wrote this entry. I've always thought that the smartest thing the left ever did was to jettison all the racial/eugenics/IQ nonsense in the decade before WWII. I've always thought that the dumbest thing the right ever did was to pick it up and run with it sometime in the post war era (1950s?). Yes, IQ tests cull for math ability with high accuracy. But to define 'intelligence' within the narrow confines of an IQ test is a joke. Especially in America. As Eric Hoffer said, you don't get to know the American workingman by putting him in front of a paper with a #2 pencil; you get to know him by working along side him for a week. To define "intelligence" by an 8 or 10 page test is ridiculous; what about cunning, stealth, humor, patience, lying, joking, instinct; intelligence is bound up with all these or it is nothing. I hate seeing interviews with Charles Murray when he sighs, and admits, sigh, that yes, sadly, the black IQ is a standard deviation below that of whites, sigh. And yes, sigh, there's nothing we can do about it, sigh. Bullshit! We are talking about the whole life of humankind here. That blacks survived - no thrived - for hundreds of years in a political & cultural system designed to chew them up and spit them out, speaks to me of something more than 'intelligence'. They possessed an indominable (a William Faulkner word) force of life, an overcoming force that stands as one of humanity's outstanding achievements (even 'achievement’ seems a bit watery-weak for what I am trying to say). IQ, as measured by the IQ test, must somehow be linked to human, or brain, evolution. When the Romans pulled out of Britain circa 400 A.D. -- if you had told them that the isle they were abandoning would one day rule the world by strength of their navy, etc., those Romans would have laughed in your face? "What? These savages who paint themselves blue and barely grasp the good things of civilization that we have brought them. You're nuts." Now what? The British IQ evolved up two or three deviations over 1000 years? Really? Is human life just brain matter then? Asians measure on or near the top of IQ tests, and the world agrees, they are smart. But in all of human history, with all their brains, an Asian man or woman has never done anything so simple, so basic as cast a free vote for the leadership candidate of his or her free choice (except when brought into Western ways via defeat in war). Mao killed 50 or 80 million of his own people in a twenty years bloodfest. Butbutbut their IQ scores ... ! Cambodia's Khmer Rouge slaughtered millions ... butbutbut you cry out, IQ! Next slide please. What about our super-high IQ scoring Germans? They score very well on IQ tests; before 1933 Germans could factually lay claim to undisputed excellence in every aspect of human endeavor. They also punched their ticket for generating the most massive bloodletting in human history. Ah, but, IQ tests show ... the standard deviation .... hrumph ... hurumph ... What in the hell is Charles Murray talking about? He has no evidence that there is a gene for intelligence - according to his definition of intelligence. The genes for skin color, hair texture, are among the easiest to find on the genome map. But what geneticist has found the gene-link between skin color and intelligence? It won't be found because it doesn't exist. As a result, Murray is arguing backwards and asserting things about which he has no evidence. Need to find a skilled mathematician? Fine, send out the IQ tests. Need to discover the mysterious key to all human existence? Read study pray talk think- live... skip the test ...
I have to admit that when I saw "Nurses -black and white. And the difference," for a moment I was expecting a retread of the tired standup warhorse, "White people walk/drive/whatever like this...and black people walk/drive/whatever like this!"