Two minutes of this interview was wasted because the dude didn't understand the definition of "genetic determinism". This is why you shouldn't use words you don't understand. What a joker.
Intelligence is malleable. Race has nothing to do with how smart you are, it is your environment, and personal values you hold that play the important factor.
@dancingwithcalvin you are simply wrong. Intelligence has a strong hereditary factor - it's correlated between 40% and 80%. That's not to say that the environment does not play a role, it just shows that the DNA you inherit is a stronger factor.
Study after study after study confirm this to be the case. You simply don't like this - so you refuse to believe it. It's a shame that you are too stupid to accept facts and proof.
Sure intelligence is somewhat inheritable, i didnt say it wast. I'm saying that race plays no distinguishable divider of intelligence. And, even if it did, which it doesn't, intelligence can change, its not set in stone. its not the 1940's anymore your an idiot for believing in racial inferiority. Well you would have been an idiot back then too, but now especially.
@dancingwithcalvin I am afraid it is you who are the idiot - and I'll tell you why.
Firstly - you stand against the overwhelming scientiic evidence, which shows the same thing over and over again.
Secondly - and more importantly - you consider this difference leads to inferiority - when that is not the case. The quality of a man does not depend on his intelligence. You have given this one category too much status. It is just one vector of many, and it does not make a man better or a race better.
Of course. The negro has inferior intellect, so he is the better worker rather than philosopher I suppose you are trying to emphasize? Its called racism.
@dancingwithcalvin you're grasping at straws now. It's unfortunate that we cannot have a real discussion about this because we are people who come from different viewpoints.
I observe facts, and then listen to different theories that might suggest how these facts arise.
On the other hand - you have an ideology - and then seek to invent facts that support your ideology.
I won't respond anymore because you're not seeking to find truth in any sense, but to use rhetoric to support your dogma.
Alright, putting all ideals aside, its obvious that inferiority means lack of intellectualizing and cognitive capabilities. You suggest that some races naturally have inherit inferiority? And some races have natural superiority? First I would have to know whether you subscribe to the multiple intelligence theory.
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
@awrezy I am a former teacher. Murray and Philip Rushton are not wrong. They are right on the money.
Their findings are completely in line with reality. Look around. Lowest IQ groups have the lowest living standards and have made the fewest contributions to math, science & society. Highest IQ groups have the highest living standards and have made the most contributions in math, science & society. So I imagine you think that is simply a coincidence?
@awm4151 I am a current teacher. And if you were really a teacher, then you should be well aware that lousy education causes people to have low living standards, make few contributions to society, do poorly on IQ tests, and also raise children who end up having a poor education. Similarly, good education causes high living standards, high IQ scores, and also self-perpetuates.
If you've managed to mistake "IQ" over "education" as the key cause, then you are likely part of that "lousy education."
@awrezy First, the noble has direct self-interest to say such things. Provide proof for a scientist saying such things. And when it's based on evidence, his intentions (if any) mean nothing.
If I were to say that women will always be shorter than men (on average) and spending money to rectify this 'problem' is pointless and wasteful, I'm not a sexist, I'm being realistic.
@awrezy Fine: look at the evidence and reasoning, not people's intentions, when evaluating a position. Also, please explain the 'real reasons' for inequality.
@SaviorOfLogic Okay, sounds reasonable enough. I was simply noting that people often have motivations to selectively present data as their "evidence" to further their goals. Murray is working for a conservative political group that stands to benefit from people believing his speeches.
Let's look at evidence then. What is Murray's evidence?
As for the real reasons, it has to do with access to (quality) education and what some people call "cultural capital".
@awrezy I'm not sure on what evidence Murray himself uses, but the charter school 'experiment' is useful:
These schools were known as 'better' than the surrounding state ones, but had very limited places, so used a lottery. The kids did equally well, regardless of if they 'won' the lottery or not. The kids who didn't apply, however, 'failed'.
Put simply, IQ matters. Also, there are other factors stopping rags to riches stories, such as regulations.
@SaviorOfLogic Unless you cite the exact study in this case, it is difficult for me to analyze its merits beyond just speculation.
I can, however, think of many possible reasons for the outcome that don't reach for genetic explanations. The charter schools might not be that much "better" than the surrounding ones, especially if their students consisted of exactly a random sample of state school students; new building, same peers.
The schools were better, but the sample who applied were the families who valued education (otherwise, why apply?), so school did better.
The study I cite is not meant to be proof of an IQ 'success' link, there is separate evidence for that (esp. since IQ is unaffected by education when controlled for other factors).
Also, high IQ parents have kids with high IQ, AND can afford better schools, so this may provide evidence that 'better' schools aren't the cause.
@SaviorOfLogic The students might be tested too early after being moved; education is by nature a long-term investment, and the real benefits may not even show until after a year or several years.
The outcome may also just be a verification of the belief that the home environment of a student (educated parents, cultural respect for learning) has a bigger impact on their academic success than the school they are in.
@SaviorOfLogic In short, it is far too big a leap to simply jump from a study like this to the conclusion that "The reason is genetic."
Here is a question: Can you give me a scientifically precise definition of IQ in terms of genetics? I have never been able to find one, and I suspect that there isn't one. As far as anyone seems to know, IQ itself is just a number vaguely measured from a test, and how well the subject scores may be more a matter of education than genetics.
@awrezy Apologies for the late reply, I didn't get it in my inbox. Yes, home environment can play a role, so can moving. However, IQ is .75 heritable. This only leaves .25 for the environment. Expressing IQ in terms of genes is stupid. Ask the same of height and you'd look rightfully stupid. IQ correlates very well with real life outcomes such as unemployment, income and crime, while being mostly genetic. I'm not saying environment has no impact, but the impact is relatively small.
This is so stupid, the idea of what constitutes 'good genes' or 'bad genes' is completely circumstantial and depends on context which is arbitrary and dynamic way beyond human comprehension. So perhaps we should just abandon this silly idea of genetically engineering humans, and that's not to mention the crude understanding people have of genes anyway. Besides the technophile of the future is bald, sterile, has poor vision and hearing, hooked on drugs and dies from chronic illness, sounds good?
I'd like to know what changes in dna could make people better. The most people i know who are "sucessful" are fucking idiots with rich parents. I really wish smart people would be more sucessful/riche than dumb ones, but its really not the case.
@thecousin It's true that wealth leads to rich parents sending their children to rich schools which will lead these children to get high grades and good jobs. Poverty is hard to escape from, education is expensive. However there is a strong correlation between wealth and IQ. Generally speaking the richer the person, the higher their IQ.
@ceejaywt I go part of the way with him. He says nobody is willing to state that some children fail at school because they are not clever enough, this is true & excuses are made. But Murrary is a sort of Social Darwinist who wants raw free market capitalism which I do not as it is a right wing idea and is all about individual gain. Instead governments should pay families with higher IQs to have more children. Contracpetion & access to family planning should be increased in poorer areas.
Serious discourse on genetic predispositions of intelligence predicated on race differences is like an Amphisbaena with a horror-head at either end.One head is the Culture-Only stance.The other:a Neo-Eugenic,or Heredity-Only stance.Like the mythic monster,it resists slaying.Enlightenment by scientific evidences indeed has only encouraged Neo-Eugenic hypothesizing based on refurbished Confirmation biases...It feeds off the corpses of old bigotries.
genetic equality is a fallacy. can people be born smart. they can they be born tall making it more likely that they will be an NBA player. they can they have innate ability to paint or play a musical instrument, possibly like their parents, yes. If you truely believe in genetic equality why is there only one lebron james or michael jordan? if genetic equality exists then surely there are other people in the world willing to work as hard on their basketball and therefore would be as good?
the way it works is, everybody is equal, except in matters where Blacks excel. so Blacks can either be equal or better than others, but can never be worse than others in anything. to suggest otherwise is to be a racist. such is the thinking of the America-hating socialists
The reason no one cares about blacks being better basketball players is that skill in sports, unlike intelligence, isn't really an important characteristic of humanity. On the other hand, we would be indistinguishable from animals if it were not for our superior intelligence.
Saying that one group is less smart is saying they are less human. Calling whites bad at sports is not even close to being as inflammatory as calling blacks stupid.
@aussieconservative Exact genetic equality does not exist, but that is not really the point.
It is true that people who are taller have an advantage in basketball against someone who is equally well-trained. That said, someone who is much better trained at basketball will almost always beat a newcomer, even if the newcomer is taller.
The lesson to take home is that genetic factors are essentially negligible next to educational factors. Charles Murray misleads people to believe the opposite.
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
@awrezy some white children are not smart enough to excel in academics too. Surely you agree that some children are not heavy enough to be a line backer and not tall enough to play center. why do we accept these genetic anomalies but discard others based on the notion of equal academic ability. genetic equality is a mirage that doesn't exist, we do have moral equality but that is the extent of it.
@nakedBison69 Hard to imagine how confused someone would have to be to mistake me for an abstract concept.
Of course Charles Murray does not explicitly say that about blacks. Do people who oppose gay marriage say that they hate gays? No, they are "protecting marriage". It is just an excuse to push their real agenda, which is too ugly to be spoken out loud.
awrezy is an abstract conceptt. awrezy hates both Black Colored Negroes and gay homos. awrezy attacks marriage, using it as his excsue to push his real agenda, which is too ugly and socialist to be spoken out loud
The guy interviewing Charles Murray is uninformed about the issue at hand and like most people seems insistent on turning Murray into a caricature. Genetics is increasingly vindicating Charles Murray but pretentious journalists who prop up the lie of biological equality will be the last to get the memo. When they finally get it these same self-righteous types will pretend they were the first to accept scientific reality. I hope Murray's mailbox overflows with apologies, though it is unlikely.
for me it is irrelevent. MR to Menza, deformed, etc. all offer something to those that look.
Beadbud5000 1 week ago
Eugenics is the only viable long term answer to global sustainability
FloridaRaider 1 month ago
IQ is real. IQ differs among groups. This is basic.
knightschwartz 4 months ago
2:40 So genetic diseases should be left alone. Shortening the lives of future generations?
BlackSunElite 5 months ago
liberalism = christianity. Filth.
vorzeichen89 7 months ago
"a huge big difference"
WAT.
bumzurvaj 8 months ago
Two minutes of this interview was wasted because the dude didn't understand the definition of "genetic determinism". This is why you shouldn't use words you don't understand. What a joker.
dick391 9 months ago
Intelligence is malleable. Race has nothing to do with how smart you are, it is your environment, and personal values you hold that play the important factor.
dancingwithcalvin 1 year ago
@dancingwithcalvin you are simply wrong. Intelligence has a strong hereditary factor - it's correlated between 40% and 80%. That's not to say that the environment does not play a role, it just shows that the DNA you inherit is a stronger factor.
Study after study after study confirm this to be the case. You simply don't like this - so you refuse to believe it. It's a shame that you are too stupid to accept facts and proof.
kbdkbd99 7 months ago
@kbdkbd99
Sure intelligence is somewhat inheritable, i didnt say it wast. I'm saying that race plays no distinguishable divider of intelligence. And, even if it did, which it doesn't, intelligence can change, its not set in stone. its not the 1940's anymore your an idiot for believing in racial inferiority. Well you would have been an idiot back then too, but now especially.
dancingwithcalvin 7 months ago
@dancingwithcalvin I am afraid it is you who are the idiot - and I'll tell you why.
Firstly - you stand against the overwhelming scientiic evidence, which shows the same thing over and over again.
Secondly - and more importantly - you consider this difference leads to inferiority - when that is not the case. The quality of a man does not depend on his intelligence. You have given this one category too much status. It is just one vector of many, and it does not make a man better or a race better.
kbdkbd99 7 months ago
@kbdkbd99
Of course. The negro has inferior intellect, so he is the better worker rather than philosopher I suppose you are trying to emphasize? Its called racism.
dancingwithcalvin 7 months ago
@dancingwithcalvin you're grasping at straws now. It's unfortunate that we cannot have a real discussion about this because we are people who come from different viewpoints.
I observe facts, and then listen to different theories that might suggest how these facts arise.
On the other hand - you have an ideology - and then seek to invent facts that support your ideology.
I won't respond anymore because you're not seeking to find truth in any sense, but to use rhetoric to support your dogma.
kbdkbd99 7 months ago
@kbdkbd99
Alright, putting all ideals aside, its obvious that inferiority means lack of intellectualizing and cognitive capabilities. You suggest that some races naturally have inherit inferiority? And some races have natural superiority? First I would have to know whether you subscribe to the multiple intelligence theory.
dancingwithcalvin 7 months ago
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy I am a former teacher. Murray and Philip Rushton are not wrong. They are right on the money.
Their findings are completely in line with reality. Look around. Lowest IQ groups have the lowest living standards and have made the fewest contributions to math, science & society. Highest IQ groups have the highest living standards and have made the most contributions in math, science & society. So I imagine you think that is simply a coincidence?
awm4151 1 year ago
@awm4151 I am a current teacher. And if you were really a teacher, then you should be well aware that lousy education causes people to have low living standards, make few contributions to society, do poorly on IQ tests, and also raise children who end up having a poor education. Similarly, good education causes high living standards, high IQ scores, and also self-perpetuates.
If you've managed to mistake "IQ" over "education" as the key cause, then you are likely part of that "lousy education."
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy First, the noble has direct self-interest to say such things. Provide proof for a scientist saying such things. And when it's based on evidence, his intentions (if any) mean nothing.
If I were to say that women will always be shorter than men (on average) and spending money to rectify this 'problem' is pointless and wasteful, I'm not a sexist, I'm being realistic.
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic "the noble has direct self-interest to say such things" That's right. Look up the American Enterprise Institute.
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy Yeah, doesn't refute the argument.
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic There was no coherent argument to refute in the first place.
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy Fine: look at the evidence and reasoning, not people's intentions, when evaluating a position. Also, please explain the 'real reasons' for inequality.
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic Okay, sounds reasonable enough. I was simply noting that people often have motivations to selectively present data as their "evidence" to further their goals. Murray is working for a conservative political group that stands to benefit from people believing his speeches.
Let's look at evidence then. What is Murray's evidence?
As for the real reasons, it has to do with access to (quality) education and what some people call "cultural capital".
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy I'm not sure on what evidence Murray himself uses, but the charter school 'experiment' is useful:
These schools were known as 'better' than the surrounding state ones, but had very limited places, so used a lottery. The kids did equally well, regardless of if they 'won' the lottery or not. The kids who didn't apply, however, 'failed'.
Put simply, IQ matters. Also, there are other factors stopping rags to riches stories, such as regulations.
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic Unless you cite the exact study in this case, it is difficult for me to analyze its merits beyond just speculation.
I can, however, think of many possible reasons for the outcome that don't reach for genetic explanations. The charter schools might not be that much "better" than the surrounding ones, especially if their students consisted of exactly a random sample of state school students; new building, same peers.
...
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy tiny url .com /5v2l6dq
The schools were better, but the sample who applied were the families who valued education (otherwise, why apply?), so school did better.
The study I cite is not meant to be proof of an IQ 'success' link, there is separate evidence for that (esp. since IQ is unaffected by education when controlled for other factors).
Also, high IQ parents have kids with high IQ, AND can afford better schools, so this may provide evidence that 'better' schools aren't the cause.
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic The students might be tested too early after being moved; education is by nature a long-term investment, and the real benefits may not even show until after a year or several years.
The outcome may also just be a verification of the belief that the home environment of a student (educated parents, cultural respect for learning) has a bigger impact on their academic success than the school they are in.
awrezy 1 year ago
@SaviorOfLogic In short, it is far too big a leap to simply jump from a study like this to the conclusion that "The reason is genetic."
Here is a question: Can you give me a scientifically precise definition of IQ in terms of genetics? I have never been able to find one, and I suspect that there isn't one. As far as anyone seems to know, IQ itself is just a number vaguely measured from a test, and how well the subject scores may be more a matter of education than genetics.
awrezy 1 year ago
@awrezy Apologies for the late reply, I didn't get it in my inbox. Yes, home environment can play a role, so can moving. However, IQ is .75 heritable. This only leaves .25 for the environment. Expressing IQ in terms of genes is stupid. Ask the same of height and you'd look rightfully stupid. IQ correlates very well with real life outcomes such as unemployment, income and crime, while being mostly genetic. I'm not saying environment has no impact, but the impact is relatively small.
SaviorOfLogic 2 months ago
This is so stupid, the idea of what constitutes 'good genes' or 'bad genes' is completely circumstantial and depends on context which is arbitrary and dynamic way beyond human comprehension. So perhaps we should just abandon this silly idea of genetically engineering humans, and that's not to mention the crude understanding people have of genes anyway. Besides the technophile of the future is bald, sterile, has poor vision and hearing, hooked on drugs and dies from chronic illness, sounds good?
superheronumber1 1 year ago
God this is so commonsense.
yak6ex 1 year ago
Michael Jacobs had a picture of Bernard Shaw on his wall... Irony!
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
I'd like to know what changes in dna could make people better. The most people i know who are "sucessful" are fucking idiots with rich parents. I really wish smart people would be more sucessful/riche than dumb ones, but its really not the case.
thecousin 1 year ago
@thecousin It's true that wealth leads to rich parents sending their children to rich schools which will lead these children to get high grades and good jobs. Poverty is hard to escape from, education is expensive. However there is a strong correlation between wealth and IQ. Generally speaking the richer the person, the higher their IQ.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33
brentloans 1 year ago
@thecousin what you call "smart people", is not the same as intelligent people in the sense of iq.
thirien59 1 year ago
Comment removed
ceejaywt 1 year ago
@ceejaywt I go part of the way with him. He says nobody is willing to state that some children fail at school because they are not clever enough, this is true & excuses are made. But Murrary is a sort of Social Darwinist who wants raw free market capitalism which I do not as it is a right wing idea and is all about individual gain. Instead governments should pay families with higher IQs to have more children. Contracpetion & access to family planning should be increased in poorer areas.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Serious discourse on genetic predispositions of intelligence predicated on race differences is like an Amphisbaena with a horror-head at either end.One head is the Culture-Only stance.The other:a Neo-Eugenic,or Heredity-Only stance.Like the mythic monster,it resists slaying.Enlightenment by scientific evidences indeed has only encouraged Neo-Eugenic hypothesizing based on refurbished Confirmation biases...It feeds off the corpses of old bigotries.
djnross 1 year ago
genetic equality is a fallacy. can people be born smart. they can they be born tall making it more likely that they will be an NBA player. they can they have innate ability to paint or play a musical instrument, possibly like their parents, yes. If you truely believe in genetic equality why is there only one lebron james or michael jordan? if genetic equality exists then surely there are other people in the world willing to work as hard on their basketball and therefore would be as good?
aussieconservative 1 year ago
the way it works is, everybody is equal, except in matters where Blacks excel. so Blacks can either be equal or better than others, but can never be worse than others in anything. to suggest otherwise is to be a racist. such is the thinking of the America-hating socialists
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69
The reason no one cares about blacks being better basketball players is that skill in sports, unlike intelligence, isn't really an important characteristic of humanity. On the other hand, we would be indistinguishable from animals if it were not for our superior intelligence.
Saying that one group is less smart is saying they are less human. Calling whites bad at sports is not even close to being as inflammatory as calling blacks stupid.
yitzchak13 1 year ago
what matters even more than whether or not people's feelings will be hurt, is what the truth is. running away from the truth does not make it go away
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 I didn't give my opinion. I just answered your question.
yitzchak13 1 year ago
yitzchak13 has a very Jewish name
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@aussieconservative Exact genetic equality does not exist, but that is not really the point.
It is true that people who are taller have an advantage in basketball against someone who is equally well-trained. That said, someone who is much better trained at basketball will almost always beat a newcomer, even if the newcomer is taller.
The lesson to take home is that genetic factors are essentially negligible next to educational factors. Charles Murray misleads people to believe the opposite.
awrezy 1 year ago
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
awrezy 2 years ago
@awrezy some white children are not smart enough to excel in academics too. Surely you agree that some children are not heavy enough to be a line backer and not tall enough to play center. why do we accept these genetic anomalies but discard others based on the notion of equal academic ability. genetic equality is a mirage that doesn't exist, we do have moral equality but that is the extent of it.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
Charles Murray never said that about Blacks. then again, why confuse a socialist racist like awrezy with the truth?
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 Hard to imagine how confused someone would have to be to mistake me for an abstract concept.
Of course Charles Murray does not explicitly say that about blacks. Do people who oppose gay marriage say that they hate gays? No, they are "protecting marriage". It is just an excuse to push their real agenda, which is too ugly to be spoken out loud.
awrezy 1 year ago
awrezy is an abstract conceptt. awrezy hates both Black Colored Negroes and gay homos. awrezy attacks marriage, using it as his excsue to push his real agenda, which is too ugly and socialist to be spoken out loud
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 Well, I don't think there is any need for me to answer that. It seems to say everything that needs to be said.
awrezy 1 year ago
The guy interviewing Charles Murray is uninformed about the issue at hand and like most people seems insistent on turning Murray into a caricature. Genetics is increasingly vindicating Charles Murray but pretentious journalists who prop up the lie of biological equality will be the last to get the memo. When they finally get it these same self-righteous types will pretend they were the first to accept scientific reality. I hope Murray's mailbox overflows with apologies, though it is unlikely.
TulliusVII 2 years ago 4
are you joking? the America-hating socialists never apologize, because they never acknowledge that they are wrong
nakedBison69 1 year ago
That's a good point.
TulliusVII 1 year ago
@TulliusVII 'the guy' i a very clever guy...maybe you should be more informed...it's the well respected Paxman! Murray is tripping over his words
jenyygren 1 month ago
Charles Murray _
Genius
Revolutionist.
mattjoubs 2 years ago
HA! An online video curtsy of Sir David Clayton!
seanjk6 3 years ago