I like Coleman Hughes. I don't always agree, but I find many gems from him and his guests.
I have read only The Bell Curve, co-authored by Murray, but I'd like to get around to some of his more recent work (alas, I have several times as many books on my to-read list as I have any chance of getting around to in this incarnation).
I like Coleman Hughes. I don't always agree, but I find many gems from him and his guests.
I have read only The Bell Curve, co-authored by Murray, but I'd like to get around to some of his more recent work (alas, I have several times as many books on my to-read list as I have any chance of getting around to in this incarnation).
I do recommend reading Murray's actual words. I do not know about his more recent work, but it appears that his detractors are not reliable sources regarding what Murray actually writes, in context. I'm not endorsing his conclusions, just endorsing honest evaluation of them.
In terms of having a pre-set conclusion that somebody is suspected of seeking rationales to support, that is always something to keep an eye on. In that case, I don't expect a balanced presentation, and give less weight to a person's personal or professional opinions that I would to a neutral analyst. However, even a biased source can cite facts and make good arguments, so I just treat them cautiously rather than avoiding them, and I am more likely to follow references for important assertions before accepting them. So for example, a biased source may cite a Pew research result accurately (and can be objectively verified), but an opinion which requires us to trust their subjective assessments is less reliable (like "most respectable researchers agree that...", which requires that we trust his selection and summary of the field).
And as I do so, my trust in the source's balance or accuracy of presentation can go up or down.
I actually found The Bell Curve to be better at presenting evidence in multiple directions (eg: citing experiments both supporting larger and smaller roles for inheritance in intelligence) than, say Stephen J Gould's one-sided take down, which was more of a polemic utilizing science than a balanced presentation. Of course, I was more comfortable with Gould's position, as in I'd prefer that it be true. However, my deeper goal is to get as close as I can to the actual truth, rather than create a comfortable nest of half truths which conforms my pre-existing preferences.
In terms of distorting things, Stephen J Gould's "Mis-measure of man" is an interesting case in point. I don't have all the names and specifics at hand, but one thing he did was remeasure some skull volumes taken by a 19th century scientist who believed that Caucasians had superior intelligence. Gould claimed that the scientist had made errors in his measurements, due to unconscious bias while trying to prove his point (it was widely thought in that day that brain size was a primary component of intelligence). Anyway, since then more precise measurements were done via MRI and computer, and it turns out the 19th century scientist was remarkably accurate - he was carefully following the scientific method despite having a philosophical agenda. The contrast which Stephen J Gould noted came from his own errors; and reading his book it becomes obvious that SJG had an agenda. So he wound up ironically illustrating his point that political bias has the potential to distort results if a scientist is not sufficiently careful - but with himself as the non-objective measurer with an agenda, rather than the 19th century scientist.
The flaw of the old scientist's research was not in his objectivity in measuring, but inferring too much from the small sample size of skulls, and the - then widely held - assumption that relatively small differences implied a difference in intelligence between humans. Subsequent research on volume versus folding as correlates of intelligence, and a better understanding of statistics, have deepened our understanding and appropriately overturned his research - but he was doing proper science by the methods and procedures of his day. That correction process is part of evolving science.
(How did a 19th century scientist achieve brain cavity measurements comparable to 21st century technology? He carefully filled the cavities with tiny seeds and then counted them, comparing the number of seeds in a more easily measured volume.)
Part of what I'm saying is that people like Murray are not the only commenters in the space who may have ideological blinders guiding their conclusions, and seeking rationales to support those pre-determined conclusions. We also have to be wary of biases among people whose conclusions and politics we agree with. I can easily sympathize with those who want to find reasons to summarily dismiss Murray (or what they fear Murray implies), but my sympathies and preferences do not change what is objectively true.
I like Coleman Hughes. I don't always agree, but I find many gems from him and his guests.
I have read only The Bell Curve, co-authored by Murray, but I'd like to get around to some of his more recent work (alas, I have several times as many books on my to-read list as I have any chance of getting around to in this incarnation).
I do recommend reading Murray's actual words. I do not know about his more recent work, but it appears that his detractors are not reliable sources regarding what Murray actually writes, in context. I'm not endorsing his conclusions, just endorsing honest evaluation of them.
In terms of having a pre-set conclusion that somebody is suspected of seeking rationales to support, that is always something to keep an eye on. In that case, I don't expect a balanced presentation, and give less weight to a person's personal or professional opinions that I would to a neutral analyst. However, even a biased source can cite facts and make good arguments, so I just treat them cautiously rather than avoiding them, and I am more likely to follow references for important assertions before accepting them. So for example, a biased source may cite a Pew research result accurately (and can be objectively verified), but an opinion which requires us to trust their subjective assessments is less reliable (like "most respectable researchers agree that...", which requires that we trust his selection and summary of the field).
And as I do so, my trust in the source's balance or accuracy of presentation can go up or down.
I actually found The Bell Curve to be better at presenting evidence in multiple directions (eg: citing experiments both supporting larger and smaller roles for inheritance in intelligence) than, say Stephen J Gould's one-sided take down, which was more of a polemic utilizing science than a balanced presentation. Of course, I was more comfortable with Gould's position, as in I'd prefer that it be true. However, my deeper goal is to get as close as I can to the actual truth, rather than create a comfortable nest of half truths which conforms my pre-existing preferences.
In terms of distorting things, Stephen J Gould's "Mis-measure of man" is an interesting case in point. I don't have all the names and specifics at hand, but one thing he did was remeasure some skull volumes taken by a 19th century scientist who believed that Caucasians had superior intelligence. Gould claimed that the scientist had made errors in his measurements, due to unconscious bias while trying to prove his point (it was widely thought in that day that brain size was a primary component of intelligence). Anyway, since then more precise measurements were done via MRI and computer, and it turns out the 19th century scientist was remarkably accurate - he was carefully following the scientific method despite having a philosophical agenda. The contrast which Stephen J Gould noted came from his own errors; and reading his book it becomes obvious that SJG had an agenda. So he wound up ironically illustrating his point that political bias has the potential to distort results if a scientist is not sufficiently careful - but with himself as the non-objective measurer with an agenda, rather than the 19th century scientist.
The flaw of the old scientist's research was not in his objectivity in measuring, but inferring too much from the small sample size of skulls, and the - then widely held - assumption that relatively small differences implied a difference in intelligence between humans. Subsequent research on volume versus folding as correlates of intelligence, and a better understanding of statistics, have deepened our understanding and appropriately overturned his research - but he was doing proper science by the methods and procedures of his day. That correction process is part of evolving science.
(How did a 19th century scientist achieve brain cavity measurements comparable to 21st century technology? He carefully filled the cavities with tiny seeds and then counted them, comparing the number of seeds in a more easily measured volume.)
Part of what I'm saying is that people like Murray are not the only commenters in the space who may have ideological blinders guiding their conclusions, and seeking rationales to support those pre-determined conclusions. We also have to be wary of biases among people whose conclusions and politics we agree with. I can easily sympathize with those who want to find reasons to summarily dismiss Murray (or what they fear Murray implies), but my sympathies and preferences do not change what is objectively true.