If Mort Divine ruled the world

I don't think it's that artists are un-intellectual, but that they express their intellectualism in typically uncritical ways.

What's wrong with expressing distaste toward a particular view? That appears to be central to the piece, i.e. that Murray has no moral regard or appreciation for the wider implications of his argument. I think it's perfectly acceptable to express impatience when dealing with what looks like empathetic incompetence. It would be a different story if Murray never suggested that the genetic factor of IQ makes no difference, but he actually goes out of his way to say that it makes no difference. Morality aside, that's an empirically falsifiable claim.


Why is a lack of empathy when doing work which doesn't necessitate empathy, at least at face value, worse than a lack of criticality when engaging in critique? At least the Block piece displays both an engagement and understanding of the subject matter as well as extensive explanation. Robinson's response is absolutely politically motivated while expressing incredulity that Murray could believe criticism is politically motivated. I have zero tolerance for such ignorance and lack of insight, motivated or otherwise.

Edit: My tone probably is anti-productive here, but I am trying to demonstrate some evenhandedness. I encourage you to read the link to Ned Block. That is a critique of Murray I consider, with my still limited (but greater than the average bear) understanding, to have some merit. But Robinson quotes it while doing it zero justice and demonstrating a facile understanding of the subject.
 
Why is a lack of empathy when doing work which doesn't necessitate empathy, at least at face value, worse than a lack of criticality when engaging in critique? At least the Block piece displays both an engagement and understanding of the subject matter as well as extensive explanation. Robinson's response is absolutely politically motivated while expressing incredulity that Murray could believe criticism is politically motivated. I have zero tolerance for such ignorance and lack of insight, motivated or otherwise.

It isn't worse. And as I said, it wouldn't raise any eyebrows if Murray had simply said nothing about it. But he did, and that's Robinson's point. It might be politically motivated, but that doesn't make it wrong. Murray made the original politically-motivated comment, i.e. that a genetic differences in IQ make no difference; and Robinson extrapolates why that's a political statement, and he's absolutely right that it is.

It has nothing to do with Murray's data, and everything to do with his presentation of it.

Edit: My tone probably is anti-productive here, but I am trying to demonstrate some evenhandedness. I encourage you to read the link to Ned Block. That is a critique of Murray I consider, with my still limited (but greater than the average bear) understanding, to have some merit. But Robinson quotes it while doing it zero justice and demonstrating a facile understanding of the subject.

I looked at it when I quoted the passage, because it was a critique of Murray that I'd never considered before. The perception of Block's piece doesn't make me find fault with Robinson's, though. The "hidden premise" is part of what Robinson is invoking in his article. It has to do with how Murray communicates his data. That should mean something in a study that so extensively deals with racial disparity, and would contribute to its critical component.
 
It isn't worse. And as I said, it wouldn't raise any eyebrows if Murray had simply said nothing about it. But he did, and that's Robinson's point. It might be politically motivated, but that doesn't make it wrong. Murray made the original politically-motivated comment, i.e. that a genetic differences in IQ make no difference; and Robinson extrapolates why that's a political statement, and he's absolutely right that it is.

The "hidden premise" is part of what Robinson is invoking in his article. It has to do with how Murray communicates his data. That should mean something in a study that so extensively deals with racial disparity, and would contribute to its critical component.

Robinson and Block admit to but dodge the fact that African Americans, on average, have a higher IQ than their counterparts still in Africa, by saying Murray doesn't address it - but Robinson specifically doesn't address it either, other than to say it isn't addressed. At least Block attempts to make a caste argument, although I find it poor. Robinson goes further, in the preface to introducing Block's work, in asserting that heritability understanding suggests that the empirical data suggests that African Americans are more intelligent than whites but for racism. That is absolutely not what any data nor what Block's piece (the "hidden premise") suggests. Robinson, like many writers in the public sphere both left and right alike (but mostly left by dent of the trade), have no ethical compunction against interpreting and applying things outside of their competency. At worst it's motivated misunderstanding or mispresentation.

Edit: The practical application in a any potential population IQ deficiency among African Americans is neither "blame" for their station, nor exoneration for slavery. This is a false dichotomy which both ignorant liberals and racists (white or black) overwhelmingly engage in. If there is indeed such a genetically based IQ deficiency in a particular population, there are real public policy applications for their edification which do not involve "blame" in any direction for correction. Conversely, appertaining "blame", "redistributions", etc. may or may not "close gaps", without any advancement or more disturbingly, with reversals.
 
Last edited:
I think you're reading too much into the piece because of its general political leanings.

Robinson goes further, in the preface to introducing Block's work, in asserting that heritability understanding suggests that the empirical data suggests that African Americans are more intelligent than whites but for racism. That is absolutely not what any data nor what Block's piece (the "hidden premise") suggests.

I don't think he suggests that. He's saying that's one possible interpretation of IQ disparity between blacks and whites, but Murray doesn't consider it.

Edit: The practical application in a any potential population IQ deficiency among African Americans is neither "blame" for their station, nor exoneration for slavery. This is a false dichotomy which both ignorant liberals and racists (white or black) overwhelmingly engage in.

I also don't think Robinson engages in that dichotomy; or, at the very least, he doesn't promote total exoneration because of slavery. What he says is that Murray spins genetic IQ disparity as an excuse for foregoing policies that support underprivileged African Americans. This position doesn't sit well with Robinson, but I don't think that means he automatically supports a total exoneration position. He's simply revealing how Murray's writing supports the opposite of total exoneration--i.e., that genetic origins for IQ difference absolve society from any responsibility toward underprivileged blacks.
 
I think you're reading too much into the piece because of its general political leanings.

I don't think he suggests that. He's saying that's one possible interpretation of IQ disparity between blacks and whites, but Murray doesn't consider it.

I also don't think Robinson engages in that dichotomy; or, at the very least, he doesn't promote total exoneration because of slavery. What he says is that Murray spins genetic IQ disparity as an excuse for foregoing policies that support underprivileged African Americans. This position doesn't sit well with Robinson, but I don't think that means he automatically supports a total exoneration position. He's simply revealing how Murray's writing supports the opposite of total exoneration--i.e., that genetic origins for IQ difference absolve society from any responsibility toward underprivileged blacks.

Well I understand this response to focus on the purpose of the article rather than the particulars of the content. From that respect, the purpose of Robinson's piece is unclear to me other than to beat the progressivist dead horse that Murray is definitely a terrible-no good-very bad person. This is not a new tactic in journalism, it's the same thing Ross engaged in imo, and coincidentally SSC had something on this phenomenon today:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/

While the atheists were going around saying there was no God, the environmentalists were going around saying climate change was real. The feminists were going around saying sexism was bad. And the Democrats were going around saying Donald Trump was an awful person. All of these statements might be controversial somewhere, but meet basically zero resistance in educated urban liberal spaces. All get repeated day-in and day-out by groups of people who make entire careers out of repeating them. And all get said in the same condescending way, a sort of society-wide plague of Voxsplaining.

This is 90% of popular intellectual culture these days: progressives regurgitating progressivism to other progressives for nothing but the warm glow of being told “Yup, that was some good progressiving there”. Conservatives make fun of this incessantly, and they are right to do so. But for some reason, in the case of New Atheism and only in the case of New Atheism, Progressivism itself suddenly turned and said “Hey, you’re just repeating our own platitudes back to us!” And New Atheism, caught flat-footed, mouth open wide: “But…but..we thought we were supposed to…we thought…”.

Think of one of those corrupt kleptocracies where the dictator takes bribes, all his ministers take bribes, all their assistants take bribes, the anti-corruption task force takes bribes, etc. Then one day some shmuck manages to get on the dictator’s bad side and – bam – the secret police nab him for taking bribes. The look on his face the moment before the firing squad shoots – that’s how I imagine New Atheists feeling too.

So who’s the dictator in this analogy? And what did New Atheism do to get on their bad side?

I know that a similar criticism of repetition can get leveled at rightwing outlets. There just aren't hardly any of note, hence the "90%" figure. Fox News and Breitbart? I guess you could include National Review but they are mostly an exercise in inward critique rather than railing against progressives.
 
Last edited:
Well I understand this response to focus on the purpose of the article rather than the particulars of the content. From that respect, the purpose of Robinson's piece is unclear other than to beat the progressivist dead horse that Murray is definitely a terrible-no good-very bad person.

I think the purpose is clearly stated up front. Robinson is frustrated at the plethora of bad critiques of Murray's work, and dismayed that so many bad critiques likely contribute to Murray's impression that he's being unfairly targeted.

Robinson takes issue with Murray's apparent inability to see why people have problems with his work, even if they present bad arguments against it, and suggests that part of the reason for the negative responses has to do with Murray's presentation of the data, not the data itself (which Robinson states is admissible and even above-par). He then goes on to suggest that one possible reason why Murray feels unfairly attacked is because he sees so many poorly formulated arguments against his work.

Robinson's point is that it's a vicious cycle--Murray seems oblivious to the social implications of his data (even going so far as to prematurely deny those implications, which is very strange and, in my opinion, politically motivated), inciting fervor from his opponents; his opponents, partially blinded by their fervor, levy poor rejoinders back at Murray, further cementing his obliviousness and justified belief that said opponents are unfamiliar with his work.
 
I think the purpose is clearly stated up front. Robinson is frustrated at the plethora of bad critiques of Murray's work, and dismayed that so many bad critiques likely contribute to Murray's impression that he's being unfairly targeted.

Robinson takes issue with Murray's apparent inability to see why people have problems with his work, even if they present bad arguments against it, and suggests that part of the reason for the negative responses has to do with Murray's presentation of the data, not the data itself (which Robinson states is admissible and even above-par). He then goes on to suggest that one possible reason why Murray feels unfairly attacked is because he sees so many poorly formulated arguments against his work.

Robinson's point is that it's a vicious cycle--Murray seems oblivious to the social implications of his data (even going so far as to prematurely deny those implications, which is very strange and, in my opinion, politically motivated), inciting fervor from his opponents; his opponents, partially blinded by their fervor, levy poor rejoinders back at Murray, further cementing his obliviousness and justified belief that said opponents are unfamiliar with his work.

Robinson starts out with the statement that he is odious because of horrible moral values. This is beating a dead progressive horse and informs the reader of the purpose of the article on the outset. Robinson then acknowledges the following:

Press coverage of Murray has distorted his positions, and it’s frequently true that people label him a “white supremacist” or “eugenicist” without knowing what he actually says about race, genetics, and intelligence. Plenty of writings about Murray, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center’s long file on him, are sloppy or biased, failing to engage seriously and fair-mindedly with his various claims. This has allowed Murray, and those that appreciate his writing, to claim that there are two Bell Curves, the book that people believe exists, and the book that actually exists.

The SPLC is retarded. Like Stephen Miller, I am shocked! But anyway, Robinson then goes on to express incredulity that Murray doesn't understand how his morals are so terrible. Because no one by the name of Haidt ever addressed the disconnect. Robinson presses on to say that:

I do not necessarily believe Charles Murray thinks he is a racist. But I do believe that a fair review of the evidence must necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is one.

Well of course he is, he is white after all. Case closed. But Robinson insists on being thorough and explaining this evidence. Good show!

The following claims are defended in Murray’s writings:

  1. Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.
  2. Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.
  3. We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.
Taken together, these three claims show Murray to be bigoted, ignorant, and ignorant of his own bigotry.

From there, Robinson engages in some sleight of hand (starting with discussions regarding The Bell Curve - which is what all the fuss is about, and then bringing in a book he acknowledges even less people are aware of than the few who have read the Bell Curve), special pleading, and denial, with a few good points interspersed, and concludes with a massive strawman to defend point three. Group differences do not mean one group takes up an entire meritocracy. It would mean that groups would be unequally represented depending on the meritocracy in question, and that doesn't mean that it's whites versus blacks, unless Robinson forgot about all the other ethnicities (which conveniently, he pretends to).

Robinson further blames Murray for racism because he quoted the ideas of persons who supported slavery. Obviously all famous white philosophers and politicians are entirely worthless because they were racist. This is standard intersectional boilerplate. So intellectual.

Robinson says Murray is a racist for point 1 and then later shortens it to saying that Murray is racist because he argues that black people are dumber than white people. If one takes g and the aggregated value as acceptable empirically (which supposedly Robinson does), then this isn't racist, it is simple fact about the aggregate. It makes no claim about individuals, and that alone makes no claim about future changes/ability of the group. I could go on but there's simply too much wrong in that massive screed to bother taking it further point by point.

In short, if Robinson had stopped with a complaint about shoddy arguments against The Bell Curve and said "read Ned Block", I'd have no issue. But he didn't, but instead added to what he was supposedly complaining about. Low intellectual acuity, motivated misunderstanding, however one wants to frame it, it still amounts to the beating of a dead horse.
 
EUSdEcW.jpg
 
https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...cial-to-hunter-gatherers-evolutionary-success

In Ju/’hoan society, envy functioned like the “invisible hand” famously imagined by the economist Adam Smith.
.......
They took careful note of what others ate, owned, received as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return. The net result was that everyone went to considerable lengths to avoid being singled out for selfishness or self-importance – so much so, indeed, that good hunters usually hunted less often than poor ones, even if they enjoyed it.
........
They are by far the poorest and most marginalised of Namibia’s many distinct ethnic communities

You would think the author was writing a screed against the envyeconomics of the left. But no. We have missed the point:

The fact that hunter-gatherers such as the Ju/’hoansi enjoyed lives of “primitive affluence” suggests our current preoccupation with productivity and growth is not an indelible part of our “natures” – a preoccupation which, as environmental economists constantly remind us, risks cannibalising our species’ future.
.......
Understanding how hunter-gatherers thrived for so long may help us identify the broad principles necessary to ensure a more sustainable future. Dealing with systemic inequality – not least, their own – would be a good place to start.

You can't make this shit up. Dense as a brick wall. We have to erase equality through sandbagging and get back to living in the dirt if we want a wonderful future.
 
That's a strawman. The author may merely be suggesting that sustainability could be accomplished by raising the world's standard of living to that of the Western middle-class.
 
The problem is that women have a severely skewed concept of male attractiveness. Amazing how men manage to actually maintain a normal distribution of female rating despite the supposed "media driven objectification of women" and "unrealistic standards in female beauty".

2MstAzl.gif
 
The same study shows that women just don't factor attractiveness very significantly into what they look for in a man (which is wealth and status). It's a simple fact that men are far more sexually-driven than women are, and that women are more easily manipulated by marketing, sure. None of that implies that fat ugly people have the right to not be herded into leper colonies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onder