Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class

Current books which deal with this subject matter and the rise of racist pseudo science are: Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini, How to Argue With a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality by Adam Rutherford and The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality by Kathryn Paige Harden. It explains the history of this unscientific viewpoint.<br /><br /><br />Racism and transphobia passing as science.<br /><br />No surprise since this is the same racist that brought us The Bell Curve.<br /><br />This author is a conservative racist and white supremacist.??‍♀️<br /><br />This author's real fear and the real fear of all white supremacists is that if we level the playing field white folks will not be able to keep up.

The <i>Orthodoxy</i>, as Murray calls it, tells us a few things: gender is a social construct, race is a social construct, and class is a function of privilege. The problem with the Orthodoxy is that it’s only partially true. Biology largely plays a role in gender differences and class is largely determined by genetic variation. Race is also effected by geographical differences as well. For those in academia, mentioning these facts is heresy<br /><br />Just as a warning, this book has a lot of technical jargon that might be confusing to some readers. However, Murray does guide to reader as to what each word used in the literature means. In my opinion, this is the best of Murray

<strong>It ain't what you know...</strong><br /><br />It's what you know that just ain't so.<br /><br />"The debate about nature versus nurture is not just one of many issues in social science. It is fundamental for everything involving human behavior."<br /><br />I assume you have read the book description above so I will not regurgitate. My best description is that this is a very dense, fact packed meta analysis of decades of meta analyses. It is not for the faint of heart. I expect to read it at least twice more before it sinks in. (Thank goodness I will not be tested.)<br /><br />Dr. Murray explodes the PC myths about human diversity. But this is neither a "black and white" book nor "settled" science but an interim report.<br /><br />The most telling comment to me was about meritocracy. Dr. Murray points out that some people are just better equipped (primarily by high "g") than others. So a pure meritocracy is impossible.<br /><br />A worthwhile read... I recommend it.

Ok so this is a response to a person called Lois who wrote a very wrong and dishonest review. This person is also deleting every single response to her review in order to just insult the person and misrepresent his statement.<br /><br />So let's rewrite this response <br />- Not any proof of this cheating thing, btw you can't cheat on an iq test and there are many other test are showing the same gap (SAT, LSAT, ACT).<br /><br />- False concensus fallacy, Intelligence can be measured the first dimensions (the g factor) account for 40% of the variance.<br /><br />- Tests aren't biased, I they were biased there wouldn't be strict measurements invariance see :<br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289603000515">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...</a><br />There is also a study were item judged as the least biased against blacks shows the biggest gap.<br /><br />Raising your iq is possible via training but this gains aren't on the latent factor (g) see : <a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000778">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...</a><br /><br />These gains would create measurement variance because their effect isn't on the latent factor.<br /><br />- nice anti-white stuff and misconception about medieval Europe, as an European I find this funny (Have you ever heard of antiquity, The Roman Empire, the Greeks, Charlemagne, the holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venitians and the entire Renaissance which is the rediscovery of the antique Greco-Roman culture in northern Italy). Btw every single advanced culture at that time recognized 2 gender ex: Arabs, Mongols, Chinese, Persian, etc..<br /><br />The existence of intersex people (genetic defect btw) doesn't falsify the existence of only 2 genders.<br /><br />You have no proof POC as you say (more like 50 shades of brown lmao) are not treated fairly see more about it here <a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/on-racial-bias-in-police-shootings/">https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/20...</a><br /><br />Or here for economic inequality<br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://psyarxiv.com/qty3n/">https://psyarxiv.com/qty3n/</a><br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/04/income-weath-and-iq.html?m=1">https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/04...</a><br /><br />- Most terrorist in WEIRD country are Muslims :) As a French I find you somewhat offending.<br /><br />The only racist thing is what I call the equalitarian syllogism :<br /><br />The equalitarian syllogism.<br />P1:Race differs in outcome<br />P2:Race differences in phenotype that causes these outcomes are environmental<br />C1:Some race are environmentally privileged<br />C1:it's right to discriminate against certain race to ensure equal environment and therefore equal outcome<br /><br />The response : <a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://pastebin.com/6ZBDx2pB">https://pastebin.com/6ZBDx2pB</a>

This revolutionary book is structured around ten empirical Propositions which are rigorously defended by veteran political scientist and sociologist, Charles Murray. He argues that the social sciences are about to be transformed by individual genetic data known as “polygenic scores” that will replace traditional IQ measures. Decades ago, when I was a university student, the debate between Nurture vs. Nature was lively. But now the results are in: It's all nature! Human children are preordained by their DNA blueprint. According to Murray's exhaustive study, no matter what parents or educators do (apart from wilful abuse), children will exhibit their predetermined genetic destiny. The “Enlightenment” idea of a tabula rasa at birth is simply not true. Personality traits, abilities, and social behavior have been proven to vary by sex, ethnicity, and class. Even political and ideological views have been found to be substantially heritable. Despite the anger and revulsion we feel about it, the genetic lottery is real and final and easily measured by a cheek swab.<br /><br />In my own field of science-fiction literature, authors used to dream about designer babies created in CRISPR labs, but the reality is far more complex. There are hundreds of DNA markers for different traits, and some markers are shared by different traits. The best we can do is create genetic probability maps for individuals, which, of course, are fixed at birth. Analysis of the voluminous data is already underway for groups and individuals, and Charles Murray warns us that dramatic changes are on the horizon. Polygenic testing will soon be routine in medicine, education, and psychology. Indeed, the author suggests that the lack of genetic background checks will soon be regarded as professional malpractice. For example, babies with 70 out of 100 markers for schizophrenia should be channelled for special care and early treatment. No one would argue against that. But what about babies with 70 out of 100 markers for white supremacy, or violent crime? These are the questions society will soon face as science-fiction becomes fact. <br /><br />In general, Charles Murray does not seem optimistic. He notes that the cookie-cutter approach to social manipulation has failed miserably. Economic disparity has accelerated despite the removal of barriers to education in the previous century. No amount of tutoring is going to increase a person's cognitive potential, all the books in the world cannot change a culture that eschews reading, and no wage increase is going to help a family that is unable to manage monetary assets. Charles Murray unfolds numerous speculations about the future and builds on some of the ideas in his previous books, but he offers no panacea, no pathway to utopia beyond some general statements such as “the first step is to reconstruct a moral vocabulary for discussing human difference.” At issue is the definition of success in society. How can humans find fulfillment and actualize their genetic potential across a wide spectrum of diverse interests and abilities, and what role should those with influence have in the formation of new strategies?<br />

This is probably the book Charles Murray should have written, instead of The Bell Curve. It was basically a pretty reasonable introduction to modern genetics, combined with 10 basically uncontroversial assertions supported by evidence that there are sex and ancestral-population differences, and then reaffirmation that differences don't mean superiority, and that humans have value independent of their test scores, skin color, etc. If it had been written by anyone without the rather controversial background Murray now has, it would probably not get the same level of readership, but also wouldn't be hated.

Formal review <a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=8351">https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=8351</a>

Before writing my review, I would like to quickly address a question you might ask yourself about this book if you haven't read it: is it a racist, white supremacist pseudo-scientific book?<br />I think a few quotes from the book itself may help you form a more informed opinion on this matter than anyone's wild speculations, so here we go: <br /><br />"For the United States, founded on ideals of liberty and equality, that record (colonisation, slavery and segregation) was a fatal flaw that in my view ensured the eventual unraveling of the American project." <br /><br />"Historically, it is incontestably true that the word 'race' has been freighted with cultural baggage that has nothing to do with biological differences. The word carries with it the legacy of nineteenth-century scientific racism combined with Europe's colonialism and America's history of slavery and its aftermath. Scientifically, it is an error to think of races as primordial."<br /><br />"Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu were right to say that many nineteenth-century conceptions of race were caricatures divorced from biological reality. Richard Lewontin was right that race differences account for only a small fraction of the biological variation existing among humans. (...) We have before us an exercise in modifying our understanding of race, not resurrecting nineteenth-century conceptions." <br /><br />"Nothing we are going to learn will diminish our common humanity. Nothing we learn will justify rank-ordering human groups from superior to inferior—the bundles of qualities that make us human are far too complicated for that. Nothing we learn will lend itself to genetic determinism. We live our lives with an abundance of unpredictability, both genetic and environmental. Above all, nothing we learn will threaten human equality properly understood. I like the way Steven Pinker put it: 'Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.' "<br /><br />"The more kinds of people you know and the better you know them, the easier it is to recognize that 'equality of human worth' isn't just rhetoric. You will also find it easy to talk about the reality of human differences if you know in your gut how unimportant those differences are in deciding whether the person next to you is someone you respect." <br /><br />I shall now let you be the judge of whether those quotes sounded like they came from a bigoted white supremacist. <br /><br />MY REVIEW<br />"Human Diversity" is well written, clear and cleverly organised. Most importantly, it is extremely informative. Charles Murray provides countless references for every single assertion he makes and there are a lot of very detailed notes (some of them full-fledged essays) at the end of the book as well as an appendix containing, among other things, useful explanations for people who struggle with statistics. There are also many suggestions for further reading, including articles and books that contradict Charles Murray's views as he frequently encourages readers to do their research and form their own informed opinion. <br />Unlike some other books criticising and contradicting today's academic orthodoxy (in the humanities...), "Human Diversity" is extremely satisfying in that it provides very robust arguments. It elaborates on everything that needs to be elaborated on and gives you all the references you need should you want to investigate the validity of any claim. It does not feel like Charles Murray is preaching to the choir, but rather conversing with an open-minded and potentially adversarial readership, especially in the chapter on race, as Murray is aware that even among the most open-minded readers in 2020, any discussion of race as a biological concept remains an extremely sensitive matter that most people approach with a fair deal of justified scepticism. <br /><br />I learned a lot about ongoing developments in genetics and neuropsychology while reading this book, which made me feel excited about the future of the social sciences which Charles Murray thinks will soon have to integrate those new findings as the present-day orthodoxy is slowly fading in the face of an accumulation of contradictions that will soon become insurmountable. Those new developments should be welcomed with interest and curiosity, not with dread, as Murray argues very convincingly. <br />My favourite part of the book, however, is its concluding chapters. I think Murray really hit the nail on the head when he argued that our current problem with average differences between various human groups is our moral approach to those findings, fostered by an intellectual elite ("the new upper-class") that has made intellectual ability the ultimate gauge of human worth. He argues that we need a new, secular version of "all equal before God" that brings back humility with regard to unearned talents and intellectual abilities and allows everyone to feel truly valued.<br /><br />I strongly recommend this book.

7.5/10<br /><br />Not as good as 'The Bell Curve', but less theoretical and more irrefutable. No one with an iota of openness to the evidence could read this book and its references and consider race or gender to be social constructs; however, Murray at times backs off of his earlier hereditarianism and leaves the door open to environmentalism/constructivism - even when his evidence doesn't - likely in a bid to avoid the firestorm of controversy the publication of his earlier work occasioned. He goes to extreme lengths to defend himself from accusations of determinism, racism, or sexism and weakens his argument in the process, turning what could have been a magnum opus of truth in to a pink-pilled primer. <br /><br />Nevertheless, this book is a worthwhile read and is a welcome and needed update and extension to the science contained in Levin's 'Why Race Matters', and provides the best - though rather too irenic and gentle - demonstration in print of the absolute essentialism of sex differences. <br /><br />Recommended alongside for the biological determinist starter pack are the aforementioned books, Sarraf, Feltham, and Woodley of Menie's 'Modernity and Cultural Decline', Rushton's 'Race, Evolution, Behavior', Devlin's 'Sexual Utopia in Power', and Hertler, Figueredo, Peñaherrera-Aguirre, et al's 'Life History Evolution: A Biological Metatheory for the Social Sciences'.

This was a tough review to write. I don’t review every book I read, but after reading some of the reviews posted here the reviews posted here I thought some may find it helpful to see a review that wasn’t pushing pushing a political agenda (either left or right). I don’t agree with all the author’s political beliefs, some of which one could call left wing (universal basic income) and some could be called right wing (affirmative action in any form is bad). But I do believe that most of the 1 and 5 start reviews of this book may be from people that began reading with a pre-formed opinion what this book was about. <br /><br />The Goodreads summary is a fair overall summary of what is encountered in Human Diversity. This is a very dense book filled with lots of facts, science and math. Because of all the science and math it can be a slow read at times. The book is broken into four parts: Gender, Race, Class and Appendix (which should really be called opinions). The first 3 sections are fact-based, although (like all authors) Murray tends to pick facts that support some of his opinions which he presents in the Appendix. I’ll try to summarize some of the takeaways. <br /><br />Gender: The author explains some of the genetic and physiological differences between male and female sexes (and those qualifying as intersexual). It’s important to note here that NO WHERE does the author say that one sex is better than the other, and in fact states that despite their differences they have more in common than they do not. He talks mostly of “average” men and women, but does get into the men and women at the extremes of abilities. The point that I took away was that no matter how equally treat people there are always going to be some differences between men and women. He says some “typically” male or female characteristics are a social construct but some are biological, and until we understand that we are approaching bringing about gender equality in a way that will never bring about that goal. <br /><br />Race: Here the author tackles the genetic differences between races. Again NO WHERE does the author say and/or imply that people of one race or from one part of the globe are any better than others. In fact, he states many times that he does not believe that one race is any better than any other. The real takeaway for me from this section is there in more that we all have in common than separates us. <br /><br />Class: If there’s one section of the book that challenges the general orthodoxies (on both the right and left) and is a little uncomfortable to read it is this one. This section of book states that SOME, but not ALL aspects of an individual that lead their station in life. The premise is mostly things like IQ and certain abilities are inherited. One idea I thought was interesting was Mozart would be a genius in any time period, but nowadays he would likely not be writing classical music. The author uses various twin studies to illustrate this point. In this section the author seems to focus more on the extremes (genius, extremely upper class, extremely lower class). He is quick to point out that genetics does not play a 100% role in class, and that it’s near impossible to tell the amount of roll it plays. <br /><br />Appendix: In this section the author spends much of his time presenting his opinions on the statistics and facts from earlier in the book. He also talks about what he believes are the best ways to solve the problems that occur due to differences between gender/race/class in individuals. It’s striking that some of his ideas/opinions come from the far left and others come from the far right. Once again the author states that there’s more that all humans have in common than separates them. <br /><br />My opinion on the overall book: Human Diversity is an interesting read. Sometimes it’s a bit dense and gets bogged down. Several times the author repeats himself from chapter to chapter, which made me wonder if I lost my place by accident. I give it 4 stars on subject matter, but if I could rate the quality of the writing separately I’d give it 3 stars. The subject is something that is worth talking about without calling anyone sexist, racist, white suprematists, inferior, morons, hippies, idiots, or whatever. Personally, I found nothing in this book offensive, even when I disagreed with it.