I've lately been reading Murray's book on Human Diversity. Even as someone fairly informed of and sympathetic to the general direction of the evidence on these topics, I have been amazed by the degree to which many of these findings have a) proven to be robust and despite that b) been boxed out from mainstream academic discussion.
Nothing too too new but still enjoyable to read :)
“These goals conflict and one will have to be prioritized”
You see the same thing with affirmative action, you see it argued that introducing affirmative action or diversity as an element of the decision-making will not “lower the bar” or result in less qualified candidates. Of course that is silly. If you have one criterion then introduce a second one it is either meaningless or reduces the influence of the first criterion (unless it is solely used to break ties). If my decision for what to eat goes from what is healthiest to what is healthiest and cheapest there are limited possibilities. Either I am still eating the healthiest foods, in which case adding the cheapest constraint was pointless. Or I am occasionally sacrificing some health in order to choose cheaper options.
A new criterion matters only insofar as it changes the decision you would have made. As you said, if the offending papers were low-quality research a single criterion of quality would suffice. The new criterion can only be meaningful if it serves to sanction papers that would otherwise not be offensive to the quality criterion.
“The issue with using scientific institutions to enforce ideological commitments is that the credibility of the institution is lessened.”
This is a problem. Academics truly believe that not only is activism good, but they have a responsibility to change the world to fit their ideology. Many don’t actually believe in an objective science and those that do can find their careers ruined if they upset the dominate viewpoint.
There may be a way to require institutions that receive federal funding to become more open ideologically and ensure that academics aren’t retaliated against for publishing unpopular views. Like adding “ideology” to Title 7.
The way to force the issue of genetic IQ is when consumers start putting their money where their mouth is with embryo selection.
Like with ancestry, on 23andme. Once people show that they believe in something enough to pay for it, they retrospectively decide that they are committed, because that's why their past self did that!
And this is 10x the case when it comes to decisions to do with the health of their child! We're not just talking money investment here, very deep.
Murray's "orthodoxy" that "Inside the cranium, all groups are the same" and Detlefsen's "...but for discrimination, statistical parity among racial and ethnic groups would be the norm” contradict each other.
Because group cultural practices obviously influence statistical measures. Even if two groups are in fact mentally identical, if one has a religious prohibition on literacy and the other does not, they will have markedly different social outcomes. (Just to give a really obvious example.)
And of course even if the "orthodoxy" is in fact true, how do we know that without scientific investigation into its truth? Building public policy on a potentially false premise itself would be a cause of great harm.
"surely, few church-attending Christians would engage in any of those actions if they lost their faith. Presumably, they have an intuitive sense of moral goodness that guides them."
I used to think that, but recently started to suspect they have faith *because* they think that without fear of God they would indeed run amok. And they know themselves best.
I've lately been reading Murray's book on Human Diversity. Even as someone fairly informed of and sympathetic to the general direction of the evidence on these topics, I have been amazed by the degree to which many of these findings have a) proven to be robust and despite that b) been boxed out from mainstream academic discussion.
Nothing too too new but still enjoyable to read :)
“These goals conflict and one will have to be prioritized”
You see the same thing with affirmative action, you see it argued that introducing affirmative action or diversity as an element of the decision-making will not “lower the bar” or result in less qualified candidates. Of course that is silly. If you have one criterion then introduce a second one it is either meaningless or reduces the influence of the first criterion (unless it is solely used to break ties). If my decision for what to eat goes from what is healthiest to what is healthiest and cheapest there are limited possibilities. Either I am still eating the healthiest foods, in which case adding the cheapest constraint was pointless. Or I am occasionally sacrificing some health in order to choose cheaper options.
A new criterion matters only insofar as it changes the decision you would have made. As you said, if the offending papers were low-quality research a single criterion of quality would suffice. The new criterion can only be meaningful if it serves to sanction papers that would otherwise not be offensive to the quality criterion.
“The issue with using scientific institutions to enforce ideological commitments is that the credibility of the institution is lessened.”
This is a problem. Academics truly believe that not only is activism good, but they have a responsibility to change the world to fit their ideology. Many don’t actually believe in an objective science and those that do can find their careers ruined if they upset the dominate viewpoint.
There may be a way to require institutions that receive federal funding to become more open ideologically and ensure that academics aren’t retaliated against for publishing unpopular views. Like adding “ideology” to Title 7.
The way to force the issue of genetic IQ is when consumers start putting their money where their mouth is with embryo selection.
Like with ancestry, on 23andme. Once people show that they believe in something enough to pay for it, they retrospectively decide that they are committed, because that's why their past self did that!
And this is 10x the case when it comes to decisions to do with the health of their child! We're not just talking money investment here, very deep.
Murray's "orthodoxy" that "Inside the cranium, all groups are the same" and Detlefsen's "...but for discrimination, statistical parity among racial and ethnic groups would be the norm” contradict each other.
Because group cultural practices obviously influence statistical measures. Even if two groups are in fact mentally identical, if one has a religious prohibition on literacy and the other does not, they will have markedly different social outcomes. (Just to give a really obvious example.)
And of course even if the "orthodoxy" is in fact true, how do we know that without scientific investigation into its truth? Building public policy on a potentially false premise itself would be a cause of great harm.
"surely, few church-attending Christians would engage in any of those actions if they lost their faith. Presumably, they have an intuitive sense of moral goodness that guides them."
I used to think that, but recently started to suspect they have faith *because* they think that without fear of God they would indeed run amok. And they know themselves best.