The Bell Curve

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion, everything you wrote about Murrey in that last post could be true based on the other things he's said or done in his life, but it was not communicated in the podcast I heard. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough. I think this is the missing context. Because his work that contains those arguments is promoted in that podcast as just sharing uncomfortable, well-established truth. This is what Ezra Klein was pointing out and what I'm also arguing.

[_Some Schmo]

Fair enough. I think this is the missing context. Because his work that contains those arguments is promoted in that podcast as just sharing uncomfortable, well-established truth. This is what Ezra Klein was pointing out and what I'm also arguing.

So, I've had some time to reflect on this kind of trojan horse idea your concern expresses here, and I suppose I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I totally understand why you'd fear normalizing an individual who, for someone like me, is a blank slate (in that I knew nothing about him before all this) but nonetheless, he's someone you know enough about to have good reason to think he's a racist.

But on the other hand, you have to give people a little credit. I don't consider myself more racist now for having listened to him speak, I have no interest in listening to him further or reading any of his work, and therefore have no chance of being persuaded into thinking certain racist policy positions are a good idea. In fact, I was listening for what could be considered racist specifically to be on guard against it, given his reputation.

But let's say I was the type of person who was interested in his work and subsequently influenced, wasn't I already ripe for that philosophy to begin with?

I guess I'm wondering how many people's minds are really changed on a subject like this. It has to be a massive exception against the rule. It's kind of the way I've come to believe people use religion: they don't follow a religion, they retrofit the presented belief systems to conform with what they basically already believe. If Murrey appeals to them, it's because he's providing the grist they're already hunting.

[_Analytics]

Fair enough. I think this is the missing context. Because his work that contains those arguments is promoted in that podcast as just sharing uncomfortable, well-established truth. This is what Ezra Klein was pointing out and what I'm also arguing.

So, I've had some time to reflect on this kind of trojan horse idea your concern expresses here, and I suppose I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I totally understand why you'd fear normalizing an individual who, for someone like me, is a blank slate (in that I knew nothing about him before all this) but nonetheless, he's someone you know enough about to have good reason to think he's a racist.

But on the other hand, you have to give people a little credit. I don't consider myself more racist now for having listened to him speak, I have no interest in listening to him further or reading any of his work, and therefore have no chance of being persuaded into thinking certain racist policy positions are a good idea. In fact, I was listening for what could be considered racist specifically to be on guard against it, given his reputation.

But let's say I was the type of person who was interested in his work and subsequently influenced, wasn't I already ripe for that philosophy to begin with?

I guess I'm wondering how many people's minds are really changed on a subject like this. It has to be a massive exception against the rule. It's kind of the way I've come to believe people use religion: they don't follow a religion, they retrofit the presented belief systems to conform with what they basically already believe. If Murrey appeals to them, it's because he's providing the grist they're already hunting.

Bingo.

I started this topic with the objective of simply reading the Bell Curve and evaluating the arguments it makes. This started because I thought that if I read the book, I'd come to realize how awful Murray is, and thereby learn what a hack Harris is.

Now we're at the point where the actual words in The Bell Curve aren't required for EA's arguments. If I paraphrase what the book itself says, EA will say I don't understand the real point. If I quote from it directly, EA will say that Murray is insincere and doesn't really believe what he says in the quoted passage. His counterarguments about what Murray really believes are based on an alleged, uncited general knowledge that EA has of the man.

I feel I've now been sufficiently illuminated on the topic and am moving on.