Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm willing to bet that a person so clueless on matters scientific that he'd argue one race is superior to another has not read many books on the subject.
The reason I said he probably doesn't know Murray's arguments is because Murray has become a totem for racists. They cite him, but they don't really know what he said. They just think he argues one group is superior to another.
He doesn't. I've not read the Bell Curve and don't have a desire to do so because it doesn't interest me. But I did hear Murray speak on a few podcasts and explain that he was not comparing groups of people exclusively on genetic heritage, but instead looking at groups within societal context. What this means is that, admittedly, he was considering the conditions in which certain people grew up. I didn't know that. I also hadn't considered that the man isn't actually even a true scientist, but an anthropologist. This places a lot of what he says in the dubious bucket, as anthropology is the podiatry, or astrology, of science. The only less rigorous field might be economics.
So whatever you think of Murray, you should think less of the people who cite Murray. Because chances are, they don't even understand the theories they think are "scientific" justifications for their bigotry.
|
I have read the Bell Curve, as well as other Murray publications, as well as more recent stuff he has written trying to do to women what he has done to African-Americans and Hispanics.
You're hearing retroactive attempts by Murray to distance himself from his writings, which he does in some contexts but not in others. Put him in front of the audience he prefers, he drops the qualifications.
Murray is an irredeemable manipulative little shit of a white nationalist.
