SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:
Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]
After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.
According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.
Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.
Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:
Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:
Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.
The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."
Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."
Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:02PM (8 children)
First, thanks for the link. Interesting discussion.
Yes, you're correct that "race is not simply made up," but I think it's important to note a few other things Dawkins says in your linked discussion, including:
(1) The genetic variance of the human species seems to be remarkably small compared to most other species.
(2) The variance within races or people with a particular geographic origin for all sorts of characteristics is generally much greater than the variance BETWEEN races. He similarly notes that variance of intelligence within a race is likely much more important than between races.
(3) He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
But presumably he's also aware of two other things: (A) Scientists have been claiming racial differences in intelligence for hundreds of years, but such differences have almost always been later shown to be either non-existent or based on supposed "distinguishing features" that turned out to have nothing to do with intelligence. Also, (B) the measured IQ differences have been significantly undermined by many studies that show the bias of IQ tests, its inability to isolate a single "general intelligence" marker for all peoples and cultures (and even for all situations -- what constitutes "intelligence" since many skills not correlated with IQ are also helpful in human success?), and many recent rigorous studies have shown that most of the supposed observed racial differences become a LOT smaller (if not disappear entirely) when you control for things like socioeconomic status, education level, etc.
So yes, race is not entirely made up -- the question is why so many people are so obsessed with it. I completely agree with Dawkins that I find it disturbing when people are obsessed with trying to find links between race and intelligence, because it seems that any such factor (if there is one) is likely at least an order of magnitude smaller -- and thus potentially insignificant -- compared to things like socioeconomic status, educational opportunities (of both the parents and the child), and even stuff like diet and nutrition, exposure to environmental factors (toxins), etc.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions. (In fact, that's pretty much what a number of the geneticists say outright in the NY Times article linked by GP.) I suspect that's part of the reason Dawkins seems to be so against the study of race and intelligence, because previous studies have shown that whatever differences may be there are likely irrelevant compared to other much more obvious social issues we should confront first if we want to deal with problems of intelligence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:10PM (6 children)
"Race is a social construct" means, essentially, that yes, you can define a group by some shared phenotype, and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences based on their shared genotype, but the point is that the phenotypes chosen are entirely arbitrary. Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:47AM
Aunty! You out-do yourself!
and then attempt to Dan Brown together some meaningful inferences
+Amazing mod for "Use of 'Dan Brown' as a verb", +Truth mod for refutation of racism.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:02AM (4 children)
Why are we grouping people of a certain combination of skin colour, hair colour etc and calling them a "race" when we could could just as easily pick the tibia / fibia length ratio (a way to differentiate Vikings from Saxons in the British population, apparently) or some other completely pointless, muddy physical factor. What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Should we call Viking and Saxon heritages 'race'? Maybe, maybe not, but it's the continuum fallacy to try to conclude that race doesn't exist just because we seem to have found something akin to a 'sub-race'.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:10PM (3 children)
Common genetic heritage and the ongoing application of local selective pressures, is what gives rise to race.
Right, but of all the genes I have in common with my neighbours, of all the thousands of physical traits (eye colour, liver function, number of toes, size of earlobes, speed of fingernail growth...) I may or may not share with them, why are hair-curliness and skin-brownness the magic ones that define how I am treated in society? It's arbitrary.
Look at dog breeds (which no-one is trying to pretend is merely a 'social construct'). Some breeds are more similar than others, but we still (arbitrarily, if you like) treat them as separate breeds.
Dogs are a very special case. The immense variation within that particular species is highly unusual, and the result of thousands of generations of deliberate, guided, selective breeding. We don't treat different breeds of dogs differently arbitrarily, we treat them the way we do because they were designed and built to be treated that way. Retrievers love to fetch things and swim because that's what we made them for. Jack Russells like to attack small squeaky things because they have rat-catching hard-coded into their genes.
People, on the other hand, are all evolved for much the same thing. Life and society throughout the world and throughout 99.9% of human history has been almost exactly the same for everybody, everywhere in the world: Hunting, fishing, gathering and farming in communities of other humans; defending the tribe; singing, dancing, courting & mating; using tools and developing technology; domesticating animals; using language. These are what define ALL humans (just as "running very fast" defines a whippet) whether our roots are in India, Africa, Italy or Peru. Sure, you get some small regional specialisations (some mountain folk with thin-air adaptations for example, or cold-weather folk with pale skin) but these are tiny, superficial variations that tell you as much about a human's general abilities and personality as phrenology would.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)
that define how I am treated in society
We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept. Of course racism is bad. Let's not waste time.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is as much difference between, say, a white Scandinavian and a San bushman as there is between a chihuahua and a St Bernard?
No, of course I'm not. That's why I never said it. You should find that rather telling.
I'll restate my point. You put:
What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
and that is false.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
>We weren't talking about how indefensible racism is, we were talking about the existence of race as a meaningful non-arbitrary concept.
Never said we were. Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
>>What we call "races" only exist because we have chosen to make them meaningful.
> and that is false.
Really not getting your point. As stated more eloquently by another poster somewhere in this thread, the crude pigeon-holing of "race" breaks down completely at the genetic level. You either end up with tens of thousands of "races" because there is so much genetic variety in what superficially appears to be a homogenous group, or you have to invent countless byzantine exceptions that make the whole exercise completely pointless for any purpose other than stuffing people into a conveniently small number of asian / black / caucasian boxes.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:44PM
Replace the quoted part of the sentence with "that define what race I am" and you get the same meaning.
No, of course you don't. Stop being obtuse.
Race means something socially. It means nothing genetically.
False. Did you not bother to listen to Dawkins?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:56AM
Thanks for the solid reply.
I think most geneticists who say "race is a social construct" don't really mean there are NO measurable genetic differences: what they mean is that the variability within racial groups and geographic regions is so much greater so as to make the discussion of genetic differences between races practically irrelevant to many questions.
But that's not what a clueless bleeding-heart liberal means when they say it. Generally, it's a social construct is just a fancy way of saying it's a totally arbitrary category/distinction. They feel the need to pretend that race simply doesn't exist, and that's simply not true.
You're right of course that when it comes to intelligence/fitness/etc, individual variation obviously way outweighs between-race variation (if there even is any), but race still exists - it's sometimes even significant medically.
He doesn't think the differences in racial IQ (or intelligence in general) are an interesting subject for scientific study. He's not exactly clear on why, other than the fact that he thinks such findings could be abused to promote discrimination.
I'm inclined to agree with Dawkins' reservations here, but I think science has too strong a taboo on this sort of thing. We see that right here with this politically convenient fiction that race doesn't even really exist.
It's not something I'd want to research, but it wouldn't make you a racist to do it.