....pointing out his odious views.
on what basis do you call his views "odious"?
have you read The Bell Curve?
or are you taking your cues from the Atlantic piece?
here's the assessment by Peter Beinart, the author of Atlantic piece: "Some of Murray’s views are indeed odious. Twenty-three years ago, he co-authored The Bell Curve, which argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life, that intelligence is partly genetic, and that there may be genetic differences between races"
let's take them one at a time
1. Beinart claims that Murray argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life
Murray makes a nuanced rebuttal to that, correcting the errors in the assessment given by Beinart, who appears to be working from the SPLC's smear piece. One particular that he stresses is that
his conclusions are drawn from data on non-Hispanic Whites.
But regardless, is it "odious" to suggest that the data support the idea that "differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life"? That seems rather obvious to me. You don't tend to find many successful software engineers in Silicon Valley, for instance, with IQs below 100. And I doubt that many of Beinart's colleagues at The Atlantic have IQs below 100.
2. Beinart claims that Murray argued that intelligence is partly genetic
Again, this seems obvious and non-controversial, and Murray proves it
using data on non-Hispanic Whites
Do
you find the statement that "intelligence is partly genetic" to be odious?
3. Beinart claims that Murray argued that there may be genetic differences between races
again, this seems obvious to me, and Murray supports it using data on Ashkenazim Jews, Asians and other racial groups
do you find this argument to be "odious"?
