Tags: Charles Murray, review (book), bullet-biting, epistemic horror, game theory, intelligence, ideology, race, politics, stigma, intelligence explosion, genetics
Status: draft
-> A similar definition of intelligence was expressed by Aquinas as "the ability to combine and separate"—the ability to see the difference between things that seem similar and to see the similarities betweeen things which seem different.
->
-> —Arthur R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"
-
Well, this is awkward.
-I liked [reviewing the _last_ Charles Murray book](/2020/Apr/book-review-human-diversity/).
+I _liked_ [reviewing the _last_ Charles Murray book](/2020/Apr/book-review-human-diversity/). That book did a _little_ bit of defensive political positioning, but for the _most_ part, it was just a fun, clean Science book for Science nerds. Effect sizes! GWAS! Selection on standing variation! Additive genetic variance! No one can get (or stay) angry about these technical minutiæ. "[E]veryone should calm down," Murray wrote, and as your eyes glaze over [the two-page table of "Differences in Target Allele Frequencies for Traits Related to Cognitive Repertoires"](/images/target_allele_frequencies_table.jpg), you can almost start to believe that they should.
+
+This book ... well. This is the Charles Murray book that's _actually_ about the thing that everyone assumes all of his previous books were about.
+
+You really have to feel sorry for the man. In previous works such as 1994's _The Bell Curve_ (with Richard J. Hernstein) and 2012's _Coming Apart_, Murray argues that American Society in the 20th and early 21st centuries has developed an increasingly stratified class structure based on cognitive ability. All else being equal, smarter individuals attain higher-paying professions, perform better within a given profession, form stabler families, and commit fewer crimes. But sorting by cognitive ability has a dark side in the dissolution of social capital and undermining of the American way of life, as the richest and most educated increasingly live in their own bubbles with no connection to how their fellow Americans live.
+
+This social-science thesis has _nothing to do with race_. Imagine an alternate history where humans never [migrated across the Bering land bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas) to become Native Americans, and where the [Atlantic slave trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade) never happened, such that, in this alternate world, European explorers found a continent empty of humans and founded a civilization that was monoracial from the start, unable to oppress and exploit blacks and Native Americans who simply weren't present.
+
+In that world, _most_ of _The Bell Curve_ (so infamous in our world for its reputed racism) could be published unchanged! Most of the analysis is strictly about differences _between_ different white people, in order to avoid potential confounding by racial issues. (Thus, _Coming Apart_ is subtitled _The State of White America, 1960–2010_—not that this does anything to endear Murray to progressives who don't understand the anti-confounding rationale for studying "white America" (!) and wouldn't be caught dead reading the book.)
+
+I mean, yes, there are those two chapters in _The Bell Curve_ about ethnic differences in IQ, and two chapters on affirmative action—I can see why people are pissed about _that_—but there's so much more to the man's work than that! Even 2020's _Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class_ (that subtitle!!) was much more muted than what a racialist ideologue would have written: the race section mostly just covers the Science of SNP frequencies while punting with "More research is needed" about what population differences in SNP frequencies _mean_; the visibility of the two pages of discussion on the interpretation of ethnic differences in IQ is reduced by discreetly tucking it away into footnote 4 of the "class" section.
+
+In contrast, this little book (125 pages, plus notes) is more—focused. (I don't want to say "more direct" and undermine my case that most of Murray's thought isn't about the racial stuff that inevitably sucks all the air out of the room.) In the wake of [the events of summer 2020](/Jun/oceans-rise-empires-fall/) and the rise of identity politics on the left, Murray perceives a threat to the American creed that individuals should be treated equally as individuals, rather than as representatives of an ethnic or religious faction. Murray's response: this book about the "two truths" of the subtitle ... that American Asians, whites, Latinos, and blacks have different means and distributions of intelligence and of violent crime (!!).
+
+Murray acknowledges the irony: if the _goal_ is colorblind individualism, why write about group differences!? The problem is strategic: if we can't _talk_ about group differences, but group differences actually exist and are actually pretty stable, then well-meaning people who are distressed by group differences in socioeconomic outcomes end up conducting an increasingly paranoid witchhunt for systemic racism, eventually casting aside the American creed. Murray quotes Daniel Patrick Moynihan—I feel like I've [mentioned him on the blog at some point?](/2020/Nov/nixon-on-forbidden-hypotheses/)—"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."
+
+[TODO: talk up front about the lameness of the causality-blindness as a response to steelmanned charges of systemic racism]
+
+After introducing our topic, Chapter 2 covers the stats on American demographics. At present, the country is about 60% white, 18% Latino, 13% black, and 6% Asian, but the, um, black-and-white framing of American racial discourse makes more sense when you consider that there were a lot fewer Latinos and Asians before a [1965 immigration reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965): in 1960, the figures were 87% white, 11% black. Big cities have become much more multiracial, whereas smaller cities and towns remain either monoracially white or biracial (the two races being white/black in the South, or white/Latino in the southwest and southern California).
+
+Here and through the remaining chapters up until the conclusion, Murray elects to switch to the nomenclature "European"/"African"/"Latin" rather than white/black/Latino (respectively, with "Asian" remaining unaltered), on the grounds that using less familiar terms for these groups will drag along less cultural and political baggage without resorting to outright obfuscation ("populations A, B, C, and D"). It doesn't feel that effective to my ear, and I kind expect it to backfire for a lot of readers, to whom the continental African/European/Asian terms probably sound _more_ racially essentialist than I think Murray wants to come off as! (The aim of the book is to argue that intelligence and crime differences _exist_ as not _trivially_ mutable facts of our world, as contrasted to the theory that outcome differences are solely due to direct discrimination by employers, schools, and the justice system; the strawman of "And this is 100% genetic" is not implied—not that "And this seems likely to be somewhere between 40–80% genetic" would be more than 40–80% less unpalatable.) [TODO: "Causes are irrelevant" (!) p. 47]
+
+The next four chapters follow a formula: "Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", "Race Differences in Violent Crime", "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", and "First-Order Effects of Race Differences in Violent Crime." (Those chapter titles felt awful just to type!! Am I really doing this?) Much of the value of these chapters is in the graphs and tables documenting statistics that many readers will be unfamiliar with. In such a small book, there's not much room to defend the _interpretation_ of the statistics in enough detail to satisfy skeptics: for example, Murray casually mentions Arthur Jensen's 1980 _Bias In Mental Testing_ as "documenting that the major [IQ] tests were not biased against minorities", without summarizing the detailed evidence and arguments by which one could claim to document such a thing; the distrustful reader is going to have to [read Jensen for themselves](https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf). [TODO: revise/delete/reconcile with later interpretation discussion]
+
+The scatterplots of nationally-representative test scores are interesting. The black–white gap _did_ shrink between '70s when it was about 1.3 standard deviations, until about 1990s, but has been stubbornly stable since then at about 0.85 standard deviations. Murray estimates the current white–Latino difference at 0.62 standard deviations, and the current white–Asian difference at 0.3 standard deviations (favoring Asians).
+
+Of course, one can't just point to test scores and say "Those are the facts" without addressing what test scores _mean_. A vast space of "objective" procedures can come up with a number, without giving anyone a reason to care about that particular number. (People with more letters in their name take longer to say their name out loud, on average! Cats do better than humans on a test of scratching, on average!) In this matter of cognitive ability scores by race, Murray briefly addresses two popular (but mutually in tension) classes of objection: that the gaps will vanish with better education, and that the tests are biased. [TODO: ... finish summary]
+
+At times, Murray's inability in his commentary to consider flaws in the _status quo_ seems like a blindness bordering on complicity—even while, simultaneously, I find his arguments and data convincing!
+
+Of the criminal justice system, he writes:
+
+> The social scientist's view of who commits crimes is a set of snapshots—the report of a crime, an arrest, the decision to prosecute, the charge on which the suspect is tried, the outcome of the prosecution, and the sentence for a guilty plea or verdict. At each step, the authorities are usually trying to get it right, but "getting it right" means different things. Decisions to prosecute depend on many factors besides the likelihood that the arrested person committed the crime (e.g., whether these is evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt if it goes to trial). The decision about the charges that will be filed is a main bargaining chip in a plea bargain negotiation.
+
+This is all very "reasonable" by the methods and epistemology of Murray's world, and I'm afraid—not a figure of speech, actually afraid—that there's nothing I could say, no words I could possibly type to explain the cruel capriciousness of that world's "reasonableness" to those who haven't personally been on the other side, who have never been abused by a total institution like the "justice" system. Two three-day stints in the psych ward are [what did it to me](/2017/Jun/memoirs-of-my-recent-madness-part-i-the-unanswerable-words/). Going to school might not be bad enough if you went to a good school.
+
+_The authorities are usually trying to get it right._ [by the authority's own corrupt standards!! TODO: ...
+http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/
+https://archive.is/HUkzY
+finish section]
+
+Murray presents a table of black/white and Latino/white ratios of arrests for violent crimes in thirteen cities for which data was available. The median black/white ratio was 9.0 (that is, 9 blacks per 1 white) and the median Latino/white ratio was 2.4.
+
+To argue that these ratios are driven by real differences in behavior rather than biased police, Murray attempts to "triangulate" the true crime rate with other data.
+
+For example, arrests for murder specifically are going to be less biased by selective enforcement or fraud: even evil and corrupt cops who don't consider themselves above, say, planting evidence of drugs, seem less likely to fake a human corpse. So if racial differences in murder charges match differences in violent-crime arrests more generally, that's probabilistic evidence that arrests are tracking a real difference in criminal behavior.
+
+Interestingly, Murray argues that this is true even if you don't think police are generally getting the right suspect (!!), as long as the suspect who is arrested is of the same race as the actual perpetrator, which will usually be the case given how many murders are crimes of passion where the victim and perpetrator knew each other (in highly segregated communities), or tied to gang activity (where gangs are almost always monoracial). The scenario most prone to racist police getting the wrong guy—non-gang-related murders where the alleged perp is black and didn't know the victim—only accounted for 4% of all homocides. Meanwhile, the group ratios for murder arrests are more stark than for violent crimes more generally: a median black/white ratio of 18.1, and a median Latino/white ratio of 4.7, which is not the pattern we would expect to see if cops were using their discretionary powers to falsely imprison blacks and Latinos on lesser charges.
-You've got to feel sorry for Charles Murray.
+[TODO: the police getting the wrong guy of the same race is the kind of thing that would contribute to structural racism—if the System is going to treat you interchangeably anyway, that changes your incentives]
+Another source of data for triangulation is in reports of crimes _to_ the police: crime _victims_ might not be racist in the same way the police themselves are—and it turns out that even black and Latino victims report more black and Latino perpretrators, even in neighborhoods where they are an minority.
-this book is about the thing that everyone assumes all of his previous books were about (Bell Curve had two chapters about race, Coming Apart is specifically about White America, human diversity slow-played the race section)
+[TODO: summarize chapter on first-order effects of IQ]
+
+[TODO: summarize chapter on first-order effects of crime]
+
+Murray wraps up with a chapter on "If We Don't Face Reality." The facts of IQ and crime differences don't imply any particular policy, but Murray wants researchers to at least be able to control IQ as an independent variable, and for the targets of our ongoing Cultural Revolution to offer a little more resistance. Moreover, Murray contends, identity politics is an existential threat to the American system: it was one thing when just minorities thought of themselves as collective interest groups, but if the white working class picks up the same playbook, then the ideal of individualism will be truly lost within the tides of ethnic conflict. Murray identifies eliminating government-sponsored affirmative action as politically impossible, "not within our grasp", but that a partial solution would be for those on the center-left and center-right to reaffirm the American creed and the goal of equality before the law.
+
+To me, this seems ... pretty naïve? I _also_ feel a lot of affection and loyalty to the previous ideological regime, but what made equality before the law such an effective marketing promise was the unstated premise that it would lead to, you know, _actual_ equality. If that's _empirically not true_, and people _aren't_ actually colorblind—if people notice ethnicity as a cluster in high-dimensional configuration space and tend to care more about people "like us"—then the classic ideal of individualist egalitarianism
+
+That bell can't be unrung.
-----
+... and that's the book review that I would _prefer_ to write. A social-science review of a social-science book, for social-science nerds, in a world that wasn't _about to end_.
+
+
[What I actually care about: the intelligence explosion; the alignment problem might be solvable by von Neumann clones; a civilization at our tech level with a more functional state religion that wasn't afraid of genetics would be able to produce them faster than we will; this is really bad guys]
[amplifying ancestry differences
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/super-gaels/]
+about existence, not causes
+https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/1409839168281272324
+
group diff studies
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2019/01/what-you-cant-say-genetic-group-difference-edition/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/12/georgetown-terminates-law-professor-reprehensible-comments-about-black-students
]
+"rotation" of the class axis, as people sort by cognitive ability directly rather than race??
Paul Christiano abstract story about what kind of agents steer the future
https://rationalaltruist.com/2013/02/27/why-will-they-be-happy/
From my notebook circa November 2007—
I think I'm coming to terms with the fact that I'm male all the way down, no matter what I say or do or even feel. This is hard to deal with because my <<policies are based on the fact that>> I'm special or the Difference is trivial. <<Whereas all the testing says not really.>> (But I've _always_ been <<inherently gloomy>>)
+
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
+
+https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights
+
+"No causal associations between childhood family income and subsequent psychiatric disorders, substance misuse and violent crime arrests"
+https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab099/6288123
+
+https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-doctors-cant-speak
+
+https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/sperm-counts-decline-fertility-science-white-nationalism.html
+
+https://dynomight.net/are-tests-irrelevant/
+
+https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white
+
+It's going to be the future soon; things aren't always going to be like this
+
+https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229060502984306689
+> For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.
+
+> While a limited form of selection in humans is acceptable—for example, preventing a couple who are carriers of a recessive genetic defect or disease from producing an offspring with that condition—the kind of wholesale and directed selective breeding of humans suggested by the word "eugenics" is immoral, and I don't favor it at all.
+https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/discovery-institute-makes-hay-of-dawkins-tweet-and-a-geneticist-mistakenly-says-that-artificial-selection-wont-work-in-humans/
+
+> I hold eugenics to be completely immoral and we should not attempt to implement it.
+https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1229890352275955713
+
+https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838/
+https://biohackinfo.com/news-china-gene-editing-criminal-law-article-336-march-2021/
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair
+
+https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/even-during-a-reckoning-mind-reading
+
+https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/left-targets-testing-gifted-programs/619315/
+
+> I don't want to hear about black thugs raping white women, but I'm going to hear it soon if you don't stop talking about white cops killing black kids
+Glenn Loury on Tucker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuPdPKHG18k
+
+https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/why-charles-murrays-new-book-is-his
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff