4 ms·

I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.

by yasp 7y ago

vcavallo 7y ago
bummer that just mentioning someone’s name requires this kind of prefacing
- Guthur 7y ago
  Hardly surprising. As has been mentioned else where unless you follow a particular political dogma then you are anti intellectual and therefore to be excluded. It's amusingly ironic how exclusive the politics of inclusion can be.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Jesus Christ. Sometimes you get downvoted. Sometimes you get upvoted. Either describe the damned concept or stop wasting our time lamenting how much we'll express our dislike.
- acjohnson55 7y ago
  It doesn't. And it would be helpful if the commentary on Murray's thoughts exceeded the meta-commentary on mentioning Murray's name.
dredmorbius 7y ago
This would be far more positive a contribution if you focused on how and what the author has said rather than anticipating HN's reaction. Maybe edit or reframe your comment.
sanderjd 7y ago
And saying what in those writings?
scarejunba 7y ago
I googled this and it was a complete waste of time. Charles Murray essentially argues that heritability plus assortative mating makes it so that the gap between the smart and the not so will grow larger. The smart will come from the upper middle class who are already going to college because they're going to marry other upper middle class people who go to college and make kids who will be upper middle class and go to college. He also strongly argues that your ability to succeed is a measure of your innate intelligence. (perhaps this is the part that user/yasp thought would be considered abhorrent?) and that combines with the earlier parts to say that there will be increased stratification and it will be on intelligence as well as on money. This whole thing is a waste of time because I gained nothing novel from having chased this vague-ass comment. Ugh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873_2.html?sid=ST2010102204725&noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...

I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.

by yasp 7y ago

I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.

vcavallo 7y ago

bummer that just mentioning someone’s name requires this kind of prefacing

Guthur 7y ago
Hardly surprising. As has been mentioned else where unless you follow a particular political dogma then you are anti intellectual and therefore to be excluded. It's amusingly ironic how exclusive the politics of inclusion can be.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Jesus Christ. Sometimes you get downvoted. Sometimes you get upvoted. Either describe the damned concept or stop wasting our time lamenting how much we'll express our dislike.
acjohnson55 7y ago
It doesn't. And it would be helpful if the commentary on Murray's thoughts exceeded the meta-commentary on mentioning Murray's name.

dredmorbius 7y ago

This would be far more positive a contribution if you focused on how and what the author has said rather than anticipating HN's reaction. Maybe edit or reframe your comment.

sanderjd 7y ago

And saying what in those writings?

scarejunba 7y ago

I googled this and it was a complete waste of time. Charles Murray essentially argues that heritability plus assortative mating makes it so that the gap between the smart and the not so will grow larger. The smart will come from the upper middle class who are already going to college because they're going to marry other upper middle class people who go to college and make kids who will be upper middle class and go to college. He also strongly argues that your ability to succeed is a measure of your innate intelligence. (perhaps this is the part that user/yasp thought would be considered abhorrent?) and that combines with the earlier parts to say that there will be increased stratification and it will be on intelligence as well as on money. This whole thing is a waste of time because I gained nothing novel from having chased this vague-ass comment. Ugh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873_2.html?sid=ST2010102204725&noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...