4 ms·
I must be missing something. Scott literally calls a study that links IQ and race "sophisticated" and calls Murray an "ally" in the study of the connection and
by exogeny 6y ago
I must be missing something.
Scott literally calls a study that links IQ and race "sophisticated" and calls Murray an "ally" in the study of the connection and the antecedent impact on social welfare.
It's only when the NYT times points out the connection does it suddenly become much more narrow: a specific and borderline non-sequitur claim about teaching truckers to code.
I find the whole "I'm just asking questions!" routine to be so, so tiresome and disingenuous. This whole thing reads to me that he wants to be seen as iconoclastic and he wants to associate with contrarians but doesn't want any of the blowback for doing so. He may argue that a lack of refuting the more offensive implications and conclusions of an opinion while agreeing with a portion of it (only after the fact, mind you!) does not imply wholescale endorsement, but that's naive at best and wanting it both ways and crying about it at worst.
- chillacy 6y ago> literally calls a study that links IQ and race "sophisticated" I did not read the quote that way. Looking at the original: > Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture. He seems to be saying the opposite: that Murray has theories to explain IQ beyond just heredity (i.e. [social?] class and culture). It seems to me that Scott is drawing attention to Murray's non IQ/Race theories here, then using that common ground to jump into universal basic income. If he were to call the IQ studies sophisticated, here's how I would have worded it: (Abridged quote of evil twin Scott) Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, [however he] has some very sophisticated theories about [hereditary genetics].