'I think Charles Murray is Wrong' I Bret Weinstein [Mini Clip]
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2020
- If you like what I do consider supporting me at colemanhughes.org/
If you like what you hear, please subscribe and share bit.ly/CwCsubscribe
FOLLOW COLEMAN
CZcams - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Website -colemanhughes.org
FOLLOW BRET
CZcams - / bretweinstein. .
Twitter - / bretweinstein
#BretWeinstein #EvolutionaryBiologist #Race
![Race, Genes and IQ Differences | Bret Weinstein [Mini Clip]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IztL_m3pd70/mqdefault.jpg)
"Charles Murray is wrong" Then absolutely nothing about why he is wrong. Well done Bret!
Because he wants him to be wrong.
Yep, typical white guilt crusader Bret. Ivory Tower Bret....forgot what it fell like when he fell from that tower already!
@@maxwellianmindfuzz3640 He’s not white
@@severusfloki5778 what crack you smoking?
@@Typhoon860 He's jewish, or as he himself stated that he was told by a black lady, he will go with "spicy white" but not white. Still he is a white guilt crusader somewhat in that he wants to push it a bit if I recall correctly.
If you're going to say an argument is wrong, I'd like to know what the argument is.
Charles Murray holds a position that IQ is related to race. Unless I'm misrepresenting him, which is not my intention.
Also, I would like to know why it's wrong.
Brangus Brangus There is such a wide variation in IQ of individuals even WITHIN one race, that arguments on such broad categories are pointless-especially in this context. The argument always centers around “average” or more techically, statistical “mean”. When the members of any category is very close tightly around the mean, the construct of the mean as a mathematical concept is useful. But when there is vast variability in the members I. E. the standard deviation is large, then the mean it is not predictively very useful. Morever great advances in human history are acomplished by the outliers-not the mean, or average among us. So the argument would more sensibly focus on geniuses-not the mean. There are geniuses in all races. Contributions in various spheres have come from many races. Algebra, the foundation of all mathematics is an Arab word because Arabs made that contribution during the dark ages. Chinese, on the other hand invented gunpowder. In short, having competition for what race has the highest mean or average is kind of tribalistic sophomoric when many have critically contributed.
@@roundedges2 Well said and explained.
@@roundedges2 As you point out, it's the outliers (geniuses) who often make the greatest advances. However, the mean is still significant - a small shift in the mean can have a significant effect on the number of outliers at either end of the scale.
Next time please go into more detail about why Murray is wrong - what evidence exists/doesn't exist to suggest he's wrong?
Exactly- see my comments above--
@@lennonzamora5387 But Charles Murray doesn't conclude racial differences in IQ are all genetic. Not at all. From chapter 13 of The Bell Curve: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved." All he said was that it's likely that genes play some not-yet-undetermined role, which seems to go along fine with the examples you're giving of environmental factors, some of which become genetic factors.
Murray implied 60 % or more is genetic.
@@Jmatt354 Not in The Bell Curve. Over the past 25 years, however, studies have on average concluded that 60% to 80% is genetic.
@@felixxtcat 90 genes
Bret spends an awful lot of time carefully saying nothing
He is basically a contemporary Girondist.
He certainly did say something here. Did you not understand it?
What do you mean? he said quite a lot actually..how people falsely equate intelligence with being the same 'built-in' hardware as the genetics of athleticism, his disagreement with Murray on IQ results and interpretations and why, what he thinks Murray does right and why..not sure why you think he said 'nothing'.. maybe listen a bit harder?
I thought he made it pretty clear that the monster at the end of the book was Grover.
@@mapelcakes He didn’t say why the analogy to athleticism was wrong, which is really the punch line.
When you’re having a tough time saying something…
If Murray is right, I don’t understand why that is so terrible. We don’t flip out about only some people are excellent runners, only some are child music prodigies, only some are brilliant mathematicians, only some are particularly humorous, etc. we don’t mind that most people are average and done people are highly intelligent. Why can’t we as a society simply accept the differences and view humans as equal and worthy of a decent life regardless of their intellectual capacity.
Your "type" is a pain in the arse. Having the likes of you talking sense is triggering me. Give me the matchstick so I can burn something unrelated to the discussion.
The problem people who study this point out is the way our society works it’s based on competence and that worries people. If one group is less competent than others it’ll be harder for them to compete in society. The point they make is we shouldn’t live in a society solely based on competence.
I agree. The truth is the truth and I think we csn all benefit from knowing this.
@@weignerleigner3037 Which society in the history of mankind was not 'based on competence'? Do you envisage some magical society where a person's value is based on how friendly they are? How well do you think that society is gonna run???
@@weignerleigner3037 The opposite would be to run nations by incompetence. The Peter Principle springs to mind. A society run by competent people who have a high level of social conscience is essential. Competence should be a priority, or we would have failed all around. As a person outside of the US, I cannot comprehend the outrageous random destruction of the infrastructure and am surmising that the "protesters" are not competently holding down jobs or own buildings or businesses; at least not the ones on fire. I prefer a leadership that is the cream of the crop, not the cream of the crap!
I wish I could tell you the point that Bret just made.
Bret wishes he could too...
He wants everyone to be born with identical cognitive hardware. That would make individual differences in intelligence a software issue. Policy might hope to deal with it. I am not confident of that; look at our schools.
Unfortunately, he is wrong, and I think he knows it.
We can deal with individual differences in intelligence by not adding unnecessary cognitive overhead to people’s lives. Everyone should not have to be a lawyer. People should not have to work the system. The system should not bite people for not dotting the I or crossing the T.
While he cant confirm, he intuits that the cognitive differences between racial groups are negligible/non existent.
It would've been perfect if Coleman just abruptly ended the stream after Brett's response. Lol
Bret clearly has had education in "good quality" genetic research
45 minutes on line in the DMV is all I need to tell me that human beings are not all born with the same cognitive potentialities.
Yes, that’s my lived experience as well.
Individual differences, which no sensible person would deny, are not equivalent to meaningful intergroup differences in genetic predisposition to stupidity or violence.
@@dichebach except that it there are differences between individuals there will inevitably be differences between groups
@@ORaddlyispissedoff an intergroup difference is a difference in the distribution of a measure for two or more groups of multiple individuals An intra-group difference is a difference between individuals. Intra-group differences account for most of it. If you do a google on "inter-group versus intra-group comparisons" you may find some elementary probability and statistics presentations that can clarify these matters for you more fully.
Brett is arguing from a false premise: I do not want Murray to be right, and therefore I must find reasons why he is wrong.
This is prescribing the outcome, not following the evidence.
Begging the question?
"Must I believe it?" to quote Haidt.
That’s not what he said. You are falsely misrepresenting Brett. Rather than saying he “must find reasons Murray is wrong”, he said Murray’s data is incomplete and that he drew false conclusion from insuffucient data.
Well, look at his old University...
We need people to look for reasons why any particular argument is wrong. Many arguments are in fact wrong.
Most people focus on the race issue because the *real* issue is much worse.
The issue is that everyone knows that Murray is right but most of us will blow fuses rather than admit it. It's as simple as that.
Nope, Weinstein is a biologist who understands genetics, Murray, not so much.
@@michaelseven107 not everything is about race….
@@stevenknudsen7902 We all want Bret's supposition to be the right one, but why doesn't he lay out his reasoning if he's so convinced of it. Seems to me he would be making that case on a regular basis if his hypothesis on this was strong.
@@kenhiett5266 Bret doesn't sound good here. Humility is on his side, and will win the intellectual battle in the end. We don't know the actual mix of genetics (traditional and epi), social and family influences, etc. to know which populations will produces geniuses.
@@FloridaGal813 all these youtubers seem to fly too close to the sun. It's better to not post a video about Charles Murray than posting one that makes Murray look sharp by comparison!
It strikes me that this would have been the perfect opportunity to counter Murray's arguments - I'd love to hear an evolutionary biologist explain why they think the genetic basis for IQ differences is flawed, but all we got was a vague articulation about uploading high level software to children's brains. That's just not an argument - kind of disappointed tbh.
Murray's argument isn't that it's genetic. He's not arguing his point. He may have not read the material. If he did, he's willfully ignorant.
@@Showmeyourtitties isn't Murray's argument that gaps are likely to be a mix of genetic and environmental factors, but probably with a nontrivial genetic component?
@@chuckles8519 his argument is that it's always both genetics and environment. The degree to which each is relevant is Up For Debate but any biologist would tell you that it's always both. His question is, is the disparity because of one or the other of the two, or something else. I feel like most people who are criticizing his work have not really read it.
@@Showmeyourtitties Oh no, they read it. That’s why they are in denial.
JUSTFRIGGING GOOGLE IT. If he opened a door walk through it.
"Murray seems to be right, so let's be like Murray and study what Murray did but I think he is wrong" ... ? Why don't you have him on the show?
I have a lot of respect for Bret, and he usually argues things brilliantly, but this was sort of painful to watch. He WANTS Murray to be wrong, but offers zero proof that he is other than what amounts to a gut feeling. So I am as good looking as Brad Pitt, even though the evidence runs completely counter to that assertion...which is more of a desire.
Basically says "im an almighty professor so it's false cuz I say it is", it's that empty godsplaining shit that's tainting almost all "expertise"
But Murray theories haven't been corroborated either
@@juanmanikings It's not really an issue of them being corroborated. The data is the data. No one in academia wants to touch it cause it's nuclear. There is a difference. The difference is meaningless for normal people since the distributions overlap considerably and its at the tails. All Murray is saying is people who are separated from each other will evolve differently, and IQ is just one difference. That would be considered common sense if you were talking about two birds that were the same but evolved independently of one another and they had a small difference.
@@asparapee4213 data alone does not give you the full picture. The data shows a difference in IQ, the data does not give a cause for the difference. They are 2 completely different things, and the latter is the only important thing in the discussion.
@@frmrfr I agree completely. But as they have explained in other places, the gap closed significantly after the 1960's, but has been at a standstill since the 1970's. I believe a decent portion of the remaining gap IS due to the culture of the respective communities, but even in situations where the different racial groups are given extra training for tests, they still don't match up.
Once again, this is not a big deal since the difference is at the tails for the most part. But Douglas Murray's point, and it's a valid one, is we can't be forcing people into the elite jobs based on some sort of racial quota, nor should we be surprised when there are few people of a certain race in an elite of the elite field.
And to be clear, as Murray has pointed out, this isn't a white supremacy thing since whites lose to East Asians. Now do I look at Asians as some superior race? No. Cause I know I'm smarter than a lot of Asians, and a lot of Asians are smarter than me. Do I look at blacks as inferior? Of course not since a lot of black people are far smarter than I could ever dream of being, Coleman included. Thomas Sowell might be (IMO) the greatest living American intellectual.
The whole point is it makes perfect sense that genetics would play a role in intelligence. When two extremely intelligent people have a child, that child is usually smart. When two athletic parents have a child, that child is usually athletically gifted. Ask yourself this: If this was any other human attribute, would you be arguing it? Hair color, creativity, athleticism...these are all things people will readily contribute to the genes of their parents.
I would love it if bret could actually provide I high level critique of Murray’s contentions, it would be splendid if he were in fact wrong. Unfortunately I’m not sure what I just heard was a critique at all. It was more like a “just so story” that supposedly shows why the facts shouldn’t be what they appear to be.
Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable “Flynn effect”: In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what’s going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question - and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills. The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
@@aldean5494 It's not. Perhaps I cold analogize why?. IQ is a capacity. There is a maximum "bucket" size, predetermined by genetics. The environmental portion of intelligence (which identical twin studies tell us is between 20-40% of the effect) can affect total bucket size, but genetics constrains how large (how far to the right of the bell curve) the size gets. The Flynn effect is the maximizing of that genetic size potential through things like diet, environmental exposure, and education/neuroplastic exercise. But, it does not ever seem to punch through that genetic ceiling. The Flynn Effect has resulted in a quarter of a standard deviation improvement in the black community AND improvements in white and other ethnic communities. g or IQ is now tanking across all races according to psychometricians. The Flynn Effect isn't going up anymore. We have effectively reached max potential.The Flynn Effect seems to be epigenetic and developmental... And people decrying it as the end of "scientific racism" don't grasp what it is or what the arguments of behavioral geneticists actually are. It doesn't do what you think it does.
great answer, if the races converged in IQ from decade to decade it would bespeak more of genotypic similarity. The fact that the convergence has halted in recent decades is now more suggestive of genotypic variance
@@gunners4hire The simple fact that sub-Saharan populations have significant (up to 20% in some clades) non-Sapiens admixture that is neither Neanderthalensis nor Denisova also provides some hints as to why there is such variance. The ghost species in question was contemporaneous with h. Erectus. We can tell by looking at phylogenetic information and mutations. That is a 1.2+ myo genepool introgressing with middle paleolithic (possibly lower paleolithic man, in some areas) between 40-60kya. This was discovered *completely by accident* by a forensic dentist that was exploring the MUC7 genome of sub-Saharan populations. I am honestly incredibly shocked it was ever published. That is *extremely* significant information that will never reach the mainstream due to how "sensitive" it is. It would be the most uproarious event since the first use of the atomic bomb, as it paints a shockingly different picture of what 'races' are. There are similar ghost species present in Aussie Aboriginal, South Indian, and Papauan genomes. East Asians, likewise, have more Denisovan, Europeans, more Neanderthalensis...and so on and so forth. The information is there if people are brave enough to question "neck-down" evolution. The real struggle is living with what you know in a world hell-bent on ignorance.
@@chasethehorizonx That's fascinating, thanks for the info, it's certainly reflective of the times that intellectually curious people are now researching genotypic differences between races more than they otherwise ever would have. By proposing blank slate theories the left has unwittingly pushed many intelligent people who aren't so credulous to buy wholly socio-environmental explanations to inquire into the topic themselves. The results may be unpalatable for both race and sex, but I find the knowledge and the insights to be incredibly important. Keep spreading the good word.
I want Charles Murray to be wrong, but everyone who argues that Charles Murray is wrong never actually comes up with data to *show* that Charles Murray is wrong, they just say he's wrong and throw out some suppositions. Generally nebulous ones about 'high level software' or some such tripe that makes them sound almost like they know what they are talking about without them doing the work it takes to, in fact, know what they are talking about.
I suspect they actually think he's right and that's why they don't do any research that would give them data to support the suppositions they throw out.
The real fear isn't in talking about it, it's in finding the truth. Bret is, as always, a coward more interested in saying the right things than in finding the truth.
How is Bret a coward?
And why do you want Murray to be wrong? Maybe knowing if there is a differemce we can chamge our education system to find a way to accommodate all types of learning abilities.
We are not all equal, but not the same. We need to be able to deal with it.
@@RonnieD1970 I want Murray to be wrong because it isn't a matter of learning style, it is a matter of cognitive ability being a strong indicator of the ability of a person to participate in society in a way that affords them the financial success that engenders buy-in as opposed to disaffection and apathy which leads to criminality and a permanent underclass.
Bret is a coward in that he has, and does, always kowtow to the woke mob and did so right up to the point where they threw him out on his ass for not being the right color. Now he still does, he still wants his 'good boy' points from the mob and says things he hopes will get him back in the good graces.
He is a coward, and a transparent one at that.
Its sad because he is cowardly, but he is more brave than 90% of the people publicly speaking on these issues. But you can tell when he talks to black people about race he sometimes sidesteps things he knows are true and relevant and choses not to say them or respond to Coleman in an effective way. He says "lets have the difficult convesation no one is willing to have", then he proceeds to have to conversation without ever diving into the hard parts that coleman is more than willing to talk about. He just diverts colemans points with his explanatuon which is so vague. "Rent seekers and opportunity hoarders".
I will say though I still like him a lot for someone on the left and think he is more brave than most. He did infact say George Floyd man not have been murdered which was superrrr ballsy. I like Heather better though shes awesome
@@fishfish3429 bull shit. He stood up to the mob, went national with it, toured the country with interviews and speaking engagements attacking it (see 'How the Magic trick is done). He even addressed congress. Now he has bis own podcast STILL attacking the WOKE MOB and won't back down. He even uses his real identify...unlike you.
What have you done? How is Bret who put himself on the line a coward? He is a non authoritarian liberal (as per his political compass). He is a genuine passive and slightly contrarian. What do you want him to do?
You seem to be the coward.
I think you're coping with the IQ question. Coping hard.
Bret really wants Murray to be wrong because it comports with his liberal sensibilities but he doesn't know how or why Murray is wrong because he isn't.
If you are interested, there is a study conducted by Anandi Mani, Sendhil Mullainathan, Eldar Shafir and Jiaying Zhao. On how Poverty impedes cognitve function. Here is a link to an article about it: thecorrespondent.com/283/poverty-isnt-a-lack-of-character-its-a-lack-of-cash/37442933638-a4773584
Plot twist, Grover knows the monster is real and we have to kill it before it kills us.
@@aldean5494 Low eye queue leads to poverty, not the other way around. The “students” in Baltimore are not lacking food. You people are just beyond hope.
Hey! You don't have the capacity to understand why Charles Murray is wrong!!! You're just assuming he's right!!! Only smart liberals like Bret Weinstein have the intellectual tools to understand why Murray is wrong!!!!
Bret knows that Murray is right it’s just if you want to maintain status as a liberal you have to deny reality.
Liberals ignore that Baltimore & Detroit exist. Their problems are not issues of funding for they have tremendous amounts of funding, especially compared to Appalachia.
Waited for Bret to make the case as page after page was turned in painful, meandering monologue. It turned out at the end that there was nothing there. Mental gymnastics.
I find it hard to defend Bret's thesis here. Of course, one of the first things folks did was to compare the IQ scores of high socio-economic parented Black kids with low socio-economic parented white kids: the gap was smaller, but still there, even to 10th percentile versus 90th percentile. Tests such as this have led people to conclude it's genetic, and Bret seems to imagine these tests haven't been done yet.
He also ignores the Transracial Adoption and Twin Studies. IQ at adulthood was strongly correlateled with the IQ of the biological parents, not the adoptive parents.
@@johndoe-td2xd Those twin studies fall apart real quick with a microscope. Growing up 80 miles apart in Ohio are not different environments. If you're relying on twin studies then you are the dunce.
@@bmatthews15 I don't think you understand the point of twin studies. My point of view is supported by multiple converging streams of evidence. The only evidence in the other direction is "But, people will get their feelings hurt. My egalitarian fantasies will be dashed and I will experience cognitive dissonance, which feels icky."
@@johndoe-td2xd Did you ever consider you're the snowflake who wants a genetic basis for intelligence to prop up your self worth and sub conscious desire to be superior to other people? You're psychologically projecting.
@@bmatthews15 Uh...mmmkay. Why would acknowledging the genetic basis for intelligence prop up my self worth? 1) My race is in the upper-middle of the hierarchy 2)Assuming a genetic basis for intelligence implies as a corollary that no one has earned their intelligence, any more than they 'earned' their pretty face. Why be proud of something you did not earn? Think harder next time.
At around 3:50: Bret acknowledges the 'population level difference' that causes Eastern Africans to be better than other groups at long distance running.
But then, at around 4:00, he states that this is not a good analogy for cognitive differences between such groups. People who state such a thing 'haven't had enough exposure to good evolutionary thinking.', according to Bret. He doesn't explain how 'good evolutionary thinking' would cause people to avoid using such an analogy. Also, he doesn't provide any other evidence for his non-hereditarian stand.
I was at the edge of my seat when he stated that, expecting him to then carefully explain what good evolutionary thinking applied to cognitive capacity is. Just to get absolutely nothing. This is extremely disappointing, especially coming from Bret who usually does not dodge that kind of issue.
@@harulem I think, in fact, that most liberals, no matter how non-woke on other issues, dodge this issue. One other example is James Lindsay, one of the most important fighters against Critical Race Theory and against other aspects of wokeness. In his book 'Cynical Theories' he states that human races don't exist in reality - one of the signal leftist anthropological ideas (until the recent explosion of neo-racism overtaking the left, which makes it more difficult for them to state that races are nothing but a 'social construct'). Another example is Sam Harris, a fearless fighter against religious ideas (in particular against the 'religion of peace') who does seem to acknowledge that races exist but would like to stop research into differences between the races, so as not to hurt feelings and thus to decrease societal tensions.
@@theeuropeanperspective3391 The great irony is that by denying genetic differences when the attainment gaps will persist, will lead to the conclusion of social discrimination. Which increases social tensions.
Brett went out of his way to say nothing at all.
Pilpul
Totally what I got from this too.
Bret made several key points:
1. He believes we should be open to the IQ discussion, while still believing that Charles Murray is making the wrong conclusion.
2. That invalid conclusion is largely due to assuming IQ will show the same type of group differences that are clearly demonstrated in athletic endeavors. He believes that this is a false equivalency.
3. He likely expects that given the right software (i.e. reducing environmental factors) any IQ difference that's been demonstrated in the past will become negligible. In other words, cultural and environmental factors are the reason for any existing disparity.
Not sure how you missed those but hopefully this helps.
He's arguing that cognitive function/iq isn't something as easy to compare as say sports performance and that environment might play a much more significant role. That is saying something, it contradicts murray's view. Weinstein could be wrong but it's just a difference in opinion
@PutinFan The test by itself ignores environment, and there are examples of entire black schools performing better than the majority of white schools.. explain that if its genetic
Bret Weinstein does this all the time. Someone questions a liberal/enlightenment presupposition and Bret responds:
"Well, they're not evil, but they're misguided or reckless, and I won't expand upon why that is."
Stop restating your position and make a damn argument already.
He can't, which is why he's sputtering here.
Even if Murray is 100% right there's no monster to be scared of, propagating the idea that there could be is unhelpful in my opinion. All that's required is a proper understanding of what IQ is, and more importantly, what it isn't.
Race science is like the communism of science: I'm sure it will end very well the 24345 time around.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn Because ignoring racial truths is working out so well right now
@Acererak What truth? Correlation=/=causation. Teaching that black people are genetically inferior, is way more dangerous than whatever you're implicating.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn
You mean like Liberia?
Nothing was explained here. It was more like "I want him to be wrong because I don't want to sound racist"
I like the framing of this question. Weather "Murray is right or wrong". As if only Murrays data shows these differences among populations.
People who think that need to read the letter to the Wall Street Journal titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence."
@@bill9989 All these mainstream hit pieces have been debunked. They're just trying to protect minorities from resentment. A noble goal, but wrong science.
@@overtonpendulum2071 I think you misunderstood me. The letter isn't "Mainstream Media..."
Its "Mainstream Science . . ." which supports Murray. The letter is signed by 52 courageous experts in the field.
The letter is reproduced in total on its Wikipedia page.
And btw (not for you, but for others), Murray didn't write The Bell Curve by himself. It was coauthored by Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard Psychologist who held the same chair as B.F. Skinner.
I read The Bell Curve front to back. It's hard to refute.
Yes exactly. It's not just Murray who ends up here after the numbers have been crunched.
And the notion that this guy is assuming the "courageous" role is ridiculous. Looks to me like the path of less resistance
I have listened and watched many Charles Murray talks. I think he is right on the money about our society these days with all the different things going on.
He is. Brett wants him to be wrong, but can't actually prove it.
@@John-wf5if Brett wants to be re-invited to cocktail parties.
@@frednicholson Very true, sir.
One of his books that I've read was "Coming Apart". I think it was really insightful about changes in American society, which have been ignored or unnoticed by many people.
Well you're wrong.
Hmm, seems like Weinstein is being hampered by motivated reasoning here. Hell, it happens to the best of us. Murrays work is well researched and well documented, its not something to be washed away with straw man arguments about athletic / IQ comparisons which is to miss the point Murray is making.
I think I agree with you.
What confuses me is, yes, environment/nurture plays a crucial role in maximising intelligence potential and even more so in mental capabilities (crystallised intelligence) but I always thought/believed intelligence had a huge genetic factor. Isn't Weinstein saying here that intelligence is not determined by genes? whilst sport differences can be explained by gene differences? Not sure If I'm misunderstanding him....
No Murray’s work is pseudoscientific garbage
@@Droselover-hu1gt EK.. Must be Ezra Klein haha
I don't think we saw enough in this clip to know what Bret's full argument is. I'm open to the possibility that Murray's argument is in good faith but just wrong, even if I'm leaning towards it being good faith and right at the the moment.
@@Whelknarge nah you just want it to be wrong
I want to see a discussion between Weinstein and Murray
Watch Weinstein questioning Dawkins on the future of evolutionary theory (see CZcams) and tell me that Weinstein won’t be just as annoying to listen to when he questions Murray.
Now Brett’s missus would be easier to take.
Bret Weinstein is very good at talking in circles and not really saying much.
I found it very frustrating
He didn’t talk in circles. He said that if we pursue the science of ethnic IQ we will find that we are all generally on the same level. it’s not easy to pursue because of the seemingly racist nature of the claim.
@@matthewsargent9497 Actually he said he's terrified that we aren't but -hopes- 'expects' that we are
NIHILISTLIVESMATTER poor choice of words... thanks.
@@matthewsargent9497
But isn't his story about the monster at the end of the book about finding out what we already know; is that certain people are going to score extremely low?
Well that was excellent tap dancing!
Bret went deep into his feelings lmao. This is just dribble and word salad
Bret has many reflexes yet to be discarded.
Could you please add the link to the full conversation or episode in the description? It helps a lot. Thanks for sharing this mini clip.
Hey Weinstein, how did everyone just end up equal? Literally how?
When everyone started to live a good life, that does not force them to do the best they can.
I don't know why i would get triggered if i heared that i have worse IQ than another person lol..... i mean it's only one Treat.
but also we seem like we've advanced to a Civis where people does not even realise that the Human race is fighting to Survive and think they have Guaranteed the Right to Live somehow just by Existing.
How about this as a guess? : Our intelligence evolved while our ancestors were all close enough together for it to spread among them all - it then formed a base upon which "software" could be "installed", and which has had hundreds of thousands or whatever of years to develop into different cultures.
@@stephannaro2113 ok but intelligence never stopped evolving. Its literally still evolving at this second. Not only that, but we can see that it is evolving at different rates in different groups.
@@AB-eq9mm If you say so - it may be the case - I simply don't know the actual material, so can't comment - I just tried to guess a scenario for ya. Well, then again, your comment does seems to imply that you have actual evidence for genetic change that is known to affect intelligence. Do you?
@@stephannaro2113 yep. The general heritablity of iq is about 80%. Plug that into the breeder’s equation and look at statistics for fertility by iq by race and you can see how the races are divergently evolving as we speak.
Individuals differ in intelligence. That will remain the case, even if we develop everyone to the fullest extent they are willing.
The policy answer to different population averages is the same as for individual differences. We cannot set a minimum standard for intelligence for people to be valued in society. Too many of us will not meet it.
That does not mean that everyone should enter an intellectual profession any more than everyone qualifies for the Olympics.
The question then is: do you reward people differently (better) if they enter professions or create things that require rare intelligence? If not, then how do you encourage them to share their talent with society?
Put another way, if (because I'm smart) I can screw around all day and do as much work as some one who works hard but isn't smart, and we're both going to be rewarded the same by society, then why should I ever try hard?
And if everyone who is smart has that attitude, then on what basis will society ever advance in ways that require smart people to share their talent?
Or put another way: Would you have a society where everyone is richer and better off, but some people are MUCH richer and better off, or would you rather have a society where the poor are more poor, but the rich are much less rich?
Race science is like the communism of science: I'm sure it will end very well the 24345 time around.
thevoxdeus
We can and should reward people who produce more. We need what the gifted can do to improve our lives. They cannot capture all the value that they create.
We must not require a high minimum threshold of intelligence to live what we would like to call a normal life, any more than we require Olympic class performances in sports. We must not place arbitrary cognitive demands on people.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn
Are you trolling?
This is about reality. People differ in intellectual abilities, just as people differ in physical abilities.
We don’t require Olympic level physical performance from everyone. It is equally bad to require everyone to be a lawyer.
@@bwake I didn't say they don't, I'm saying that pushing the idea that certain groups are intellectually inferior, will have dire consequences.
Imagine a group that lived on a continent for tens of thousands of years. Same continent, same climate, same flora and fauna.
Then small groups found an escape route. These small groups carried all the adaptive genetics as the group that never left but they then encountered vastly different climates, flora and fauna, topography and earlier proto humans. They had to contend with all these changes. Many didn't overcome and died, some adapted and survived to continue the journey, encountering even more challenges. Some didn't overcome, some did.
That's all I have to say.
BuT dO yOu HaVe A sTuDy???
In more modern times, that argument could apply to emigrants.
@@Williamottelucas How so, William?
@@bill9989 People who move to another country now have novel things to contend with in that different environment.
@@Williamottelucas We're talking about evolution, not culture shock.
He makes a really interesting point, and he's not wrong about this "hardware-software" distinction he makes. But, it still appears that the evidence is against his claim that the group differences in intelligence are only "software" differences.
I think it's because the data that Murray puts forth grabs onto the third rail of sociology. Everyone knows that modern societies are competence based hierarchies, but they also realize that competence isn't equally distributed. The left's answer is systemic racism & the right's answer is personal responsibility. Both are half-right, but they avoid the subject of racial differences like the plague.
Intelligence researchers, when surveyed, overwhelmingly agree that more than 50% of IQ is genetically determined. We know that IQ varies between races. These aren't Charles Murrays views. He's merely reporting the state of the science, which has only crystallized over the last 30 years. Bret's progressive bias is incredibly strong on a range of topics. He has big blind spots.
People arent ready to talk about ethnicity and IQ.
Race science is like the communism of science: I'm sure it will end very well the 24345 time around.
Lauren Paer
Geneticist have cracked the code they know what’s going on these liberals are too afraid to discuss it
It’s 80%
From The Bell Curve: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." That is the disputed claim.
Murray is correct but it has to be coupled with seeing people as individuals as opposed to groups.
He is explicit about this point in his books. Most critics rely on ignorance of this, or rely on the fiction that his premise is genetic determinism. He agrees with neither..
Yup. Which, as you know, is a point Murray is at pains to make. I think he is sincere, but others eg J Mc Whorter, don’t seem to think so - or at least they think that that kind of caring attitude is not enough to win out in the end.
The monster at the end of the book was Elmo.
Some people are smarter than others? Yea, Murray is right. And it's not racist.
Is there a part where Bret says which control factors are lacking in Murray's study? Is it nutrition, wealth, school system, neighbourhood, number of siblings, number of caregivers at home?
Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable “Flynn effect”: In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what’s going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question - and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills. The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
Bret Weinstein is over-rated. He would be basking in well-deserved obscurity were it not for Evergreen.
Why? Because you disagree with him? Lool
@@floritamendez3297 well, didn’t you just watch that video? He’s a one-trick poney with only a modest or narrow if you prefer set of concepts he applies outside of their domain of validity. If it were not for Evergreen and his aura of victim/martyr/hero, there would be no particular reason to pay attention to him. It got to his head to the point that he thought he would singlehandedly change the political system of the United’s States during. The last presidential elections. How ridiculous is that ?
@@thierryf2789 No, he didn't. He just felt he was obligated to try.
@@shmosel_ in short, a savior complex running wild?
@@thierryf2789 No, but I appreciate your attempt at comprehension against all odds.
So evolution doesn't stop at the neck, but somehow all populations have the same average intelligence today, regardless of the tens of thousands of years of limited or zero genetic flow between some of them, and significantly different selective pressures? I'm not a biologist, but artificial selection and sexual selection permit relatively fast changes in populations, do they not?
Good point. Most important thing is what we do: when meeting someone new or different, let them show you how intelligent they are (or not) rather than assuming from the start.
@@stevenknudsen7902 Indeed. Judge individuals as such.
Would a contributor please provide a link to the C Murray comment that prompted this video.
Where is this full podcast?
This just goes to show why dialog is what is necessary to get beyond ANY issue that confronts society. So long as there are those, regardless of political bias or leaning, who jump to the conclusion Bret stated toward the end of this video, we will NEVER get to what is really happening. This kind of discussion has always been difficult, because of the subject matter, but the SJW's and leftists have made such discussions literally beyond the possibility of discussion. I don't know how we can re-integrate those who are infected by the SJW cult, as they were indoctrinated with the hate that prevents dialog on ANY level with one who does not fall 100% in-line with the cult doctrine.
We shouldn't talk about IQ.. It will breed nothing but hate and elitism. People already cling to their preconceived notions about other groups-they don't need another excuse. Ultimately, the free markets work this stuff out. Individual merit should be the focal point, not having this morbid obsession over ascribing general charateristics to entire groups, even if those charateristics don't apply to all or even 50% of them. It's a net negative.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn ....While I certainly agree that such talk can pretty much lead to negative consequences for society, the cat is somewhat out of the bag here and science is not going to let it go. Genetically speaking, as Bret said so well, there is likely some differences, but it is what we make of those differences that is key. There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that alt-right / white supremacists would make something of it, but they are going to do that anyway with false data. Somewhere, right now, there are most definitely people studying this intelligence thing, but is just going to take longer, as it has to be done in secret. Sooner or later, we WILL get a definitive answer, whether we want it or not.
.
As long as we deny the conversation in OPEN dialog, it will be done in secret. That is, in the end, going to be FAR worse, because we fear talking about certain things.
Charles Murry isn’t saying IQ is responsible for all the inequities. He is saying we can attribute some of the inequities to IQ. So if you ask me he made some of the most progress of combating the narrative that all inequities are do to racism.
Darkhorse is one of my fav podcasts. Bret almost always has insightful and science-based commentary. However, this one was painful to watch. He insists that Murray is wrong while providing no data to the contrary. You can’t just “feel” that Murray is wrong. That’s the antithesis of science. Provide more compelling data to the contrary. There are those that see the world the way they want it to be and those that see the world as is. Be the latter not the former.
-"Terrible stuff" Already he's speaking from emotion. I don't see why what follows is terrible. That seems a failure of imagination.
-"What we see presently does not add up in that way." How so? It seems to _exactly_ add up in that way.
-"It could be genetic; we could have a _terrible_ answer, and frankly, if it's that answer, I don't know what we do about it." Why? Why would that be terrible? Why would we need to do something about it? Why not just... be nice to each other and keep on living? Ironically, he's half right; there really is no monster at the end of the book. But even more ironically, he, who is saying that, is clearly convinced that there is one. Bret, it's _okay_ for there to be racial differences. It's okay, buddy. It's no worse than individual differences. And both individual and group differences are part of the wonderful combined strength and diversity of humanity. It's no worse than gender differences. If you think it's okay for everything but intelligence, you're way overestimating the importance of intelligence.
-"It's a catastrophic failure, if that's what we've got." Failure of what? Evolution? How can something that doesn't have a purpose fail? This brilliant man has descended into gibberish, in terror of the monster that isn't a monster.
-"But that's not what I expect we will find if we approach this courageously." Why does he think the people who have approached it have not done so courageously?
-"I do think Murray is wrong, because he's got half an analysis." What's the missing half of the analysis?
-"We have to confront what might be there in order to discover what isn't there." Uh, there's a whole field of people doing exactly that, except they have discovered that what might be there is there. Isn't that confrontation exactly what Bret is refusing to do?
-"The honest, honorable people, who do not want there not to be genome-based differences in intelligence..." So, you have to want there not to be such differences in order to be honest and honorable? Why is that? That's because he's convinced that such differences would be an unthinkable, unmitigable catastrophe. But they're just normal.
-"Any fool can see that different sports favor different populations[Ethiopians and Kenyans run fast.]" This is embarrassing, because that difference would be _much_ easier to explain culturally than the IQ score differences. One has only to point out that running is part of the culture those countries. When it comes to IQ, attempts have been made for decades to factor out every conceivable cultural factor, to try to make the differences go away. Furthermore, cultural programs have been going on to try to undo the differences, similarly without success.
-"The chances are very good that [the athletic differences] are not manifest in cognitive capacity; it's a false analogy." Why are the chances good that there aren't similar differences in cognitive capacity, despite all the century of data and studies showing _exactly that?_ And why is it a false analogy? What's the fault in the analogy?
-'People don't understand the difference between a physical set of parameters and cognition." Um.. okay. Aren't they both subject to random mutation and natural selection in more or less the same way? If he knows some secret difference between the evolutionary dynamics of bodies and brains, that renders the whole field of psychometrics defunct, it seems immoral, at this point, not to spill the beans. What's he talking about?
(Personally, I think there's a third mechanism of heritability that isn't genes or culture. Frankly, I think it's Rupert Sheldrake's "Morphic Resonance," though I don't expect any credence for such an outlandish notion here.)
I love the note you ended on. And your other points were spot on too. Next up, terrain theory as it relates to Covid?
@@Williamottelucas Thanks. I've heard enough theories about Covid, that I can no longer remember which is which. I seem to recall the term 'terrain theory' regarding viruses or pathogens in general, but can't recall what the theory is.
But I'll assume it's part of the mountainous category of theories that academics dismiss as insufficiently conforming to the social moors and presumptions of 'academia culture,' though they have not been discredited evidentially.
What academics fear most is being laughed at or sneered at by each other. After all, what would Coleman or Bret or any other intellectual have if other intellectuals declined to include them in discussions and the society of mutual vetting? They'd have nothing.
I like Bret a lot, but I think the reason he feels so comfortable dismissing a whole field of study without offering any reason for doing so other than vague allusions to hypothetical missing knowledge, is that he's confident the majority of other academicians will not be displeased by it, in this case.
I think Thomas Sowell made this point, that while engineers/technicians/technologists have at least a degree of empiricism involved in whether their ideas are accepted(if the machine works, it works, no matter what anyone says), academics have no such test for their ideas. Thus, whether their ideas succeed or fail is simply a measure of the degree to which they can persuade _other_ academics to agree with them. So it's just a community of consensus opinion.
And such communities are highly susceptible to placing ideologies over evidence.
Edit: Thomas Kuhn also spoke to this problem in his famous book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
I am clearly one whole step behind the comment section cause I don't know what Charles Murray said about IQ and I don't want to make inferences as to what his stance is. Also, I certainly don't want to make inferences about what Bret takes Charles stance to be.
Did I miss it? Did he give evidence against a genetic correlation? He just said supporters don't have the tools, but I don't remember hearing what the tools were. Is it critical race theory?
I grew up in a Kibbutz - one of ~300 ideal `labs' for testing the genes vs. environment balance, fully operational for over half a century. We all went to the same school, ate the same food, wore the same clothes and slept in a common `children's house'. And yet, the linages of scholars were just as salient as those of athletes. We were all (Ashkenazi) East European Jews , which are known to be approximately fifth cousins on average, so the extrapolation to a racially mixed society is indeed terrifying.
Bret how do you know Murray has this wrong? You haven’t really shown anything that gives evidence to Murray having failed to analyze data correctly or that he missed something or doesn’t ‘know’ enough to come to the ‘proper’ conclusion? How do I know you simply say this because genome based differences is so anathema to your belief system that you conclude the data MUST be wrong?
Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable “Flynn effect”: In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what’s going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question - and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills. The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
@@aldean5494 This argument is a fallacy. If the increase is observed across all demographics, then the increase is not genetic. Yet, the offset, which persists, still might be.
I have read The Bell Curve and Coming Apart, but unsurprisingly I have not yet read Murray’s latest book, just seen some of these interviews and resulting conversations. What I’m most interested in learning is how he accounts for the phenomena of steadily increasing IQ scores (up until 30 years ago) and the studies on the children of Black servicemen after WWII.
Some of those gains were due to improvements in nutrition and infant and prenatal care. Most, however, were only on the "low g loaded" subsections of the battery - those seem to measure learned reasoning ....which is a contentious issue among psychometrists. The "Flynn effect" only applies to a few "low g loaded" subtests. It likely thus does not apply to "real intelligence". The heredity of iq increases with age. Gains made by improved education tend to disappear by adulthood. Those children you reference? Those were likely the product of raped German women. This was common, though no one wants to talk about it. The fact that they show higher iq scores than the b avg? Not surprising. Hybrid children tend to have i.q.s intermediate between the two parents.
We need way more discussion on IQ and the brain in general.
Having two credible, well-read people discuss topics this “taboo” is one thing I’m jealous of older generations having that we don’t currently. Listening to smart people debate contentiously about these topics is vital for human advancement, you’d think. I saw a few disagreements from Charles Murray on twitter about this video and it’s like...can someone set something up to have these people talk to each other instead of type to each other(via twitter)?
Agreed
No we don't. It will breed nothing but hate and elitism. People already cling to their preconceived notions about other groups-they don't need another excuse. Ultimately, the free markets work this stuff out. Individual merit should be the focal point, not having this morbid obsession over ascribing general charateristics to entire groups, even if those charateristics don't apply to all or even 50% of them. It's a net negative.
conscientiously?
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn nope
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn Cool idea..........but the same politics that prevent conversations such as this also prohibit true meritocracy
There’s no limit to what an individual can learn but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the speed at which they learn that information which ultimately leads to success. That I believe is what IQ is measuring, and why it matters.
I love Bret but its so patently obvious that his personal feelings are blocking his ability to accept evidence. His argument is a baseline appeal to authority, firstly HIS authority and secondly "good evolutionary thinking". Nothing more. He offers not a shred of actual evidence. Nor can he I suspect. People who CAN offer evidence but don't are very very rare.
Charles Murray actually says the exact thing you said almost verbatim. He says we have to explore these uncomfortable topics so we know all the factors and how much they factor in. He says that if we want people to actually do better, we need to know why they're doing badly.
At what point is he referring to Murray?
I hear words, but I don't get any content.
There's a lot of speculation here from Weinsteain, but not much data or at least an explanation of his scepticism regarding Murray's studies. It would be interesting to hear an actual rebuttal, if there is one.
The big difference between populations intelligence is mainly their survival strategy, k or r. R populations are the ones that have resources at hand and do not need to account for cyclical shortages on resources, meanwhile K populations have periodic shortages(harsh winters) that do not allow for an excessive use of resources.
Murray recently gave interviews with glen loury and Coleman. I wonder what brets take on them is.
Hughes has a really good in depth discussion with Murray on his podcast.
The part that is hard to explain away is why do gifted kids come from all cultures? Watch the Netflix documentary on the slums of Mumbai. They tested kids and pulled out the ones with 145 IQ. Also hard to explain away- Most kids that score in the 99th percentile have done so since their first standardized testing... KDG or First grade... regardless of high achieving school or low, those kid’s percentiles remain very constant. Did a kid with a 99%tile at the age of 5 have such a compelling preschool at KinderCare that he is now a genius? Or does his mom being gifted and a principal and father an engineer better explain it?
That’s one of my favorite books lol Grover!
The biggest problem is cultures. Some cultures values hard work and school and some don't. But just because you come from a certain culture does it not mean that you think/act that way. Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell a great book.
Culture is just a superposition of all the values and decisions made by members of the group. If they're all low in intelligence then you're going to get low fidelity culture. If they're all super smart then you're going to get a high fidelity one.
The monster is that there's no obvious reason why someone who is smart is not a more valuable human than the person who is not smart.
Correct.
Is this an Ayn Rand type argument?
Does 'smart' = 'intelligent'?
How many types of intelligence/smarts are there? Let's start with that...
Is say, an elite level dancer or an elite athlete more or less valuable than an elite scientist?
There is a reason, it's a lack of free will. There is no more merit in being smart than in being handsome. And if you meant "objective" value, there are many variables which you can use to define it. Being high in one hiererchy among dozens of them doesn't really mean much.
@@Damian-rq3dj I have noticed this type of comment a lot of late. Essentially saying intelligence (as measured by IQ test or AFQT in C. Murray's case) should be valued in the 'meritocracy' and Policy should reflect that value.
Scary!
What Bret gets right is that it takes bravery to face a reality of racial differences in I.Q. But I don't think he quite understands that I.Q. is only partially a measure of "g" or general evolutionary ability. Other ability factors exist including athletic, musical, and even environmentally appropriate physical adaptations. I.Q. is extremely important, but if it doesn't get the girls then it is not enough.
Bret, there are two things that concern me about your argument. First, Charles Murray is not the only one doing that analysis and coming up with that result. A tremendous amount of effort has been put into the design of experiments and measurements to test IQ in various populations. Scientists are really going out of their way to eliminate as much cultural bias out of the testing as they can. I want the current results of these IQ studies to be incorrect, it feels like they are incorrect, but the analysis and design of the testing seems to be pretty darn good. I don't know enough to explain the results way and I was hoping from Coleman's teaser title that he would have valid answer but maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it.
The only power you have is where you put your attention. If a kid comes up to you and says s/he is curious about space, and you tell them what you know, and they go away excited, that's all you need to have a good day. You don't have to pay any more attention to this "science" than makes your day better.
Let’s look at Identical twins adopted separately at the first month of life raised in different environments but when given IQ tests as adults the result is that their IQ result is the same as if one individual took the test twice.
Bret Weinstein first says. 'There have to be differences in I.Q. between the races'. Then he says Murray is wrong to say 'there are differences in I.Q. between the races. The truth hurts, Weinstein.
It sounds like Brett wants it to be wrong rather than providing any evidence to suggest it is wrong.
I appreciated this portion of the talk for a reason besides Bret's monster at the end of this book analogy (something parents are more likely to appreciate).
I find Murray's writing and editorial analysis quite convincing. He's said, in effect, that social programs aimed to improve outcomes for populations of those with inferior cognitive abilities are a fools errand because its a gap which can't be filled by policy.
My interpretation here is Bret's suggesting that cognitive abilities are the result of both genomic and cultural (software) factors.
If we decide against genetic determinism in the case of cognitive abilities, then we must delve into how software can be effectively revised as rewriting is an impossibility. I believe we may be able to effectively implement a gene drive to increase a population's cognitive abilities sooner than a population's software could effectively be revised. In other words, our civilization's populations have lived independently from each other long enough for the software run by each population to differ so dramatically that it'd be nearly impossible to undo relevant cultural evolution.
It sounds like Brett is saying almost exactly what Murray was saying, but in a roundabout manner
Notice that Bret is a philosophical materialist. He thinks genetics being the base for the difference is "terrible, just terrible" because deep down he genuinely believes it to be defining worth. Exactly as Murray described. Murray addressed his point about childhood education countless times. It doesn't dissolve the differences, at least not long term. Apparently, Bret deems his evolutionary religion superior to all genetic and intelligence research, including Robert Plomin and Helmut Nyborg, both of whom had to meticulously defend their work already, and have done so successfully
Charles Murray didn’t even make any conclusions, he just presented the data.
Brett’s ability to make a straw man argument and present it with authority,about subjects he hasn’t even read, seems boundless.
How does this argument square with the fact that different racial groups show different susceptibility to disease, and that this is genetically determined?
Also, look at how our animals evolved with us, where and how, Doggerland is apparently a DNA marker for wolves to dogs. I have wondered about places where domestication and food functions for hunting partners (you eat dog?) looking eager in general to algorithmically compress into collectivism. In some places, it takes a village to NOT have your kid eaten by a large cat.
The variance among individuals "within race" in some inate level of cognitive capabilities (genetically gifted levels in math, musicality, art, language, memory, visual recognition, etc...) is for sure much much bigger than any potentially resolvable averaged "racial" differences, if existing. This is another aspect that seems quite obvious to expect and not fear as an outcome of research.
Or does Bret wish Murray was wrong?
Nassim Taleb's analysis points to the idea that IQ itself doesn't measure what it purports to, so there's even potentially the problem that we don't know how to measure population level differences in intelligence, much less attribute them to hereditary factors (his argument here is that complex traits like intelligence cannot be mathematically proved to be inherited, like low-dimensional traits such as height and eye colour). Definitely worth a read.
Taleb made a fool of himself in his foray into IQ. I'm not sure why he played it that way--maybe his fellow Phoenicians don't score high enough to satisfy his ethnic vanity. Who knows? In short, he is wrong. IQ is both highly heritable and the single best predictor of professional success.
@@kreek22 I don't need you to take any test (fit only for revealing extreme Unintelligence) to take a stab at your levels of (un)intellect.
This dude taught at Evergreen for God sakes, you think he's actually going to align with Charles Murray? 😆
In this clip he didn’t actually give counter arguments or explain his position he just said it’s wrong and didn’t go into the details of the arguments or make any arguments himself
Have him on the show.
Very good analogy.
Coleman's audience: Democrats need to stop patronising blacks and treating them like children, they can think for themselves
Also Coleman's audience: Black people literally have baby brains
One standard deviation down from Peoples of European ancestry for US blacks, and 2 standard deviations down for sub-Saharan blacks
Aren't we all just going to crispr ourselves into custom entities anyway?
Murray is an interactionist not an essentialist.
Wasn't there a study some years ago about black children who were raised on a U.S. army base in Germany and it showed that their scores were the same as white children? Suggesting that American urban (black) culture is the difference, not race. I think that seems very plausible.
Yes, as children, but by the time they are 17, they (mostly) regressed back to the mean.
It was biracial children
“Until you have those tools, you will inevitably jump to the wrong conclusion…”
Still waiting on those tools… 😒
I suspect that Bret Weinstein really wants the monster at the end of the book to be Grover, and I suspect that it won't be. Mind you, the monster at the end of the book probably isn't as scary as we fear it is .... but it likely isn't Grover.
It is probably an open-ended book!
I'm pretty sure the monster at the end of the book is pepe.
The monster at the end of this video is silence.
I'm not seeing what he was wrong about in this.
Here's my take on this issue. Say it is biological, for the sake of argument (even though ik it's not) let's say all of it is biological as of right now, Disparity in all other aspects of a human is already accepted. We recognize and even somewhat worship the prodigy or talented kid. They might have innate abilities much higher than the average in a particular task. We (Or most of us) don't cry out into the universe over the cruelty of Messi's talent if you want to be a soccer star or that of JK Rowling if you want to be a writer. There's a limited aspect of you that forces you to seek out endeavors you are good at. Use your math skills to become a physicist or speaking skills to become a storyteller. The problem I think is the idea that those who are biologically blessed will surpass and radically continue to expand the difference between those not blessed. But as long as the truths of every human being a human thus being treated with equivalent rights is never violated there isn't a problem. If there is a person in need in an advanced economy, those needs will be met and the person will find labor because even if nothing needs to be built things need to be kept up, or services need to be done. However, the idea that each individual has the same ability if given the same effort to "make it" is false, and I think that's where some people take issue. They want the same effort to draw the same conclusion but a 100% sprint from me vs bolt will not derive the same time. We know this for all things but we put so much emphasis on competence and hard work that we like to think anyone can do anything given enough effort in intellectual endeavors. If we know it not true in all other forms of life, this should be no different. You can think we are equal in human value while knowing we are not equal in ability. This idea of equality in mental ability is a very utopian one, where the outcome of your life is dictated by you, therefore the blame for shortcoming is obvious. Life isn't that simple and even if we were all equal at birth then you would have a starting place disparity, or effect inequities, or desire difference, etc, so many variables that the list is innumerable. I think it perplexes so many because we all rely on these axioms that aren't 100% true but are very advantageous to adopt because they do bring positive outcomes.
You can’t care about others iq performance, but it would seem obvious that consistent good standards of living across generations will see a likewise rise in IQ.
So the real monster is the Grover we met along the way.
Myself, I’m a big fan of free agency. The human mind is what makes us apex predators on this planet. It’s the strongest muscle anyone has.
It would be nice to have some argument that Murray is wrong in your "Murray is Wrong" video.
This video is, essentially, "Nah, bro, I don't think so."
Is that I.Q like height distribution in the population? The graph for men and women overlap, but the mean height for men is greater than womens. Also can I.Q test capture the general purpose for intelligence which humans have evolved. Navigating the dessert, pattern matching nature, designing sneers, battle tactics, fighting moves!
Swing and a miss.