Do Our Genes or Environment Influence Our Intelligence?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2021
- LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. bit.ly/2QA8RbN
I sit down with Charles Murray to discuss his new book "Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America." We dive into whether education disparities are caused by our environment or by our genetic structures.
Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/2WScLnf
Watch full episodes of The Andrew Klavan Show here: bit.ly/3kHz06I
Become a Daily Wire member today - use discount code CZcams to get 15% off your membership! JOIN: utm.io/udjWz
To listen to this episode, subscribe to The Andrew Klavan Show on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2KM6HCG
Like this video? For more Andrew Klavan and Daily Wire content, subscribe to this channel czcams.com/channels/yhE.html... the bell for notifications so you never miss a story!
#Education #Policing #Culture #DailyWire
This is the big taboo that no one can talk about but everyone knows it's true.
Eugenics
The modern world is just a giant case of "The Emperor's Not Wearing Any Clothes." It's not just on this issue, but 100 others.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Indeed
Exactly right!
i didn’t know we lived in a dictatorship country
Most people who do well in educational systems come out of cultures or families who highly value education.
The best predictor of finishing ivy league schools is having a parent be a politician, preferably senator congressmen or president, it beats any other predictive test, IQ, SAT, grade average, race. Also it's a great predictor of income because in general after graduation they tend to get well paid jobs in government or private companies that have government contracts.
@@FilipCordas Man, those are some good connections...I mean, genetics.
Anywhere “parent” is a verb and not a noun...
@@FilipCordas
Even if they had a shard of windshield removed from their brain as a kid and have had a crack cocaine addiction.
This is like noting how the average prince has it better than peasants.
Is the sky blue today?
@@FilipCordas Shame on them for being born into that family and have advantages available.
It seems pretty clear that there are significant differences between groups that have adapted to different environments over thousands of generations, and this is exactly what one would expect biologically. If it is a fact, then there's no point in denying it - in fact it can only lead to poor decision making. It is a shame that such differences exist, but we must face up to them just as we face up to the other unpleasant facts of life, like death.
Chris Quinn . You seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My reply to your comment was that you seemed to misunderstand the mechanism of evolution. Personal changes to an organism, for example larger muscles because of much use, are not passed on to their offspring. That idea is called Lamarckism and has been disproved. Evolution proceeds by the mechanism of "natural selection" as proposed by Darwin.
@@stumccabe
Capacity for muscle potential, However, IS passed on. For example, A small bone must inevitably anchor a smaller muscle then a large bone, no matter how much that small muscle is exercised.
There is a difference, but as Murray said, we don’t know why there’s a difference.
Honestly the modern world scares me to death. I feel we're so afraid of notions of...I hate to use this term, but...racial superiority that I think if we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there are race based differences in intelligence, people would start to argue intelligence doesn't matter. Of course once that happens, society is doomed.
IQ is based on the environment someone is in
Which gives that person pros and cons in certain fields
Your IQ is like the horsepower of your car. But in order to succeed you still need to drive it well.
Exactly
So if I'm not as smart as Einstein it's because I am not trying hard enough?
@@patmyles4776 more like, if you were as smart as einstein, but didn't apply yourself, you wouldn't go very far.
I see IQ as like a foundation for the home. A foundational high IQ is no good if there’s nothing good built upon said foundation and a foundational lower IQ can be improved or mitigated by good structure built upon it.
No correlation here your IQ would be your ability to drive your car
Environment up to a point, then genes take over.
Show me this intelligence gene.
@@hakapelika7024
Regardless, mere intelligence quotients are way overrated. I have a high IQ, but have typically lived a very foolish and lazy life until recently. Wisdom is vastly more important and THAT has almost no genetic predictors whatsoever. I’ve known people who are nearly legally retarded, yet are considerably wiser than me.
@@hakapelika7024 Research genetic brain disorders. There isn't ONE "intelligence gene", it is far more complex than that. The notion that a bundle of common genetic differences we call "race" can't have any effect on intelligence is shown to be utter foolishness by simply substituting "race" for a synonym, "breed".
Now, go talk to some canine specialists about smart breeds, dumb breeds, agreeable breeds, etc, etc. And keep in mind what Murray says about means.
Eugenics
@@benstoltz6528 Only if one believes that the measure of human value is intelligence. In which case, one likely supports the abortion of babies with Down's Syndrome. I don't, and I don't.
And he is attacked by people that preach “follow the science” on other issues.
The irony of 'follow the science' is that science is rarely ever settled, that is precisely what makes it science, so trying to follow it would never actually lead you anywhere you might wish to be. Following the science is unscientific.
@@stanleyshannon4408 totally agree.
@@stanleyshannon4408 I think these folks intend to say, "Follow that which is backed by evidence and data, and that which is upheld by the rigors of the scientific method (peer review; replication; etc.)
@@belascialoja4812 Science is only science because it is free to be wrong and self-correcting. It cannot do that if it has an entire society following it around looking for salvation. At that point it merely becomes another corrupt social institution. Free people should not want to follow anything in any case. Yes, when science affords some useful conclusion that benefits society we should consider incorporating it. We should obviously give serious consideration to the opinions of learned people, but allowing science to become some kind of standard we meekly submit to on demand is fatally destructive to both science and human society.
I can't speculate about that. I did some very rudimentary research, and it turns out that he's not even a Scientist. He has a degree in Political Science which is not an Authentic Science.
No wonder he never released any of the details of his fraudulent studies.
Man... I like Klaven, but he should know better.
He clearly didn't do the requisite research.
Having an adopted child as my source of information, I can unequivocally say- it is GENES!
Even Murray would call this a moronic comment. As he said himself this is not about individual differences, and nothing can be extrapolated from individual differences..
@@periechontology then why bother with this moronic exercise?
Nonsense, nature/nurture is an complex area of the social science's.
One of the greatest black academics of all time Thomas Sowell was adopted. Are you saying his adoption had nothing to do with his profoundly intellectual successs in life? At 7 I could play chess, at 7 Thomas Sowell had just learnt to read his first book. Yet, he has/had an intelllect I could only dream about. It may sound that I'm making your arguement for you but, quite the contrary. Without the opportunities that became open to him through adoption, I sincerely doubt he would have had the same outcome. His ability to communicate and the knowledge obtained would have been profoundly different..
@@vcrossCelticfc sowell would be smart anyway. Probably in a different field, but anyway.
@@AlexandreSk Exactly, the nature part always going to influence his intellect. Its the nurture part that got him to the level of success and success he has today. How difficult would it have been for a black man (or even a poor white man) born 90 years ago in the US to reach that pinnacle of success (unless they were part of the black elite/upper classes)?
He would have additionally learnt things like etiquette, class, proper speech, acquired contacts and a level of academic achievement that probably wouldn't have been open to him otherwise.
There are many 'commoners' who are highly intelligent but, they don't have the ability to converse on the level required to mix with the elite class in academic (and other) circles. He was very much blessed with having acess to both. Even with all that, his personal politics has kept many doors closed to him. He's so exceptionally smart, knowledgeable and well informed he is vehemently disliked by many politicians and the political class in general.
As is the case with Nicolas Wade's impeccable and, in my view, objective research regarding human evolution, Charles Murray's work these past four decades continues to confound an increasingly fragile culture. The 'elites', including the Academy, have forfeited their obligation to intellectual sincerity; under their influence, our institutions are now monuments to a Huxlian world wherein 'truth' is whatever we're told it is, on any particular day. We are blessed to have folk like Murray in our midst. They've persevered in the pursuit of truth and the potential it holds for a better world, at great cost.
Very interesting interview and he clearly is not racist. He places his foundation beyond racism. He looks to genetic areas which as he presents, overlap. He notes the changes that were in our history combined with genetics produced the differences. He does not use race only which would be racism. So much could be discovered and the advancement of education vastly improved but due to the obsessive singular site on racist fanaticism, nothing is allowed to be discussed intellectually and truth suffers.
It also has to do with culture, discipline, home, ambition, will to achieve and excel, circumstances, and environment and probably genetics, health, agood educational system with great teachers etc.
Anyone, regardless of race, gender, or cognative ability, can follow the Ten Commandments, and be a success in life, and benefit to mankind.
So true so true
IF the child is aware of Ten Commandments and raised in that spirit. But not when they learn about gangs and drugs way before Bible and church.
True...and yet not all related to the topic in discussion.
Eugenics
@@jocrntt2376 how
Interesting conversation but people don't address the prenatal care of the mother and child especially in the first trimester when the central nervous system develops. It's an extremely critical time for the child's development. After birth diet, environment etc build on this. Of course genes play a role but getting a good start in the womb is extremely important to the development of the child. So many of the poorer countries do not have good prenatal care let alone the care the child needs once born.
Do Jews give better prenatal care than others?
That's in other countries. Do you have any experiments showing improvements in intelligence within the same (developed) country due to improvements in prenatal care? Even famines don't have a conclusive lasting effect. Not only that, but you'd also need such experiment to show a lot larger improvement in one group, than in the other to explains the existing gap between those groups.
It is very refreshing to hear logic on a scientific basis. It's the elephant in the room. Life experiences can validate very much your point Of scientific fact.
Thoughtfully and analytically identifying the causes is important to finding solutions and mitigating actions.
Anyone arguing against inherent genetic traits... then why aren't there more Jews in the NBA?
How many Jews are tall enough? 😁
Love ya Jews 💙💙💙💙
jew use to dominate basketball 100 years ago.
we openly admit some some breeds of dogs are smarter than others.
And even more importantly we can only acquire those smarter breeds of dogs through selective breeding for those specific traits as desirable for genetic transmission to subsequent generations. Therefore making a strong and compelling argument in favor of positive eugenics.
@@williamshockley7692are you saying we should selectively breed people?
We are not dogs 🐕 carry on
Why wasn’t said anything about family culture and race culture ?
The Caucasien and Asian families put more time, work and financial effort into child’s development and child’s education. This is the truth which is not recognized. Caucasien and Asian kids go home and parents have conversations with them about school, homework, what other kids in class are doing. They have sleep over, birthday parties and observe their children’s friends to know who is influencing them. Black kids go home and are ignored or sent to play ball outside.
Please people, recognize the family values and parents effort and responsibility before passing judgement on children.
As Larry Elder said it so many times, majority of black children grow up with only one parent or a grandma, snd are left to grow as weeds, without proper nourishment. That has to change first !
Life for humans has been cooperative and competitive since the beginning. Over time, disparate biospheres have influenced the genetics and behavioral capacities of separated populations as a natural byproduct of survival. The resulting diversity of cooperative and competive visions between peoples will easily reflect in each's evolution of intelligence and physical prowess. It's so obvious that there are genetic differences between races that were created from a gestation period much longer than any period of mutual existential recognition. Mutations are the norm, however, and this will always temper the comfort of racial assumptions.
I ❤ this discussion! Intelligent in its finest sense!
Andrew asked meaningful questions!
Last year Mississippi students did better than New York students on the SAT‼️🔥💯
I notice Klaven asks a few times whether or not its important to fix the gaps of success between races and to at least figure out what the root cause is. Well I think the point that is not openly being stated here is the "what if it isnt environmental and their is an actual difference in average intelligence between races due to some slight genetic difference, and what if this is the cause of the societal discrepencies in question?" Well I suspect that even if their was undeniable proof of such a difference we all know that many people in positions of power would attempt to bury such findings even if the findings are merely scientific and not racism. So if the cause was based on genetic disposition then it can't be addressed for what it is because they cant even admit that the discrepencys exists. Now if the discrepenecy in performance is instead completely cultural and environmental then the irony is that by todays standards if this point was to be brought up even with 100% proven scientific evidence then the science would still be called racist since it is stating that their is an inherent flaw in the predominant culture and environments created by the cultures that the individuals belonging to these groups belong to when compared to the cultural norms practiced predominantly in White and Asian cultures which means to most SJW lunatics that you are therefore criticising other races and cultures and are claiming some form of superiority. So I believe the point the gentleman is making is that it really doesnt matter what the reason is since the culture socio political climate means the root cause will be seen as racism no matter what the answer is so the performance gaps cannot be addressed until their is a change in the socio political climate allowing for open debate on the subject or at the very least a change to the cultures that cause the discrepancies in the first place.
I think the fact that the gap shrank until the 1970s...and then expanded...very much points to increases in drug usage in the inner cities.
There's a difference between predisposition and determinism. Men are predisposed to trade work while women are not, that doesn't mean that no women, or a large group of women, aren't in the trades. To act as if genetics play no role whatsoever in biology, including the human brain, is wishful thinking. We just need to accept that it can exist, but not let us treat others as if they're inferior or superior. That is racism, knowledge isn't racism. I also don't believe that there is a capacity on human knowledge predetermined by genetics. A black american can be the next Elon Musk with effort, discipline, and an education system worth its salt just like a white, asian, or hispanic kid can be. The difference is how much additional effort it'll take. I for one, would wear that badge with pride if I had to overcome some sort of "scientific dictate" that said I would likely be below average. There's inequalities in all parts of genetics, but the worth of an individual is **not** their genetics, it's their humanity.
If LeBron puts more effort into jumping, he'll be able to reach Mars before Elon!
@@Abrdoks Interesting non sequitur
Living through the Klavanless week by watching these
AT THIS SCHOOL EVERY SCHOOL. EVERY BOARD MEMBER. EVERY TEACHER NEEDS A WHOLE NEW OVERHAUL. NO MORE UNIONS. BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO PASS SONE KIND OF EXAM NOT JUST BUY THEIR WAY IN. TEACHERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO TEACH AT LEAST 5 DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
ALTHOUGH I ALSO BELIEVE DEGREES ARE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY. SOME ARE JUST NATURAL BORN TEACHERS/LEADERS. PARENTS NEED TO PARTICIPATE. NOT JUST SEND KIDS TO SCHOOL AND ASSUME THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT.
MORE CULTURES NEED TO BE TAUGHT. WORLD CULTURES.
Not really because I’m Autistic and I grew up with Special Needs due to a disability from Autism and I have a Graduate Degree.
Autism affects social skills right? Sorry if I'm wrong, intelligence has a lot of components depending how much level in those components someone has the person can be considered intelligence it's incredibly complex
Yes.
Besides the sensible things being talked about on this Klavan interview, I usually determine the intelligence of an individual by what comes out of his/her mouth in conversation. NOT by skin color, gender etc
No... Turns out this guy is literally a fraud. He has no credentials. He has no degree in any hard science.
He's also notoriously disliked among legitimate scientists.
I was looking at various world famous, renowned Scientists falsifying his conclusions and showing why his methodology is totally flawed.
This is actually really, really unprofessional from an ethics and journalism perspective...
American Network News is very bad as it pertains to impartiality.
CZcams News guys are even worse.
Section 10(2)of the Human Rights Act 2004 says that: No-one may be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her free consent. Note: The prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under international law applies at all times and under all circumstances
Some 6 minutes and change in, Klaveasen asks if we shouldn't concentrate on narrowing the gap and he cites some charter school that has done so for their black students. In response to this I say no.
For a start there's no point trying to make the races equal on intelligence. Why not make them equal on height or speed or strength? Ah, but we can't do that you say? Nonsense. We can start nutrition, drug, and training regimes for the less physically strong races. Getting a more nutrient rich diet as children will help raise the average height. Giving performance enhancing drugs combined with training and exercise will make them stronger and faster. Let's narrow the gap.
No? Why not? Preferential treatment? Systemic racism? Of course. Not to mention that the gap is inherent. Meaning all else being equal, there will be a gap. The same is true for intelligence.
Now if he's arguing not for preferential treatment, but rather _equal_ treatment, then that's another matter. If he's saying "hey black people, your culture is shit and it's holding you back, try ours", then I'm on board. If the gap narrows with equal treatment then fine.
Both environment and genetics have a tremendous influence. The Flynn Effect shows environmental influence is huge, but the Michigan Trans-Racial Adoption Study was the nail in the coffin for my belief that race doesn't have a significant effect on IQ.
It's also interesting to look at a world IQ map. Ireland is the most prosperous country in Europe right now (save for a couple of micro-states), and yet their average IQ ranks as low as 92 in some recent studies (compared to the White America 105).
Thumbs up!!!
I believe where there is a will there is a way. For me intelligence is to a large extent behavioral (nurture would be very much effective in the early part of an individual's life) and cultural. A normal individual with the will and interest can exhibit traits of highly intelligent people,even the Asians believe this (Confucianism). No wonder they are highly represented in STEM today.
Working hard and logically following through would do wonders provided there is a will and interest on the part of the individual.
The Arabs and the Greeks used to be a force to reckon with in the past but where are they today in STEM. Everyone has a chance to rise but its left to you and ur strong willed interest/determination.
The origins of the behaviors exhibited by blacks in America has been exposited upon by Thomas Sowell in his writings.
Murray seemed unnecessarily evasive when Klavan kept pressing him on whether or not the gap can be bridged over time
Well, it hasn't happened over all of human history...
Its because it can't. The US has poured a trillion dollars into these gaps for 60 years, tried policies tailormade from the best experts from the best schools and the gaps are still there.
@@KONgFUPANDAXO throwing money at it will never work. It's a cultural issue, not a lack of ability. There are plenty of examples of people coming from those environments and pulling themselves out. One example that comes to mind is Candace Owens, who talks about how her peers would tease her about studying and doing her school work. They'd say things to her like "why are you trying to be white?" If that is the pervasive attitude in the black community then no amount of help will be enough for those who wont help themselves. But I genuinely believe this is all cultural and can be changed.
@@sidraMPatty That’s a tough one to know and answer appropriately.
@@sidraMPatty it definitely needs to be encouraged & not ridiculed as it is. The whole "why you trying to be whyte" 🐂💩 is just another way they'll be left behind constantly. It's gotta be a values thing. And with the way this whole anti-whyte is going it sure doesn't look like it'll change anytime soon. They've got to keep pushing the you are victim, and you'll always be a victim to keep their stranglehold on the majority of black people in America. Boy oh boy would we be in such a better place right now if this had never taken hold. This -your a racist, I'm a racist, wouldn't you like to be a racist too- song has got be put to bed & destroyed if we are ever to have a better America. They sure don't like having anyone escape from this mental plantation do they. Now we've got new "leaders" who are helping with the plantation security. The DeAngelo (think that's the name) guy who is leading the charge, with this level new flavor of racism called anti-racist. Pretty sick $hit if ya ask me. Oh, bit of a rant there, once I get going....
Where has the show been? Is he on a month vacation?
The leftists, of course, always ignore the part of his data that proves Han Chinese are, on average, the most intelligent group in the world. The only thing holding them back historically, in my opinion, is their near universal belief in Karma. Karma, as well as other forms of fatalistic metaphysical philosophy, promotes a highly anti-entrepreneurial state of mind in the common man, which when coupled with feudalism, just takes the culture NOWHERE, no matter how intelligent the people are. However, communism is ALSO highly anti-entrepreneurial as well, albeit by different means, so jumping from one to the other has done the average Han no favors for unlocking his potential on his own personal terms.
If China had converted to Christianity early on, however, i believe they would now either be ruling the entire world under a Holy Chinese empire, or, more likely, would now be several large, Christian majority, independent Ethnic Han-Led republics and kingdoms with the rest of us as minorities within them.
The best intellects need the best culture and the best religion to reach their full potential, and Christian Culture has proven to have promoted more entrepreneurialism than any other.
The Han are predominantly Confucian. It's obedience to authority and tradition that has held them back. They often get stuck and unable to change.
People who blindly do what they're told are idiots, regardless of race or IQ.
Ok, I think I get what he's talking about. So everyone's genes are unique but there are certain markers that can identify you as a member of some ethnic group. These markers can not only give you physical traits indicative of that group but its possible that there's certain cognitive abilities that are traits of that group as well. Am I getting so far? So for example, its commonly believed that Asians excel in academics. I think he's saying its possible that they have certain genes that make learning easier for them or something along those lines. As far as I know we don't fully understand the human genome yet to make that kind of claim. Most people would say that Asians excel because of their culture and that is something we CAN prove.
Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly but it seems hes walking a fine line between science and racism. If he asserts that these traits are embedded into one's DNA and that's why we are the way we are and can't change then I call racist bullshit because no matter what set of cards you were dealt its what you do with them that counts. We have plenty of living examples as proof.
I guess I need to watch the rest of the interview to find out.
Is it racism if it's true?
Genes determine both behaviour and capabilities to a large degree.
Don't put much stock into anything that Murray says. He's Universally despised by The Scientific Community. He's quite literally a propagandist masquerading as someone who appreciates Truth and Empiricism.
As someone with tremendous appreciation for The Scientific Method, I won't mince words. He's a National Embarrassment.
Moving on.
I don't know much about Geneology.
Genetic Markers don't dictate the nature of any trait, they're used as a means of identification. Every marker represents one very specific DNA sequence that occupies the same location on each chromosome.
So... As you know, historically, we have always used phenotypic traits (purely Superficial, physical traits) as our sole metric for determining how we classify humans according to the fallacious concept of 'race'.
If we were to use an objective, non arbitrary genetic phenomenon like the aforementioned Genetic Markers as our metric for categorization, that technically would be sufficient... BUT, because genes are constantly mutating, we've identified well over 60, 000 unique genetic markers. I don't know about you, but the proposition of having a perennially increasing amount of 'races' which ALREADY totals at over 60, 000 is... a bit much.
In reference to intelligence, I will say matter of factly that Charles Murray has contributed nothing... Literally nothing to our collective understanding of the concept of intelligence or any other Scientific Hypothesis, or Substantiated Theory.
He states that Genetics 'play a role' in determining your intelligence as well as subjective experience. No one would dispute that. There was already a Universal Consensus as it pertains to that quite obvious assertion.
The problem with subjective experience is the fact that they're all inherently ambigious. I can hear a description of you recount an anecdotal experience, but one thing I cannot do is view said experience through the lens of YOUR mind. Philosophically speaking problems like this are often referred to as relating to 'The Egocentric Predicament'.
Science as a Method works exceptionally well, but there's certain criteria that must be met to ensure accuracy. The phenomenon and hypothesis in question must be Observable. Well, when it comes to other people's experiences, you can throw that criteria of the window.
So...
Suffice to say, we're just scratching the surface of our academic understanding of what 'intelligence is'. We can postulate various phenomenon that almost certainly plays a role in determining said 'intelligence'. Have we developed any sort of methodology that takes into account the aforementioned factors and grants us the ability to predict IQ with any degree of accuracy? Hell No! Not even close.
I appreciate the fact that you take interest in Science. That's fantastic.
Ignore everything that Charles Murray says. He has zero credentials. He's a 'Political Scientist' which is not construed as a legitimate Science unlike Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Neuroscience, Astro Physics, st al.
He's a Propagandist who uses completely erroneous data to convince the uneducated that there is Empirical Credibility to his thesis', all of which are completely sociopolitical in nature. And yes, he is a bigot.
My primary grievance is how he so brazenly masquerades as a Person interested in Scientific Substantiation, and Empirical Truth when nothing can be further from the truth.
Don't hesitate to read some of the scathing critiques from LEGITIMATE, RENOWNED Scientists like the legendary Lawrence Kraus who considers him to be an absolute National Embarrassment.
Is it 'racist' if 'it's' True.
You're going to have to be more specific in reference to the 'subject' 'it'.
In predictable fashion, Murray has completely eschewed The Scientific Method and Rational Skepticism in favour of using completely erroneous data from Non Scientific Observational Studies that he took no part in.
There's a reason why all Scientists despise thus guy.
You asked is it 'Racist' if 'It' is True?
My response is 'If it was arrived at through completely fallacious means, we need not bestow attention upon 'it'.
Is it 'racist'?
Never mind that.
Ask yourself, is it 'Scientific'?
The answer is a giant, resounding 'No'.
He's an infamous Propagandist that dishonestly presents collections of erroneous Context-Free bits of data in an attempt to manifest his own sociopolitical intetests.
There's a reason why he's loathed by all Scientists.
Moreover, I'm also concerned about the societal implications.
This book will no doubt be a huge hit among White Supremacist Degenerates. He even made that consession in the interview.
Just like his previous piece of Fallacious Drivel, this book will be scrutinized by the top minds in Academia and Science will expose just how fallacious and dishonest his dialectic is and all the logical issues contained in his latest piece of exploitative drivel.
This has the capacity to ruin The Republican Party. That's assuming the book sells a fair bit. If it's a flop, then ignore it and go on with your life.
If the book sells well, his fallacious and quintessentially unscientific methodology will be torn to shreds by all the leading names in Science. That, I assure you.
I understand that the IQ is inherited primarly from the mother. The male kids can have a higher spread (+/-), a natural evolution spread, from the mother's IQ. While girls are much closer to their mothers IQ. If there were very intelligent mothers in the mothers line, this can also surface again in the kids genes.
So intelligent fathers can never get intelligent children if the mother is average?
Don't worry. The new gender(s) inventing society is taking care of that too. So now you can have 2 intelligent fathers & the kid will be brilliant. You know, because men can have babies, menstrual cycles, & breastfeed. Once again the oh-so-sensitive "progressives" have saved the world. Hoorraayy!
I didn't get mine from either of my parents apparently but my mom's mother and grandmother were extremely intelligent. So part might be hereditary, some due to spending a lot of my formative years around mostly adults and also because my grandma and greatgrandparents took the time to teach me. I credit them with being able to read and write by the age of 3.
@@toodlescae With perfect nutrition and great teachers... you can't improve your IQ more than a few points (compared to a pretty average upbringing). You are born with your IQ, you get it primarly from your mother/mothers line.
@@diamondmeepleany studies to substantiate this finding ?
I'm curious to know what these mean differences would mean in a real-world context? Is a 90iq person far more forgetful than a 100iq person? Do they have to take notes to remember things? I believe in that case a personality that strived for personal accountability and responsibility would largely render those defects negligible. Charles Murray discusses this concept in abstract language which really doesn't help to gauge the extent of what he's saying.
He's discussing in abstract because until people actually grapple with the reality, "how do we deal with it?" is a distraction.
@@johnsanford3596 I apologize if my comment was unclear. What I meant to say is I'm unsure how impactful these differences are in the real world. For example what do the 10iq points from 90 to 100 actually mean? What happens to a human being within those 10 points, how specifically are they changed? My point wasn't asking what we should do about it but that (to the best of my knowledge) he doesn't tell us and I'd like to know thats all.
@@mazharali3247 exactly
What about the differences between men and women?
Murray covers some of those in the Human Diversity.
Dear Charles Murray its not about "race"\"genes" its about environment.
Environment is the result of qi b
What I have is but now,
As I watch it roll away.
Inside the second in the minute
is all I can do with now, today.
Every other thread outside
My care, braided and kept.
Those pasts, embarrassing,
And concerning future is left.
This second is blazing within,
God's every suggestion to action.
No part of holy brings death.
God's work, pure addition or subtraction.
Using many failures of mine,
Failures and causes of others
Entered my minutes, affected,
Suppression, control, smother.
Activity reflective of mind tortured
By thought streams under- teaching,
That scolding voice or gentle song,
Whichever stream my heart has to eat.
When I pick up the load, saying to
God, "I can do it all!" Smuggly,
And our back springs pop out,
Our friend soothes so lovely.
And not tortured, but beside Him,
Feeling His sunshine within.
Sweet music and breezes blow
Through a renewed hall, sweet wind.
Alone, a wretch, dragging to and fro
Lost, missing one shoe.
But beside this friend, belonging
now, His gift, present and new.
~ kk
Both play a factor
Ignorance examined: One has to be "Smart" to achieve Ignorance...
Huh? Yeah: If Information is available and the person chooses to avoid looking it up or knows about it and goes their own way then:
"Ignore" ance.
Cuz morals trump IQ anyway... are morals genetic?
Are these differences inherent?
It’s both
Though honestly accepting innate racial difference in intelligence really made me realize why systemic racism is so wrong. Why? Well, because the innately smartest people on Earth are probably the Ashkenazi Jews. Yet who fights hardest against the idea certain races are smarter and thus have the right to dominate others? Probably that same group. So an intelligence based racial supremacy is a self-defeating ideology, because if you put faith in the race with the most IQ points, you put the most faith in the people who tell you to do the opposite. It's a paradox that makes the ideology fold on itself.
Short answer: Yes. Yes, race does affect intelligence which is why Africa is Africa and Europe is Europe
Le fin.
But then why is Ireland the most prosperous country in Europe? Studies show their average IQ is as low as 92.
@@Dennis-nc3vwIrelands tax rules for corporations is the reason.Prosperity is calculated as country GDP (Gross Domestic Product) devided by the population.
Look where some of the largest global corporations are headquartered.
These hundreds of billions count to Irelands GDP and screw the prosperity index.
The answer is obviously a mix of both. If you were baking a cake you wouldn't say "how much of the cake is the ingredients I'm putting in and how much is the baking?" Different stimuli will have a different effect on different genes. Nobody's inherently doomed to be dumb, and nobody's guaranteed to be smart.
A seed for a shrub will never grow into an oak tree, regardless of how much fertilizer and water you apply.
@@marktrain9498 True, but you can grow a nice, big green shrub all the same.
Andrew you went out of your way to not engage with this guest's premise. You kept focusing on the cause of such a difference and the guest just wanted you to acknowledge the existence of differences in populations. It sounded to me like you were afraid to take a stance on the existence or non existence of mean differences in populations and so shifted the focus of the conversation to what your guest thought were potential causes of the difference in means. At which point you rebutted his premises for the causes of the difference without ever tackling the primary issue of does the difference actually exist. In summary, you were a bad host on this one.
I think instead of 'premise', you mean 'proposition'.
The only substantiating premise he provided were references to Observational (Non Scientific) studies that he was not remotely involved in.
Now... Since his hypothesis deals primarily with Genetics, one would rationally surmise that he obtained loads of data providing complex insight into the genomes of all participants.
Well, if you thought that, you would be wrong.
He never received any genetic data from any of the participants in these observational studies.
Furthermore, all 'racial groupings' in the myriad observational studies that he played no role in were decided exclusively by virtue of phenotype, which obviously is not even close to qualifying as an objective metric.
You'd think a guy ALLEGEDLY interested in Genetics would demand an objective means of categorization. For instance one that uses some genetic phenomenon.
If that does not convince you that Murray has zero interest in The Scientific Method and Empiricism, I don't know what to tell you.
He has one clear agenda, and that is to convince swaths of uneducated and uncritical people that his hypothesis (which really is incomplete) is completely axiomatic and credible... Just don't ask him for any data... Because he doesn't have any.
My friend.
This guy is universally despised by the Scientific Community.
He is an abject embarrassment to anyone with a passion and appreciation for The Scientific Method.
I will always be vigilant in exposing the truth about this fraudster, and propogandist.
@@YoungMommy14 okay.
@@YoungMommy14 No I did not mean proposition. Here take a gander at this definition of premise: A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
You are a complete pseudo-intellectual fraud. I just checked your channel out. Wow. Your whole CZcams channel is you filming yourself as if you are some enlightened philosopher. You reference studies with no evidence of their existence, draw false conclusions and generally denigrate anyone who doesn't share your views.
You are not clever. The "intellectual divide" which you refer to in your most recent video, even if it is real, certainly doesn't put you at the end of the curve that you imagine.
@@simont939 well, in all fairness I never made reference to myself.
Either way, I appreciate the feedback.
Thanks for watchin', dude.
Have a good one.
@@YoungMommy14 Fair enough
Delving into Molyneux territory here. Don't get deplatformed
This video won't be up longer than tomorrow, when Ben sees it. He flat-out LIES about race & IQ. It's where his professed allegiance to Truth ends.
@@belascialoja4812 give an example of when he's lied about this
@@corvoattano9303 - No matter where Ben is speaking (on his show, or at YAF talks, at universities) he attributes the lower incomes, the lower SAT scores, lower scholastic grades -- among Blacks -- to "culture." It's _always_ "culture" (and NOT genetics, which is the lie, as it *is* mostly genetics!) This saddens me, as I otherwise admire Ben.
Listen to Sam Harris' podcast where Sam talks to Charles Murray. Ben Shapiro will *not* have Murray on his own Sunday Special. Will not.
@Owen Bailey-Waltz How is it rude? How is it wrong?
@@belascialoja4812 No you are going beyond the evidence. We have evidence for a gap. That's the extent of the evidence. The question then is, what part of this gap is genetic and what is environmental. To claim with certainty that it's mainly genetic or it's mainly environmental are both wrong.
Murray tends to be on the genetic side of things but he himself will admit that that's speculation.
I, for one, have tired of living with the lie that all people are equal.
And that's why i think that "one man one vote" is the biggest theft of all times
It would be a terribly boring world if we were all the same. Some are great artists and others are amazing scientists but most are just a unique blend of this or that which makes getting to know someone always a different experience. Even within a race we can see a diversity of abilities. I need to find the full interview because I just dont see how this guy can write a whole book on this without being racist.
@@mig0000001 So who would be the authority on how many votes one gets? You? Surely not. You wouldn't consider yourself worthy of that role. So who? The mythical unbiased person who is incorruptible and can live forever or do you believe that such people are ever present and recognizable? It's foolish. While cognitive ability may be influenced by genetics, that does not mean that someone with less mental ability is worth less than the smartest genius. That may sound entirely backwards - and it is, if you believe that people are soley material. I, however, believe that there is inherent value in everyone that is more close to equal than not and thus they have the inherent right to dictate their own course in life as much as they are capable. Those who are mentally shattered cannot determine this for themselves, but falling short of that benchmark means that each should have their say and no say should be louder than the other. I have no want for an aristocracy, an intellectual oligarchy, or any of the fancies of the left.
@@mig0000001 the Democrats would surely agree with you on that one…..
Genetics change over time.
Well yes the question is can the black IQ scores go up, or will the white scores go down so there isn't a gap anymore. The only way you could influence that is by controlled breading but by that logic the simplest way to raise the average is to kill everyone below it and I don't think that's a good idea. IQ is a made up metric it's as predictive as psychologists and other pseudo scientists would like you to think. They can tell you if someone is extremely mentally challenged and because people with mental disabilities have lower income you have some minimal correlations. When was the last time someone gave you an IQ test in a job interview, it doesn't happened because it's not a good test.
Through random genetic drift and merciless weeding by Mother Nature. That's not happening any more.
@@marktrain9498 Even Stefan Moloneux has noted that the proper health, for example, can help lead to taller future children, and grandchildren etc, if the pattern is maintained.
Genetics can be MADE to change over time by altering patterns of living and behavior through the generations.
@@Hard_Boiled_Entertainment Stefan Molyneux is an idiot, then. Lamarck was thoroughly disproved by Darwin, which is why you've never heard of Lamarck.
@@FilipCordas Funny that you mention it, because it's the best predictor of job performance. And, of course, the correlations (albeit low) are not limited to the lower tail of the distribution. There are some legal risks attached to giving such tests in the US, but they are still used by the military, police (to weed out the smart ones, no kidding) and large companies, like the Microsoft. You'd know it yourself if you've bothered to read at least the Wikipedia article on the subject.
It seems altogether obvious that populations can actively work to increase the average intelligence of their group both by better educational systems and by genetic selectivity. That is the real unspoken problem in this entire conversation. Basically, white Europeans are being barred from actively working to improve themselves genetically as a community. Intelligent upper class blacks automatically get selected over equally intelligent lower class whites, Asians from large populations which have statistically higher probabilities to have larger numbers of intelligent members are imported rather than going to the expense of working to improve our native white population. This all puts a precipitous downward genetic pressure on the white population.
In regards to hiring Asians from abroad leading to decline in white IQ, that is probably true. But it's not immoral. A private company hires based on merit. It has no interest in preserving a particular race. That's what Murray himself said in the beginning. He said bell curves are OVERLAPPING. Meaning if I'm a company hiring software engineers, I'll skim the cream of the crop and that will inherently include more Asians.
@@corvoattano9303 Yes, but then democracies exist for a reason, and that reason is for the protection of those who are responsible for the existence of the political institutions which ultimate serve the social concerns and needs of that population. Corporations are not above that, or at least they should not be. Capitalism is one thing, corporatism is something else entirely. In my view, the fall of western civilization began when we went from mercantile (nationalist) economies to free market (corporatist) globalist economies. We became a society in which nothing was more sacred than the corporate bottom line. We sacrificed every other basic principle of our culture for being able to purchase ever more stuff.
@@stanleyshannon4408 Your definition of mercantilism is correct but you're incorrect about calling this corporatism. This is not corporatism, it's plain old free market capitalism. Where companies hire the best talent, from wherever they can get it.
On the broader point of mercantilism vs capitalism, I have to say I agree more with Shapiro than I do with Knowles. It is extremely hypocritical to poo poo capitalism while reaping the benefits of it. All the prosperity that we see today, like the Japanese cars that we drive wouldn't have been possible if Ford had a government sanctioned monopoly against foreign made cars. Trade deficits don't help a country, they hurt it.
@@corvoattano9303 No, 'free market capitalism' is essentially turning the world over to control by corporations which is corporatism. The mercantile notion of protecting national markets, thus protecting national populations and the institutions those populations had created for themselves, was a far better social model.
Yes, we have more stuff now. But we have less of everything else. The price we have paid cannot be measured in a spread sheet. And we have yet to fully feel the impact of the inevitable economic price we are going to have to ultimately pay. But here's a clue - all those cute Asian software engineers are not your friends. I know because I work with them (most of them are not actually all that bright either. I no longer believe the myth of high IQ Asians - I think they are rigging their results).
@@stanleyshannon4408 The definition of corporatism is when a business colludes with the government to gain an unfair advantage over their competitor(s). You are assuming this influx of labor import is a bug (namely corporatism) of capitalism. I'm saying it's a feature. It's how it is *supposed* to function. Now, you or I may not like this part of capitalism, but we should still call a spade a spade.
As for the part of us being materialistically better off but spiritually worse off, this is a very big misconception. Economic productivity isn't just shallow things like having a big TV or the latest iPhone, it actually saves lives and quality of life. This may sound absurd to those who don't know economics but let me explain with a simple example. Money is gained by exchanging your labor and time. Your labor and your time make up your life. Remember when the BLM rioters were destroying people's businesses and saying "oh it's just property". Property is gained through exchanging your time and your effort for it.
And finally on the point of Asians not being higher IQ, that's not what Murray's data suggests. Your personal experience is an anecdote.
A group mean doesn't say anything about an individual. Also, environment plays a role. You find very few programmers among the Amish.
The Amish don't demand trillions of dollars in welfare claiming they're discriminated against.
Why doesn't Murray ever talk about South Asians consideration they are 25% of the world's population? He only talks about race in regards to their percentage in the U.S population. South Asians don't comprise a significant percentage of the U.S population so he doesn't mention them, also they are much more cognitively diverse making it more difficult to lump into one category.
He doesn't talk about Australian Aborigines, either. Not really relevant for this society.
Dude/Andrew - Checkmate
Lets work on improving the employabillity of underemployed people. Some people with low to medium intelligence can do very well in this country if they have a work ethic. The left in my opinion is always wanting to cut corners. Lets put people at the front of the line just because. What I believe needs to be done through parenting and schooling is setting peoples sights for succeeding. Many young people are not parented the best and get discouraged and kind of give up on themselves. Especially when they are in a pier group that is self distructive. Most kids will have hurdles in their education that they will need help getting over. When parents or others in the community help them, it leads to their success.
I don't know the stats on IQ being inherited or just happening but i am aware of many examples of parents that are considered average and will have one or more very high IQ kids. I also believe from evidence IQ can be raised to a degree by working with kids.
The problem is, those intelligence gains in children decay after puberty. Maybe there are lasting positive effects on other things, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
@@Abrdoks It's because IQ is age-adjusted. You can give a small child a head start in development through lots of intellectual stimulation, but their final IQ ceiling remains largely unchanged. By the time they're adults other children will have caught up or surpassed them in IQ.
That's why the US "head start" program is a mirage.
You would first have to qualify race scientifically 🤦🏾♀️I'm still waiting 🤷🏾♀️
Over my head.
Algorithm boost
If your mom is a crack head or drug addict or alcoholic during the entire pregnancy does that change the genes and cognitive ability of said baby? Yes it does. Can people overcome these said issues once born, possibly. If the education system doesn’t improve then the black community will continue to be poor and come from poorer communities. We need to improve the educational system for all.
Sorry I just don't see racial IQ as an important thing. People's choices create their outcomes. Smarter people regularly subjugate themselves to dumber people, this arguably is the more common occurrence.
Poor people aren't predetermined to be higher crime we can study poor communities and see this well demonstrated. Some poor but culturally healthy communities live well because they are morally based.
I see he can observe trends but correlation isn't causation. And as a matter of policy they don't and shouldn't matter
We can also call BS on Andrew's doubt about Murray's theories. There is no doubt that Klavan is quite proud of his own intellect and no doubt that he believes there are ethnically based genetic factors behind it.
Klavan knows his striving for a vast education and worldly experience has enhanced his amazing intellect. If Klavan has been a couch potato he would haven’t succeeded❤️
@@debralawlor9716 But then someone from a high IQ population would probably already know that.
The left? I’m gone.
Its all about culture
Race
@gustavo042 if it's about race then explain why some white guys act black and are influenced by rap and act just as ignorant. And most successful black people unless a rapper have to drop the ghetto act?
These days, apparently neither...
Lol, nope. As soon as I saw "the daily wire" I knew this was going to be toilet paper
two bald white guys is not great optics for media matters, but interesting perspectives nonetheless
Was sorta joking
He does this thing that is really misleading. He compares poor blacks to well of whites... It's not a fair comparison for any conclusion or whatever. Changing to many variables to make his conclusion work.
Got siblings? Methinks it is multifaceted...genetics play a minimal role. Same among animals.
you know we admit that some dog breeds are smarter than others? some dogs are easily trained, other breeds are stubborn as a bag of rocks.