(Looking ahead, in the section on polygenic scores he sets up a “Turkheimer-Plomin” debate, and while conceding that in the middle rounds I am ahead on points, declares me the loser anyway, based on scientific advances that he is sure are going to occur in the next decade. One that happens to pertain to me is that my ideas and research figure in the narrative, and Murray treats my work with respect even as he disagrees with it, which I acknowledge and appreciate. Think there are several reasons to avoid outrage in responses to the book. The first one was posted today and it's very good. Meanwhile Eric Turkheimer, whose work is cited in Murray's book, says he plans to do a series of blog posts on his responses to Murray's book. Or that they repeatedly cited Mankind Quarterly, which Charles Lane, writing in The New York Review of Books, described as “a notorious journal of ‘racial history’ founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race.” The real problem was that people were pointing out that Murray’s work was based on shoddy evidence and racist journals and thus should not be taken seriously. Or, for that matter, that Murray’s findings have been thoroughly debunked. Never mind that Murray isn’t a geneticist or biologist.

The substance of Murray’s work was immaterial-what really mattered is that he was being silenced for pursuing “scientific” inquiry. “IQ is not one of my concerns and racial differences in IQ is absolutely not one of my concerns, but a person having his reputation destroyed for honestly discussing data-that deeply concerns me.” It was a clever rhetorical trick, one frequently employed by those defending the allegedly canceled. “When I did read and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime,” Harris said. The co-author of 1994’s controversial The Bell Curve, which contained a chapter arguing that genetics caused blacks to have lower IQs than whites, was really a victim of political correctness, Harris said. Two years ago, the atheist Sam Harris told Ezra Klein that Charles Murray was cancel culture’s patient zero. He begins by referencing the Sam Harris - Ezra Klein debate which I have previously discussed: 'I'll be shocked if there's another book this year as important as Charles Murray's Coming Apart.'- p.The New Republic's Alex Shepherd has a response to the publication of Charles Murray's just-published book: Charles Murray Is Never Going Away - The author of 'The Bell Curve' has a new book about race and genetics-because of course he does.

Murray human diversity