Reddit reviews Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (Praeger Studies of Foreign Policies of the Great Powers)
We found 4 Reddit comments about Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (Praeger Studies of Foreign Policies of the Great Powers). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I don't understand how anyone can defend Charles Murray.
https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6yj3sp/how_is_it_that_harris_finds_charles_murrays_case/?
>
>
> [Cross-posted from an old thread where I just wrote most of this, but that's buried, so moved here]
>
> Sam Harris recently re-tweeted Charles Murray's lamentation:
>
> "This is sad: I will be unable to walk across Harvard Yard tomorrow, on paths I have walked thousands of times. Need a police escort."
>
> While I understand that the Sam Harris community leans more towards the "free speech good (no stipulations)" principle (I'll only say here that free speech is philosophically and politically more complex than this - that's another conversation), I fail to see how the "even-handed approach" to Charles Murray exhibited in Sam's interview can claim to be such when it ignores the funding behind "The Bell Curve". It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the controversy, and dismiss it out of hand - even more questionable when the source, Harris, claims to possess a level of rational detachment and objective standpoint.
>
> Let's bracket the science for a moment, and in the spirit of entertaining the idea that social factors effect or at the very least interact with science through the troublesome biases or worldviews of the scientists themselves (ala Kuhn, Feyerabend etc), take a look at just how influential Murray's association with the Pioneer Fund is. We might admit in other discussions that funding issues can create conflicts of interest, or that it would not be, for instance, absurd to question the validity of a cancer study funded by the tobacco industry. I'm not suggesting the science itself be ignored, but it confuses me how it can be delved into without first dealing with the inherent biases derived from funding. Why would the Pioneer Fund be interested in funding Murray's research? Is it benign? Could its agenda affect the results? Does Murray admit to any of this and offer an alternative?
>
> The Pioneer Fund funded most of the research in the book - that is not contested, and it is a foundation for the study of eugenics. William H. Tucker has been one of the proponents of the claim that the fund had eugenics in mind.
>
> Murray himself only offered this defense: "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists."
>
> I take Murray here to be wholly ignoring the question of undue influence, or shared worldview, but more importantly, he is denying the very nature of the Pioneer Fund (it looks now to be defunct as an organization, as its website no longer exists).
>
> Yet, Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of Mankind Quarterly is one of the fund's current [Clarification, this information is relevant as of 2011-2012]three directors. Quote: 'It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]'
>
> The second is Richard Lynn, who has also been accused of being a modern eugenicist, and is also the assistant editor of Mankind Quarterly. He even wrote a book called Eugenics: A Reassessment.
>
> From his Amazon blurb: "Lynn argues that the condemnation of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century went too far and offers a reassessment. The eugenic objectives of eliminating genetic diseases, increasing intelligence, and reducing personality disorders he argues, remain desirable and are achievable by human biotechnology."
>
> See a video here, and the sort of comments it inspires:
>
> "This is a very good argument that the "carrier welfare herd" needs to be culled. This also helps show why Negroes breed like rabbits."
>
> "this is answered in darwinism terms by stating that high birth rates equal low survival rates, today can be viewed as high crime rates."
>
> "RICHARD LYNN, YOU ARE A HERO TO MANY. YOU DARE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH DESPITE THE CONTROVERSY IT GENERATES. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE LOW IQs AND WHITE PEOPLE HAVE HIGH IQs. THAT IS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT NEEDS TO BE TOLD REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE TOLD THAT TRUTH CONSISTENTLY AND FOR THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONGRATULATED."
>
> The third is Edward M. Miller: 'Although his training is in economics, Miller has not hesitated to dabble in race-based IQ studies and eugenics. A prize-winning newspaper story last year concluded that blacks, in Miller's view, are "small-headed, over-equipped in genitalia, oversexed, hyper-violent and, most of all, unintelligent."
>
> Speaking of eugenics, the 19th century "science" of improving the human race through selective breeding, in "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run," Miller concluded: "Efforts to maximize a nation's standard of living should try to improve its citizens' genetic quality, especially with regard to intelligence and other economically important traits."'
Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior & Intelligence) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0275958221/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_N2VUDbXFN5TB3
While I understand that the Sam Harris community leans more towards the "free speech good (no stipulations)" principle (I'll only say here that free speech is philosophically and politically more complex than this), I fail to see how this even-handed approach to Charles Murray can claim to be such when it ignores the funding behind "The Bell Curve".
The Pioneer Fund funded most of the research in the book - that is not contested, and it is a foundation for the study of eugenics.
Murray himself only offered this defense: "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists."
Yet, Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of Mankind Quarterly is one of the fund's current three directors. Quote: 'It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]'
The second is Richard Lynn, who has also been accused of being a modern eugenicist, and is also the assistant editor of Mankind Quarterly. He even wrote a book called Eugenics: A Reassessment.
From his Amazon blurb: "Lynn argues that the condemnation of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century went too far and offers a reassessment. The eugenic objectives of eliminating genetic diseases, increasing intelligence, and reducing personality disorders he argues, remain desirable and are achievable by human biotechnology."
See a video here, and the sort of comments it inspires:
"This is a very good argument that the "carrier welfare herd" needs to be culled. This also helps show why Negroes breed like rabbits."
"this is answered in darwinism terms by stating that high birth rates equal low survival rates, today can be viewed as high crime rates."
"RICHARD LYNN, YOU ARE A HERO TO MANY. YOU DARE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH DESPITE THE CONTROVERSY IT GENERATES. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE LOW IQs AND WHITE PEOPLE HAVE HIGH IQs. THAT IS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT NEEDS TO BE TOLD REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE TOLD THAT TRUTH CONSISTENTLY AND FOR THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONGRATULATED."
The third is Edward M. Miller: 'Although his training is in economics, Miller has not hesitated to dabble in race-based IQ studies and eugenics. A prize-winning newspaper story last year concluded that blacks, in Miller's view, are "small-headed, over-equipped in genitalia, oversexed, hyper-violent and, most of all, unintelligent."
Speaking of eugenics, the 19th century "science" of improving the human race through selective breeding, in "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run," Miller concluded: "Efforts to maximize a nation's standard of living should try to improve its citizens' genetic quality, especially with regard to intelligence and other economically important traits."'
You seem to mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus
You should read (a lot) more about the topics before trying to write a book. Some pointers: