What if Charles Murray Is Right?

June 07, 2017

Multiple Pages
What if Charles Murray Is Right?

The extraordinary decline in the cost of sequencing a whole human genome, from $10 million in 2008 to $1,400 by late 2015, means that in the coming years science will almost certainly be able to answer the Charles Murray question: Are some of the gaps in average IQ among the races at least partly genetic?

It’s past time for public intellectuals to seriously ponder the implications of either answer: yes or no.

Last week, I discussed what it would suggest for public policy if Murray turned out to be wrong. This week, I want to consider what is likely to happen if Murray turns out to be right.

Behavioral genetics is a science that is speeding up. Two weeks ago, The New York Times headlined:

In ‘Enormous Success,’ Scientists Tie 52 Genes to Human Intelligence

And this week we’ve seen a new study, “Detecting polygenic adaptation in admixture graphs,” that reports:

We also provide evidence that variants associated with several traits, including height, educational attainment, and self-reported unibrow, have been influenced by polygenic adaptation in different human populations.

Also this week, James Thompson summarized Davide Piffer’s (so far not peer-reviewed) analysis of racial differences in IQ and genes here.

“It is widely assumed that for Murray to be proved right would be cataclysmic to all that is right and holy, such as the reputations of his critics.”

And even if Westerners are someday prevented from further investigating this topic by the ongoing growth of science denialism, the Chinese are likely to be less squeamish. For example, here’s a photo from Steve Hsu of the spectacular China National Gene Bank, now under construction in Shenzhen.

It is widely assumed that for Murray to be proved right would be cataclysmic to all that is right and holy, such as the reputations of his critics.

But what about broader harms?

You often hear that Murray couldn’t be right because the Declaration of Independence asserts “that all men are created equal.” And how else can you interpret that except as a scientific hypothesis about genetics?

Thus if Murray is right, America has to go back to the British Empire. Or something.

But more acute observers have long pointed out that empirical equality is not what was meant by Jefferson (who, after all, was almost a foot taller than Madison). G.K. Chesterton observed in 1922:

The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.

The late Stanford computer scientist John McCarthy, who more or less invented artificial intelligence back in the 1950s, told me that if he were tasked with debugging the Declaration of Independence (which, let us recall, Jefferson presumably wrote in an all-nighter), he would insert “in” after “equal”:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [in] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Abraham Lincoln said much the same thing as McCarthy in his 1857 response to the disastrous Dred Scott decision:

I think the authors of that notable instrument…did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In other words, the Declaration is intended as a lawyer’s statement of rights, not as that oxymoronic thing: a scientific dogma.

Everybody who is anybody has an opinion on what the final answer to the Charles Murray question would mean, but there has been remarkably little research on this supposedly pressing topic.

For example, how many Americans actually know that there exists a gap right now? The last survey I could find on this question stemmed from sixteen years ago. A 2001 Gallup/Phi Beta Kappa poll asked:

Just your impression, is the academic achievement of white students nationally higher, lower, or about the same as that of black and Hispanic students?

Back in 2001, only 48% of respondents gave the factually correct answer: higher.

Are Americans still that out of touch with reality today? Nobody knows.

It is widely assumed by high-IQ whites that a scientific finding of a genetic contribution to the racial gaps in IQ would be catastrophically shattering to black self-esteem.

First, one thing to keep in mind is that there are about 7 million African-Americans with higher IQs than the average white American.

Second, back in the late 20th century, low self-esteem was seen as the magic bullet that explained all social ills. A couple of recent articles (one in New York magazine, one in The Guardian) have looked back on how the self-esteem craze was launched almost single-handedly by a California Democratic state legislator named John Vasconcelos.

Raising self-esteem as the panacea for all social problems was popular in part because it seemed to explain poor black performance: They simply lacked self-esteem.

But eventually it started to dawn upon researchers that low self-esteem could hardly explain black troubles, as seen in this headline in The Guardian in 2000:

Black teens score high in self-esteem: US study confounds anti-racism activists

In general, blacks seem to be pretty pleased with themselves for reasons that they find highly persuasive. Would this really change?

Since the 1990s, whites have fallen in love with an extension of self-esteem theory called “stereotype threat”: Researchers can sometimes induce blacks to score worse on meaningless, low-stakes tests than they had previously scored on high-stakes tests (such as the SAT) by telling them that they are expected to do badly on this pointless test.

However, stereotype threat doesn’t replicate well. U. of Chicago economist John List said a half decade ago:

I think what has happened is, a few people found this result early on and now there’s publication bias. But when you talk behind the scenes to people in the profession, they have a hard time finding it. So what do they do in that case? A lot of people just shelve that experiment; they say it must be wrong because there are 10 papers in the literature that find it. Well, if there have been 200 studies that try to find it, 10 should find it, right?

My guess for why some researchers get the desired stereotype-threat results and others don’t is that the experiments are carried out using meaningless tests. (No institutional review board would allow researchers to try to induce poorer performance on a high-stakes test like the LSAT.) Some researchers succeed in signaling to the appropriate test-takers through body language, intonation, or whatever that there is no reason for them to try hard on this unimportant test, while others don’t.

The evidence from sports suggests that the world would adjust to awareness of genetic differences in racial average IQs with equanimity.

The idea that the races differ hereditarily in sports talents is no longer terribly controversial. Indeed, outgoing President Obama, having bought the human-biodiversity-woke book The Sports Gene by David Epstein as a Christmas present to himself, frequently lectured puzzled interlocutors about the importance of genetic diversity in sports.

(Of course, it very much helps Americans grasp that the increasing evidence for the existence of human genetic diversity impacting sports is not some apocalyptic event that there are popular sports that blacks tend to be better at.)

Over the past couple of generations, American whites have largely been squeezed out of much of a playing role in the NBA, causing some fans to lose interest. But the NBA remains a lucrative enterprise, with Steve Ballmer paying $2 billion to buy the star-crossed Los Angeles Clippers franchise from the besieged Donald Sterling in 2014.

Conversely, African-Americans have largely lost interest in baseball, a game in which distinctive black genetics are less advantageous than in basketball or football. But baseball is thriving, with last fall’s World Series the most watched and talked-about in years.

Likewise, whites are slowly abandoning basketball and football, with tall white guys focusing on making it as big-league pitchers. For example, the U. of Kentucky is a traditional basketball power, but this year UK’s SEC Pitcher of the Year is 6-foot-11-inch Sean Hjelle from White Bear Lake, Minn.

Similarly, strong white guys like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper, and Kris Bryant, all in the 230+ pound range that formerly would have concentrated on playing linebacker in football, are working on hitting homers.

In other words, the world hasn’t ended. Life goes on. People adjust.

So, if Charles Murray turning out to be right wouldn’t be the catastrophe that is widely assumed, might it help the commonweal?

If we applied the realism that we bring to sports to matters of public policy, such as education, we’d likely make more progress than we’ve been achieving over the past few decades, when most of the effort has been devoted to futile gap-closing efforts.

For example, instead of schools trying to boost black cognitive performance by one standard deviation while keeping whites from getting better, why not focus on improving all groups by a half standard deviation each? That seems fairer and far more feasible due to the phenomenon of diminishing marginal returns.

But instead, this simple goal never occurs to anybody.

Overall, the day after Murray were proved right would look just like the day before, because if Murray is right, then he is merely describing the world as it is.

After all, the reason college students try to beat up Murray is because they fear he is right.

Daily updates with TM’s latest


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.