Here we go. Will be threading my thoughts/providing screenshots here in the coming weeks.

Off to a great start.

"People just kowtow the line so they don't become shunned pariahs speaking the truth (TM) about how biology accounts for gender, race and class differences."

Yes - talk about an imaginary 'sameness principle' and not the failure of the hereditarian hypothesis. I guess Charles has learned from making a 'five years away' prediction and has broadened it to 'within the 2020s key battles are likely to be won.' Spoilers - they'll lose.

"Why me. Why did I write this book and not a specialist? Because I have an agenda to prove that I've been gunning for for decades." Murray side-stepped the #justsostories objection - for the better because the "empirical reality" is more important.

What does Murray think IQ *rankings* are? What do they do? What is their function?

It's "simpler to assume that" since there are "certain differences between the sexes" that "we're looking at innate sex differences." Again, Murray is clueless on 'innateness.' https://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/dev.20277 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1098/rstb.2012.0344 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182125/

"A few decades from now [not five years!! Decades now!!], I expect we will have a widely accepted comprehensive theory of sex differences that is grounded in ... [ #justsostories]."

Murray has learned not to make "X years away" claims.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/08/08/five-years-away-is-always-five-years-away/

Discussion of "The People-Things Dimension" regarding sex diffs, bringing up ASD and Baren-Cohen's work. No discussion of the fact that there is no neurobiological or construct validity for ASD: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x

Just a note that Murray didn't discuss Lise Eliot's outstanding book Pink Brain, Blue Brain.

In fact, I'd make the claim that Eliot's whole book completely upends Murray's Part 1 in Human Diversity.

Can Murray even define 'good' without falling afoul of Moore's Open Question Argument?

@charlesmurray lied again: there is clear value to these traits being discussed; they can be "good, bad, or neutral."

"Possible biological causes [of sex diffs in things like schiz, OCD, Ana Nervosa] will be discussed in chapter 5."

What nonsense; mental illnesses aren't biological (not real) and pinpointing one level as the cause in multilevel systems is foolish.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/

Murray is obviously ignorant to any philosophy of race. Hardimon shows that Lewontin's argument undercuts the existence of Murray's racialist races. (See Pic 3)

Remember when I said that Murray wouldn't discuss construct validity of IQ? I was right. He claims that "measures of g" (IQ tests) have "passed repeated tests of ... construct validity" - no reference or arguments given.

What a joke.

Let's assume that natural selection (NS) is mechanistic:

(1) NS decreases genetic variation in traits important for survival.
(2) Intelligence is important for survival.
(3) Thus intelligence should have a low to nonexistent genetic variation.

It then follows that there is low to no genetic variation between races. Recall that their claims rest on evolutionary just-so stories (CWT) and cannot be independently verified.

Murray, of course, doesn't tackle a variant of this argument in the book.

Murray has a good overview of STRUCTURE (Hardimon's 2017 overview and analysis of Rosenberg is better), but his "reasoning" for accepting 7 races over 5 is just K=7 corresponds to "commensense observation" - a philosophically empty account of "race."

Murray (paraphrased): "Cluster analyses/STRUCTURE spit out these continental microsatellite divisions which correspond to commensense notions of race." Wow, very compelling. Rosenberg et al showed the Kalash in K=6, are they a race too?

No. Just because STRUCTURE shows a population as genetically distinct, it doesn't mean that the population is a race. This shows that Murray is just assuming that the clusters are races without sound reasoning behind is belief.

Murray then discusses the response given by the "orthodoxy" to these findings (even though Murray has no sound reasoning for his belief) saying it's based on "semantics" and that no critic has "published a cluster analysis that does *not* show these kinds of results."

Murray seems to not realize that just because clusters appear with these analyses that race can still be a social construct. It can still be a biological reality. It can still be both. But Murray is not charitable to the constructivist case.

Read philosophy of race, not Murray.

What "good" can come from the claim that certain races are "genetically dumber" than others? This is also related to my argument to ban IQ tests - now bring it to these "cognitive ability" GWASs. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/11/an-argument-for-banning-iq-tests/

Murray may claim that by understanding the "biology" of mental illenses that doing these studies will lead to "good things" (recall Moore's argument further up the thread). But mental illness isn't biological and claiming that genes cause psych traits is unfounded and impossible.

Murray brings up his analyses using Phase 1 of 1000 genomes and the GWAS catalogue showing almost perfect correlations between schizophrenia and certain SNPs. He then gloats that the constructivists can't account for this - Murray, again, showing his ignorance.

First article on Murray's book: "Charles Murray’s Philosophically Nonexistent Defense of Race in “Human Diversity”" in which I show that Murray assumes that clusters=races without an argument. @charlesmurray https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/03/04/charles-murrays-philosophically-nonexistent-defense-of-race-in-human-diversity/

In the chapter on gender differences in the brain, Murray has a "word about brain scans" but fails to bring up critiques, eg Uttal http://www.behavior.org/resources/864.pdf https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Cognitive-Neuroscience-Meta-Meta-Analysis-Press/dp/0262018527 and Klein (image 4)

Murray on Fagan and Holland's work showing equalized IQs when it was guaranteed that both races had access to the material. Response coming soon.

Murray's "defense" of the EEA - is this supposed to be compelling? (One of the refs in 23 is Fosse, Joseph and Richardson's EEA schiz study.)

Why didn't @charlesmurray discuss Ceci's study on IQ and social class - showing that the IQ-income relationship is mediated by schooling and family background, not IQ? Strange... https://twitter.com/Race__Realist/status/1184134087998607362?s=19