Charles Murray describes his 'punishment' for the Bell Curve
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Also sad and funny is that Murray thought that the 'word would get out' about the Bell Curve (that he wasn't racist). Boy was he wrong about that. He should have looked at what happened to Arthur Jensen and been aware of that reality. 1960s+ America has always been totally Lysenkoian about race.
I'm wondering what he expected would happen once "word got out". Did he expect we would all just continue pretending to live in a "colorblind society"? Because that project only works if there aren't (or people pretend there aren't) group differences.
He thought that eventually most people would recognize that he was telling the truth in the bell curve. A naive belief that truth would prevail.
He was very wrong. Murray is vilified to this day, and him and anyone like him will be vilified until the day the cathedral finally collapses.
Woke notions that the races are different and White society benefits Whites at the expense of non-Whites arguably are more aligned with accepting the evidence of racial differences than the "colorblind" society of the 90s was.
This is why I wonder what he expected would happen, because it's entirely predictable that if you tell a certain group they are less well suited to a society whose rules are largely determined by another group, the disadvantaged group would demand some accommodation.
Did he expect that reaction? Probably not, but he had to expect that society wouldn't ever be the same after he threw that particular grenade into the crowd.
Just a useful little glimpse into the 90s. Yes, things were better then, but the corporate media and academia were still the censorious, libelous religious zealots they are now, they just used to be a bit more choosy in their targets.
the truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth
Social sciences began to become corrupted and used as tools for subversion since the '60s and it took off in the mid '80s, without mentioning their current state. Just take a look at Psychological research from any of those periods, one can find many studies and research continuously supporting the progressive agenda and constantly belittling traditional values and behaviors.
There's a famous case that illustrates this really well, search for "Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" and "Carl Rogers". Regardless, with the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see how concepts that on the surface looked innocent back then (and since have grown out of control), were used to support the progressive agenda.
Boas corrupted anthropology even earlier. The origins of psychology are blank slatist with freud. But yes,
Carl Rogers - I won't lie, corrupting nuns into sex is kind of my fetish. I kid. But seriously, atomized humanism is a disastrous philosophy. I read this account: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/story-of-a-repentant-psychologist-11932
It got yeeted from YouTube
it should work if you click on it and are logged in
Hey, at least he didn't have to sell his Nobel prize.