<p>I think much of common sense is being able to pay attention to details
If they need help with organization, then they take steps to do so- like writing things down on a calendar or putting notes on the fridge.</p>
<p>When you are able to get the big picture, without putting in the same amount of work that others might need to, you can get very good at skipping the grunt work- but when you run into circumstances where its the details that matter, then you appear not to have common sense.</p>
<p>Youre able to write a big paper in the hours before its due, but you just dig out your clothes from the bottom of the laundry pile ( because magically, the dirt falls off of them once they have steeped for a few days)</p>
<p>Often detail work is thankless and boring, making sure that you have a stocked diaper bag before you take the baby out for the day is common sense, but if you think doing that is “below” you, you aren’t going to place emphasis on it ( until next time)</p>
<p>I understand the issue…I just don’t trust the motivations of Murray, who in essense using intelligence to promote racism, so what he says I generally find repugnent…I have read many of his pieces as of late…reading betweent he lines is really scary</p>
<p>Just curious:
Have any of our commentators here actually read “The Bell Curve”? I mean, beyond the selective quotations from the infamous Chapter 13.</p>
<p>I have read a bunch of Murray’s columns, writings and editorials lately because a couple of posters have shared a couple of his pieces</p>
<p>And I have read others words about him…so I am not just basing my opinions of a few quotes, believe me…</p>
<p>I read the Bell Curve years ago…and when I see a writer shared that I disagree with, I try and look up his other works, so I can see the context of where he is coming from</p>
<p>Murray is a clever writer who looks “fair” on the surface, but when you delve a bit deeper, its not pretty stuff</p>
<p>The Bell Curve is actually a very sophisticated, profound book. Comment #46 points to a person who hasn’t actually read it. Sorry to call your bluff.</p>
<p>sophisticated and profound? Guess it depends on your perspective. I read Bell Curve a few years ago and had trouble getting through it - and not because of the difficulty of the text - the writing style is surprisingly plain and clear. I found it offensive. Awful stuff. Along the lines of “some pigs are more equal than others”.
I see the need for special programs for the gifted - but we’re way beyond that concept in this book.</p>
<p>I didn’t call anyone a liar…please don’t put words in my mouth. I realize that I am a newbie here, and that you are a Senior Member with upwards of 3500 posts that would be of great interest to Murray. My question remains: what is your specific problem with Murray’s profound, sophisticated, and unfairly maligned study?</p>
<p>you accused me of not reading the book and called my bluff, that is calling me a liar</p>
<p>and why would you want to do that, after having only read a few of my posts?</p>
<p>I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go over Murray’s “science”, to try and convince you as you have pretty well displayed you find him to be accurate.</p>
<p>I do see from his numerous writings that he is racist, and thus, can come to whatever conclusions from his work to match his views. </p>
<p>He is a writer, whom I find very distasteful. If you would like, I can link you to some writers far more qualified than I to discuss the book, but I doubt you would appreciate them as you find Murray to be profound.</p>
<p>As I recall, Bell Curve came in for criticism on two fronts: most prominently from Stephen Jay Gould, who couldn’t stomach either the implicit racism or the nature-not-nurture arguments; and from social scientists (was it a group at Berkeley?) who challenged errors in the methodology and stats. Frankly, ordinary people had to rely ultimately on whom they found more credible, and, to be blunt, on their own political ideology. If your were inclined to be suspicious of links between race and intelligence, you wound up siding with the Bell-Curve Bashers.</p>
<p>I would be the first to admit that I cannot evaluate the science in Murray’s claims, but I’ve read enough to know that his world-view and mine are polar opposites, and so I’ll always be suspicious of his motives.</p>
<p>OK, so I think it’s safe to say that we have a bunch of people on CC commenting on “Charles Murray the racist” based on things that they have heard other people say about a book they have not read. Yes?</p>
<p>palerider, I have read his own words, to me that is enough…have you read his columns…and people have said they ahve read the book, perhaps many years ago</p>
<p>If you like him feel free, but I don’t like Murray. He racism is the worst kind, disguised as science.</p>
<p>That is enough for me- his own words- and others analysis’ of his work, who he works for, his speeches, etc</p>
<p>Is that not enough for one to find a person to be critisized? Guess reading his writings isn’t enough. What would Palefinder have one do?</p>
<p>Palerider, as a new poster you cannot assume people don’t know what they are talking about, nor can you assume they haven’t given great thought to what they are talking about.</p>
<p>My gut is telling me something about you actually being a “newbie”, but I will let that slide</p>
<p>The first sign that Murray’s work in the Bell Curve is not scientific is that it was published without peer review. After it was published, it was peer reviewed and it was found to be full of mistakes - math errors, sloppy reasoning, mis-citation of sources - and all the mistakes fell in the direction of supporting the author’s thesis. </p>
<p>In addition, IQ has been found to be a weak predictor of future success. Self-discipline is a much stronger predictor.</p>
<p>Also, Murray and his research partner make some erroneous assumptions at the outset, such as the assumption that there is no socio-economic correlation to IQ - that the reason people are in a lower socio-economic group is due solely to lower IQs, which is simply false. They use this erroneous assumption to say that people of lower socio-economic status are pushing the IQ of the United States downward because they have higher fertility rates. The people Murray identified as pushing the IQ of the US down are blacks and Latinos. Murray also acknowledged the work and mentorship of Richard Lynn, who was a psychology professor at the University of Ulster who is on the record stating that we need to “phase out” the inferior races of brown people. Hence, the accurate application of the term “racist” to describe Murray. </p>
<p>So the book is both scienfically dishonest and racist. It is not profound, sophisticated, and it has been maligned fairly and honestly.</p>
<p>I am not sure that I understand the term “racist” as it is being used in this context.</p>
<p>How would a study that deals with race not be, in some sense, “racist.” If on the other hand, it is being suggested that the author hates Blacks or Latinos or Poles, I think there needs to be more evidence and less hyperbole.</p>
<p>That is about as grave of an accusation as one can make; it should not be used liberally-- and certainly not in an academic context or off-the-cuff.</p>
<p>I would think there is enough to coment on here simply based on the facts of the article itself. Either pro or con.</p>
<p>Well, I would use the term “racial,” rather than “racist” to describe a scientific study to determine if there are differences among races in any area…IQ, physical characteristics, disease propensity, etc.</p>
<p>The term racist is being used in the context of describing the motives of Murray’s research. His reseach (which is not replicable and therefore not scientific) is ostensibly about intelligence, not about race. However, his bias is that some races are inherently and irrevocably more intelligent than, and therefore superior to, other races. Which is racist, using the dictionary definition of the term.</p>