- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Review of N. Wade's book on race
Posted on 5/9/14 at 9:09 am
Posted on 5/9/14 at 9:09 am
This is a review of the book Charles Murray famously (in some circles) and notoriously (in others) reviewed in the WSJ. The author is a political scientist and criticizes the book from that angle. Seems to me he crushes the argument, as far as a historian can. Sample quotations:
Of course, this criticism is from the point of view of history. The criticism from the point of view of anthropology, at least from what my anthro friends tell me, is that 1) Wade never gives a scientific definition of race (his definition is "common-sensical") 2) comparison to other animals is not apt, because genetic differentiation between human beings is far smaller than, say, within the African Chimpanzee 3) he assumes that genes are far more determinative than they actually are.
quote:
Wade’s argument has three parts: First, along with the divergence of physical traits such as skin color and types of earwax, racial groups have genetically evolved to differ in cognitive traits such as intelligence and creativity. Second, Wade argues that “minor differences, for the most part invisible in an individual, have major consequences at the level of a society.” Third, he writes that his views are uncomfortable truths that have been suppressed by a left-wing social-science establishment.
quote:
As a statistician and political scientist, I see naivete in Wade’s quickness to assume a genetic association for any change in social behavior. For example, he writes that declining interest rates in England from the years 1400 to 1850 “indicate that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save” and attributes this to “the far-reaching genetic consequences” of rich people having more children, on average, than poor people, so that “the values of the upper middle class” were “infused into lower economic classes and throughout society.”
Similarly, he claims a genetic basis for the declining levels of everyday violence in Europe over the past 500 years and even for “a society-wide shift ... toward greater sensibility and more delicate manners.” All this is possible, but it seems to me that these sorts of stories explain too much. The trouble is that any change in attitudes or behavior can be imagined to be genetic—as long as the time scale is right.
quote:
Wade’s attitudes toward economics also seem a bit simplistic, for example when he writes, “Capital and information flow fairly freely, so what is it that prevents poor countries from taking out a loan, copying every Scandinavian institution, and becoming as rich and peaceful as Denmark?” The implication is that the answer is racial differences. But one might just as well ask why can’t Buffalo, New York, take out a loan and become as rich (per capita) as New York City. Or, for that matter, why can’t Portugal become as rich as Denmark? After all, Portuguese are Caucasians too! One could of course invoke a racial explanation for Portugal’s relative poverty, but Wade in his book generally refers to Europe or “the West” as a single unit. My point here is not that Haitians, Portuguese, and Danes are equivalent—obviously they differ in wealth, infrastructure, human capital, and so forth—but that it is not at all clear that genetic differences have much of anything to do with their different economic positions.
Of course, this criticism is from the point of view of history. The criticism from the point of view of anthropology, at least from what my anthro friends tell me, is that 1) Wade never gives a scientific definition of race (his definition is "common-sensical") 2) comparison to other animals is not apt, because genetic differentiation between human beings is far smaller than, say, within the African Chimpanzee 3) he assumes that genes are far more determinative than they actually are.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News