"Adoption from a poor family into a better-off one is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points". Charitably, why does Murray ignore this?
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Good catch,
@primalpolyThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm constantly astonished by the way your positions are mischaracterized. You and
@danieldennett taught me the value of charity in argumentThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought the author was very charitable to you. Whereas I've never, ever seen you apply principle of charity to your critics
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I was denounced as a racist for asking someone to substantiate claim that you were racist. Told I can't speak because she's black.

- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Murray's arguements are complete hogwash at best and deeply racist at worst. And to give them sunlight does nothing to further human thought
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I used to think you were clear thinking but this interview with the racial peddler Murray is ridiculous. Any barely thinking person can see
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For all the supercilious claims the article makes about Murray's "pseudo-science," you'd think they'd go on to systematically debunk it.
-
There are several scientists who have destroyed Murray's pseudoscience regarding the illusion of racial heiarchies. By the way what is race?
-
That may be true. Why didn't the article cite to those?
-
I don't know, but there are entire books written on this subject by scientist who have devoted there adult lives to understanding this.
-
Sure. I have heard that. Btw I'm not saying I agree with Murray. I'm saying the article did a deliberate disservice to both him and Sam.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The point was never that Murray's study was correct. It's that the article was journalistically lazy and at times, deliberately misleading.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The irony of noting a single oversight in a carefully reasoned, nuanced critique and dismissing as uncharitable.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
What do you see as the problem with the characterization?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Can we talk on specifics, not generalizations? It seems at issue is the "these" in the "these are all facts" from Harris' opening spiel.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Ok. I see the difference as slight, given the context that this comes from his opening/summative remarks on the research. What am i missing
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.