On 12/28/06, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raghu writes: >> In other words, why on earth would we *want* a world full of, say, >> mathematicians at the expense of, say, athletes or musicians? I have no idea why we should want to such a world. Does anybody say we should? David Shemano
Charles Murray most certainly does (want a world full of high IQ people). First of all note the admiring tone he uses to refer to his high-IQ "cognitive elite". He uses words like "brightest" and "first rate" and speaks of the "advantages" that high IQ has "always" (as opposed to just this point of time) offered. In his hierarchy high IQ people are on "top" and low IQ people are at the "bottom" rather than the more neutral "left hand tail" and "right hand tail". And more explicitly he offers policy prescriptions: "I just got done saying that perhaps the child's IQ could have been higher. Shouldn't we therefore be spending as much money as necessary--investing, that is--to provide the nurturing environment that will produce higher IQ scores?" In other words he takes for granted the absolute desirability of high IQ. The one concession he makes is his explicit disavowal of eugenics. This clearly is on moral grounds, essentially out of pity for the inferior non-elite masses. As I read Murray, he is unequivocal in his value judgement - a sad case of tunnel-vision in my opinion. Do you read him differently? -raghu.
