You really don’t need to read the long and tiresome hatchet-job on Charles Murray discussed in the last post. It’s largely the hackneyed slavery-colonialism-racism (but certainly not genes!) response to the well-documented IQ disparities. Given the pace at which our understanding of the genome proceeds, these science denying superstitions will soon go the way of phlogiston and the humours — but not soon enough.
What is noteworthy about the (Current Affairs*, natch!) piece is the following quote:
For a person of left-wing values, what any correlation between IQ and success means is that the structure of rewards in society should be readjusted so that they do not disproportionately favor people who have some particular random arbitrary characteristic (like being good with numbers), just the same as a society in which the elite is comprised solely of people who are good painters would also be unfair.
You can imagine the author, one Nathan J. Robinson sitting in a Starbucks, pecking away at a MacBook, regularly checking his iPhone, and sincerely believing that men like Steve Jobs are rich because a cabal of cigar-smoking fat-cats conspired in a smoke-filled room to adjust “the structure of rewards in society” so as to transfer wealth from POCs to white** dudes. Yep, that’s the reason, Nate — it’s certainly not because ignorant spoiled brats like you buy too many gadgets.
*Well, well — the joke’s on us: this Current Affairs outfit, while displaying the trappings of a seasoned, professional publication, appears to be an amateurish one-man operation.
**Steve Jobs was half-Syrian, so you can count him as either white (exploitative capitalist) or brown (enterprising child of migrants), depending on the editorial slant. Say, didja hear about the “white hispanic” who shot a black teenager for carrying a bag of skittles? Was this Hispanic cop enough of a POC to benefit from affirmative action but instantly turned white when he killed a more oppressed POC?