[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

@New Era. I don't even know how to respond to your post. It was predictably filled with ad hominem, and in no way addressed my arguments.

Ad hominem? Where? Discussing the predilections of the author is not an ad hominem. Exposing his biases and theoretical flaws is not an ad hominen. It's not like calling someone a hack because they took your source to the woodshed. Also, on a serious note, have you made an argument? All I have seen is you making a lot of comments without much connection to the actual issues or race. Was this intentional, hoping to appear a deep thinker on the subject of the race? I've re-read all of your stuff but find you never really saying anything with any true clarity or meaning. A great example is the Trump/Sanders comparison. I mean, if you honestly think that Trump and Sanders are appealing to the populace because of the same perceptions, then you clearly don't understand the United States or our political system. You cannot find two candidates more different from each other in every single way.

Have you read "Coming Apart?" The reason he focuses on whites is to eliminate the race aspect of the question. It is a cultural issue.

No, I haven't read Coming Apart, but I was forced to read The Bell Curve for a graduate poly-sci class, then for some reason started down the same rabbit hole with Murray by starting Losing Ground, but stopped after a few chapters. He is very repetitive and espouses the same theories over and over again. I have continued to be exposed to his thoughts through his involvement with the American Enterprise Institute and the never ending flood of citations attributed to his work by conservative students. So you could say I have a pretty good idea about Charles Murray and his thoughts.

Furthermore, if you had read the book, you would know that a) he has done his best to remove himself from the upper white cultural enclave by raising his family in a small, poor town,

When you say a small, poor town, you mean Fredrick County? I just want to be clear here. The poor town where Murray lives in Virginia, 82% of the people are white and the median household income is $84,570, well above the $53,046 average in the US? He paints a very flattering picture of himself, but the facts don't agree with what he says.

b) he actually places a great deal of responsibility on the white upper middle class, and c) Murray is openly sympathetic to the failings of the bottom 50%, and actually places almost all of the blame on white Washington policy-makers.

The only reason that Murray pins the blame on policy makers is because they don't go far enough to instituting his #######ized libertarian perspective of every man for themselves. And when you say openly sympathetic, you mean moving to a small town filled with some of the richest people in Washington, and claiming to be salt of the earth kind of guy himself?

Clearly, you have partisan sympathies for Sanders, and this colours your perception of the similarities of Sanders and Trump. I never wanted to talk about policy for precisely this reason.

I actually have no sympathies towards either, especially Sanders, hence calling his supporters effete liberals. But given a choice between a clown like Donald Trump and a quasi-socialist like Bernie Sanders, well I will hold my nose and pick the person that has an actual series of policy positions. I can also understand you wanting to stay away from policy positions. When you get right down to them they are usually very complex and can't be pinned down with philosophical trappings. This is why Washington is as useless as it is, because today's politicians are cornered into those philosophical trappings and can't take the pragmatic approach to solving complex issues that affect all people, not just the ones that agree with your dogma.

That is why I chose to focus on electoral appeal. You clearly haven't read the book, and probably haven't even read "The Bell Curve." For the record, I found the hypothesis of the book very interesting, but ultimately flawed based on his simplistic interpretation of intelligence.

Hey, we can agree that Murray has a very simplistic view on things! Great! Now let's talk about actual politics and qualified candidates rather than trying to shoehorn two diametrically opposed candidates into the same dixie cup.

That said, it is widely understood that intelligence is mostly inherited.

Widely understood by who? Psychologists and neurobiologists will argue this point to the death. You inherit a certain genetic make up providing a predisposition to intelligence, but environment plays a massive role in establishing the neural networks that allow for high levels of cognitive ability. You could be the genetic offspring of two Nobel laureates, but if you are raised in the back woods of West Virginia by Clem and Ethel, and never have the opportunity to expand your knowledge base, the likelihood of you exploiting that intelligence is minimal at best. We are all born with great intellectual potential, and yes, some have an advantage in having neurons packed closer together, but intelligence and increased cognitive capacity only happens when those neurons connect and form neural networks. That is all environmental, helped along through nurturing, peer interaction and education. This can also be negatively affected by biological influences such as poor nutrition or exposure to harmful substances that affect brain chemistry. Or so the leaders in fields of developmental psych and neuropsych seem to indicate.

Don't be such a hack.

Well, don't be such a dupe. Don't rely so much on the philosophical or on what one theorist has to say on matters. Try the practical every now and then. Try and actually take a walk through the middle of the fray and try to understand the complexities of the issues. Seriously, suggesting Trump and Sanders have any similarities just makes you look silly. You're better than that.