Australians told to nurture elitism by Murray
-
Nurture elitism, says US thinker
Robert Lusetich, Los Angeles correspondent | August 06, 2007
CONTROVERSIAL American political scientist Charles Murray is urging Australians to ditch egalitarianism as a central tenet of the national culture and to recognise that the country's future is in the hands of the best and brightest.
Dr Murray will tell a forum in Sydney next week that the smartest young Australians are being short-changed by an education system that puts a child's emotional wellbeing ahead of learning.
"We're taking these bright kids and coddling the little darlings," Dr Murray told The Australian. "We placate them because we're a society which says nobody can be stupid, even if they are."
Dr Murray is best known for his book The Bell Curve, co-authored with Richard Herrnstein, which caused a storm by linking race and IQ.
"Australians talk about this tall-poppy syndrome without understanding where it comes from," he said. "It is based on the idea that we're all equal. Well, I've got news for you -- we're not all equal and the sooner we accept that, the better. There's nothing wrong with being elitist and we need to come to terms with that and embrace it."
Dr Murray will address a Centre for Independent Studies ideas forum, In Praise of Elitism, next Monday.
The 64-year-old has made his name with explosive, politically incorrect arguments that women lack the evolutionary genetic intelligence to master the highest levels of mathematics and the hard sciences, that Jews are born smart and that welfare needs to be abolished because it encourages women with low intelligence to sprout children who are in turn not likely to be very bright.
He has been the subject of death threats and professional vilification but remains unrepentant. "I've been the Antichrist," he says, "but that doesn't mean I've been wrong."
Dr Murray's critics say the core of his argument is the flawed notion that intelligence is hereditary; that we are born with intelligence just as we inherit hair or skin colour.
In the nature vs nurture debate, there are a number of social scientists who have shown that intelligence can be improved -- by as much as 20 IQ points, according to one French study -- by providing a more conducive environment for children. Dr Murray, however, concedes only that improvements will be at the margins. "Scientifically, I'm on solid ground," he says.
Dr Murray -- whose theories have helped shape the policies of Republican administrations dating back to Ronald Reagan's -- has some advice for Australia.
Embrace elitism and place in a very direct way the future of the nation in the hands of the best and the brightest, as identified by intelligence.
"Whether we like it or not, the future of our culture lies in the hands of the people at the top of the IQ bracket," he says. "These young people are not being pushed at all and that's what worries me the most.
"There's no one saying to them, 'You're lucky to be as smart as you are; you need to be worthy of that blessing'."
Dr Murray says such kids need to be trained in logic, reasoning and ethics if our society is to reach its potential.
"They are bright but they have no idea what it is to be rigorous.
"For instance, way too many people are going to university. Statistically, only 15 to 20 per cent are able to deal with a college education, unless, of course, it's not a genuine college education and it's dumbed down. And that's what we have right now, certainly in the US."
Dr Murray believes the education system, as it stands, is a disaster. "We all know that but it's especially a disaster for above-average students.
"What amazes me is this de-emphasis we have in schools now on learning. This should be the reason kids are there but instead they are asked only to express themselves.
"They are not expected to interpret correctly but rather they are asked what they feel about the material.
"This is so harmful for their intellectual development.
"You never have the right answer because all answers are right. Everyone gets an award at school, no matter how undeserved. But I'll tell you something, kids know; they understand what's going on.
"This constant praise produces measurably lower self-esteem because kids know they haven't deserved the praise."
--
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22194712-601,00.html
While Dr Murray raises valid points about maximising talent, the danger in nurturing elitism is that it creates an artificial class in a existing egalitarian society like Australia, and this class is not going to be able to balance itself out within this current social structure without being cast aside by the majority.
Secondly, there is no need to appropriate ideals of supremacy in order to maximise talent, if there is adequate emphasis on talented segments of the population to be brought up in a way that allows them to realise that they still have a role to play in a egalitarian society. -
This guy seems to forget that intelligence and morality do not often come in the same package. Not all smart people will be good, and not all good people will be smart.
He seems think that smart=good. -
That's why its dangerous to play a zero-sum game with socio-cultural theory such as these.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:This guy seems to forget that intelligence and morality do not often come in the same package. Not all smart people will be good, and not all good people will be smart.
He seems think that smart=good.
Charles Murray is not someone you should trust wholesale.. -
Jews born smart? If they were smart, the number of Holocaust victims would have been smaller.
What about nurturing creativity? I think it helps children reach their potential faster. -
is tis waht they say as a beginning of a 'New World Order'?
thinking bout it gives me the creeps..
-
Don't worry, we've been living in it for the last 40 years.Originally posted by 4getmenot:is tis waht they say as a beginning of a 'New World Order'?
thinking bout it gives me the creeps.. 
-
HA! I'm JewishOriginally posted by iveco:Jews born smart? If they were smart, the number of Holocaust victims would have been smaller.
What about nurturing creativity? I think it helps children reach their potential faster.
I was born smart woohoo!
And intelligence had nothing to do with the holocaust. Being smart doesn't mean being bulletproof. (and gas proof, fire proof...) -
You are lucky Jon and should be proud.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:HA! I'm Jewish I was born smart woohoo!
And intelligence had nothing to do with the holocaust. Being smart doesn't mean being bulletproof. (and gas proof, fire proof...)
There are only 14 millions Jews worldwide but one of every five Nobel Laureates are Jews. -
Ha - this Murray guy's pissing up the wrong tree.
My organisation's just finished analysing statewide census (i.e every school) data for the Department of Education. Guess what? Schools, teachers and teaching methods don't make a difference in student performance. This isn't going to please the teachers, but the Deaprtment's compared the findings to other previous studies and it all adds up. Because it was census data, there's not even a question of statistical significance because everyone was surveyed.
Teachers can make a difference in terms of the interest that students take in learning, but that's about as much influence that they have. In terms of performance, teachers can remove obstacles to learning, but no amount of hothousing is going to turn Forrest Gump into Albert Einstein. It's common sense, which is something Murray seems to lack. -
Elitism equates favouritism. Upward or downward mobility between social classes will come to a standstill.
Egalitarianism path is more appropriate. If IÂ’m wrong about this, I donÂ’t want to be right.
Fck Charles Murray. -
erm, interest doesn't remotely transfer to better results? if the teachers can remove obstacles to learning why dont they make a differnece in student performances?Originally posted by Gedanken:Ha - this Murray guy's pissing up the wrong tree.
My organisation's just finished analysing statewide census (i.e every school) data for the Department of Education. Guess what? Schools, teachers and teaching methods don't make a difference in student performance. This isn't going to please the teachers, but the Deaprtment's compared the findings to other previous studies and it all adds up. Because it was census data, there's not even a question of statistical significance because everyone was surveyed.
Teachers can make a difference in terms of the interest that students take in learning, but that's about as much influence that they have. In terms of performance, teachers can remove obstacles to learning, but no amount of hothousing is going to turn Forrest Gump into Albert Einstein. It's common sense, which is something Murray seems to lack.
i mean its a weird conclusion to say teachers, schools and teaching methods don't make a difference
-
Beggin' pardon. Poor phrasing on my part - that's what I get for trying to work and post at the same time.Originally posted by hisoka:erm, interest doesn't remotely transfer to better results? if the teachers can remove obstacles to learning why dont they make a differnece in student performances?
i mean its a weird conclusion to say teachers, schools and teaching methods don't make a difference 
More precisely, what I'm saying is that boosting performance in the way Murray describes is a load of bull. You can get students performing to their potential, but as for things like raising their IQ by 20 points? Rubbish. The data I have on hand reflects that if kids are going to make it, they're going to do it regardless of what school they go to and what methods the teachers use, and conversely, if they're not going to make it, well, that's life. All schools and teachers can do is remove obstacles so that the kids can perform as they should.
Lemme put it this way: you can pump up your Perodua's tyres, dump all excess bits including the spare wheel, and fill the tank up with million-octane petrol, but ain't no way you're going to be racing that bucket at Monaco next year. Murray's gotta be particularly stupid to be pushing that delusion around in his little cart. -
All men may be equal but not all are born as robots coming from a production line.
We shld not expect everyone to be made in the same mold. Some are better intellectually and some are better physically. All shld be allowed to develope to their fullest potential and society will progress together. -
I can hear jeers and cries of "Rack off, ya mug!" already... Well I still agree with the Einstein saying - judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree and it will grow up to believe it's stupid!
-
Read the article carefully. Murray is pro-nature. It's the pro-nurture camp that says that IQ can be increase by up to 20 points through education. YOU ARE ON MURRAY'S CAMP, DUDE!Originally posted by Gedanken:Beggin' pardon. Poor phrasing on my part - that's what I get for trying to work and post at the same time.
More precisely, what I'm saying is that boosting performance in the way Murray describes is a load of bull. You can get students performing to their potential, but as for things like raising their IQ by 20 points? Rubbish. The data I have on hand reflects that if kids are going to make it, they're going to do it regardless of what school they go to and what methods the teachers use, and conversely, if they're not going to make it, well, that's life. All schools and teachers can do is remove obstacles so that the kids can perform as they should.
Lemme put it this way: you can pump up your Perodua's tyres, dump all excess bits including the spare wheel, and fill the tank up with million-octane petrol, but ain't no way you're going to be racing that bucket at Monaco next year. Murray's gotta be particularly stupid to be pushing that delusion around in his little cart. -
I actually agree with Murray. Face it. People are born with different talents. Some are smarter. Some are more creative. Sadly, some also have no talent whatsoever. I think Murray is simply calling upon the education system in the States to fully develop a student's potential, whatever it may be, instead of promoting a culture of coddling and denial. If you want to know how bad it is, just watch the first 2 episodes of American Idol every season. It never ceases to amuse me how deluded some contestants are about their supposed 'talent'.
That being said, those gifted with more talent should be taught to give back to society. Wee Shu Min is a disgrace. Hopefully, her values represent only a minority in the 'elites' that we groom in Singapore. Taking a line from Spiderman, "Great power comes with great responsibilities." If too many elites think like WSM, society will break down. -
Yes, you're right, and indeed the 20-point issue is what Murray claims to be arguing against. Again, that's what I get for posting and working at the same time.Originally posted by Panache1976:Read the article carefully. Murray is pro-nature. It's the pro-nurture camp that says that IQ can be increase by up to 20 points through education. YOU ARE ON MURRAY'S CAMP, DUDE!
Then again, Murray said:"These young people are not being pushed at all and that's what worries me the most.
Why push the kids if it's not going to make a difference? If it is going to make a difference, why not push all of them instead of just a few?
"There's no one saying to them, 'You're lucky to be as smart as you are; you need to be worthy of that blessing'."
Dr Murray says such kids need to be trained in logic, reasoning and ethics if our society is to reach its potential.
This is where I don't agree with Murray. The data shows that kids will do as they do, as long as teachers do what they can to remove obstacles to learning. This applies to all kids, not just the bright ones. A bright kid's not going to get any brighter if he's hothoused. That's what Murray is proposing, and it's a waste of time.
Insofar as we're talking about nature versus nurture, yes, I do agree with Murray that it's nature. However, his proposal of pushing the bright kids is simply backflipping on himself. He's already said that it doesn't make a difference, but then goes on to say that it does make a difference for the bright kids. On that point, I say he's pissing up the wrong tree.
The data I referred to in my earlier post covers schools that do go down the track that Murray proposed. A lot of these are the independent schools that select the highest performing students and provide extra educational activities that push the kids in the way that Murray proposed. We performed an analysis of these schools' data against those that follow the standard syllabus and guess what? No difference. There wasn't any correlation between high-performing kids and school programs. The only relevant factor on the outcome was how well the kids did at the point they entered secondary school in the first place. The teachers and programs did nothing to raise their game because the kids simply did their own thing anyway.
So you see, I'm not on Murray's side, or the side he's arguing against. Both propose that teachers have the power to increase kids' performance at schools beyond removing obstacles to learning, and they're both wrong. That was a nice little pickup there, tiger, but you've missed the forest for the trees. -
Uhh, you wanna show a clear link between Idol and what the contestants' teachers did? Otherwise the comparison is tenuous at best.Originally posted by Panache1976:If you want to know how bad it is, just watch the first 2 episodes of American Idol every season. It never ceases to amuse me how deluded some contestants are about their supposed 'talent'.
If Murray was simply arguing against teachers sending students the message, "It doesn't matter whether you win, it's how you play the game", I'd heartily agree with him. Yogi Berra stated it best when he said that the only thing good losers are good at is losing.Originally posted by Panache1976:I think Murray is simply calling upon the education system in the States to fully develop a student's potential, whatever it may be, instead of promoting a culture of coddling and denial.
However, he's gone too far to the other end of the scale for my liking. Think about what he's proposing from a policy perspective. It's quite relevant that the original article mentioned Murray's role in Republican policy during the Reagan administration, because it was the age of Milken, Boesky and Reaganomics, and we all know how that all worked out. Murray's track record is somewhat less than stellar, and it's his rabid polemicism that keeps getting him in trouble. -
I agree with some of Murray's points.
Cant let the low IQ out breed the higher IQ's . The dumb will just get dumber.. while we embrace the dumb and protect the weak. The strong will be weeded out instead and the smart will be outbred.
but in terms of ethical upbringing , it will be quite hard to measure and to teach. For the smart may not be the most ethical.
Having talent just means able to excel in something naturally and those without talent can excel too , but it takes more hardwork , but they can never be as good.
Blessed are the losers.. for they determine the winners. -
Whoa Badz, that's dangerous thinking there. Berlin in 1933 sound familiar?Originally posted by BadzMaro:Cant let the low IQ out breed the higher IQ's . The dumb will just get dumber.. while we embrace the dumb and protect the weak. The strong will be weeded out instead and the smart will be outbred. -
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Graduate Mothers' Scheme, anyone?
Cant let the low IQ out breed the higher IQ's . The dumb will just get dumber.. while we embrace the dumb and protect the weak. The strong will be weeded out instead and the smart will be outbred. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:Whoa Badz, that's dangerous thinking there. Berlin in 1933 sound familiar?
De-sexing of retards is one thing, but doing the same to non-graduates is another.Originally posted by rooki:Graduate Mothers' Scheme, anyone? -
Sanders in The Australian picks up on where Murray left off...
Peter Saunders | August 13, 2007
WHEN 19th century liberals such as John Stuart Mill made the case for extending individual liberties, they argued it on moral grounds. They believed human beings are put on Earth with talents and potentials which they are meant to develop and exploit to the full, so they urged us to improve ourselves by becoming better educated and more enlightened. To achieve this, they understood we needed to be free.
In the 19th century there were many restrictions on freedom that hindered people from fulfilling their potential. Some of the worst were enforced by law: women, for example, could not own property, had no vote and were legally subordinated to men. Mill and other liberals saw such laws as indefensible, and they fought to have them changed.
Other restrictions were derived from people's social or economic circumstances rather than from discriminatory legal rules. The children of the poor, for example, were often expected to work from an early age, which made it difficult to get a proper education. This limited their opportunities for self-improvement, so children of labourers often grew up tobecome labourers themselves, even if they had the talent to achieve greater things.
Recognising these problems, liberals came to understand that legal equality may not be enough to enable people to fulfil their potential. What is also needed is access to an adequate education and a basic level of material resources so individuals can put their talents to good effect.
Today, most of the restrictions that limited people's opportunities in the past have weakened or disappeared. Race and gender discrimination are both outlawed. A minimum of 10 years' free schooling is guaranteed to every child. The welfare state delivers a basic level of income security and health care to everybody. Competition for jobs is relatively open, and corruption is minimal. There are still inequalities, of course, but if you are bright and strongly motivated, there is little to stop you succeeding.
Yet something is still hindering many of us from developing and fully exploiting our potential. The problem is no longer that we lack opportunity, it is rather that fewer demands are being made of us.
The opportunities are in place but the expectations have been lowered, and because less is demanded, we settle for less and our lives are less fulfilled as a consequence.
In a democratic age, egalitarianism has been redefined as mediocrity. The belief that Jack is as good as his master used to be a liberating idea, encouraging people to strive to succeed no matter what their origins. But the belief that lazy, ignorant Jack watching television all day is as good as his neighbour working all hours to get qualified or build a business is not liberating, it is a recipe for envy, sloth and passivity.
This perverted version of egalitarianism holds that the world owes us a living even if we make no effort to better ourselves. It emphasises our rights but has nothing to say about our obligations. It makes excuses for bad behaviour and derides those who try to maintain high standards. It encourages envy of those who succeed and it treats failure not as a spur to try harder but as evidence of victimisation requiring compensation and special treatment.
Today's egalitarianism makes us reluctant to judge or evaluate people's actions, even when some are clearly better than others. Welfare agencies refuse to discriminate between responsible people who fall on hard times and claimants who bring about their own misfortune through reckless, short-sighted or self-destructive behaviour.
Teachers feel uncomfortable grading students' performances, and they push increasing numbers of low-ability students into university while denying the inevitable dilution in standards this entails.
Psychologists stay silent rather than acknowledge evidence on the deleterious effects of single parenting and the decline of marriage; criminologists prevaricate rather than condemn law-breakers; even theologians hedge on the existence of good and evil. As standards crash, the experts have gone into denial.
Nineteenth-century liberals urged us to improve ourselves, and many working-class people did just that, forming educational associations, creating mutual aid clubs, sending their children to Sunday school to learn about morality. But today's egalitarianism panders to the lowest standards rather than demanding the highest.
TV is a major culprit. Chasing a mass audience in an age of multiple channels has led inevitably to cheap and dumbed-down content: Paris Hilton's drug habit, Shane Warne's love life, an exposed penis on Big Brother.
Crude and vulgar language which was never heard on TV is now indulged with a wry smile. Meanwhile, youngsters exchange videos of fights and sexual assaults recorded on mobile phones, and hard-core pornography dominates the internet.
In the 19th century, Mill warned against weighing the opinions of ignorant people equally with those of the best-informed, for people who make no effort to accumulate wisdom should not expect the respect of their peers. But today, ignorance is prized.
We oblige ignorant people to vote, and we enlist them to serve on juries, kidding ourselves that their judgment is just as valuable as anyone's else's. Then we act surprised when it turns out voters have no idea what the parties stand for, and that jurors are clueless about the cases they hear (research on Sydney jurors last year found many did not even know what verdict they had just delivered).
Politicians talk down to us like children, assuming (rightly in many cases) that they can buy our votes with handouts rather than winning our support with arguments. And on TV, they try to act dumb. Before he got the Labor leadership, hacks speculated that Kevin Rudd was too clever to be elected, but larking around on Friday mornings with Mel and Kochie on Channel 7 helped him over that obstacle. On Channel 9 recently, Health Minister Tony Abbott ridiculed himself for using the phrase "supping with the devil" after he realised nobody else in the studio had heard the term before. The worst thing for a politician is to stand out from the mob and set a standard. American research finds that candidates in presidential debates are using increasingly simple, child-like language as the years unfold. The Gettysburg address cannot compete with a 10-second sound bite.
There is only one area of modern life where we still celebrate excellence, demand high standards, insist on the virtues of competition and devote ourselves to self-improvement, and that is sport. The home page of the Australian Institute of Sport unashamedly uses the word elite three times in its opening paragraph.
Search the websites of our leading universities and almost the only place you will find them claiming elite status is in relation to the sporting achievements of their athletes.
So we are happy to praise elitism in sport but not, it seems, in areas of life that arguably matter much more.
John Stuart Mill must be spinning in his grave.
Peter Saunders is the social research director at the Centre for Independent Studies. He will chair a CIS Big Ideas Forum, "In Praise of Elitism", at the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney today.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22232019-7583,00.html -
Why push the kids if it's not going to make a difference? If it is going to make a difference, why not push all of them instead of just a few?
Can you elaborate on what is meant by "removing obstacles to learning" and how you measure improvements in your studies?
This is where I don't agree with Murray. The data shows that kids will do as they do, as long as teachers do what they can to remove obstacles to learning. This applies to all kids, not just the bright ones. A bright kid's not going to get any brighter if he's hothoused. That's what Murray is proposing, and it's a waste of time.
I agree that kids don't get smarter, i.e. the speed at which they figure out new problems won't improve significantly, but I believe pushing the kids here means pushing them to acquire more knowledge.
A smarter kid can acquire more knowledge than a slower kid in the same amount of time. Murray's argument here is that the schooling system gives the same curriculum to both the smarter and slower kid, and if this cirriculum is 'dumbed down' for the slower kid, the smarter kid is not being pushed to his full learning potential.
That being said, I find that the smarter kids I have encountered acquire knowledge outside of the school curriculum on their own. It seems that the faster the human brain can process information, the more it is driven to fill that vacuum. Of course, you can either choose to fill it with quantum physics, or how to win at Starcraft
[/quote] -
In the context of education, has elitism produced any world class scientists, ecomomists or politicians?