Human Accomplishment

Joel Eidsath writes "Imagine that you found yourself in a position to write a resume for the whole human species. It is a metaphor that Charles Murray uses several times in his book, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950." Murray not only collects such examples in this book, but attempts to explain why and how they emerge. Murray obviously courts controversy with this book; expect reactions similar to the ones drawn by The Bell Curve, which he co-authored. (Do 97% of the world's significant scientists come from the West? Can personal eminence be objectively measured? Is "accomplishment" really amenable to description by charts and graphs?) Read on for Eidsath's review. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 author Charles Murray pages 688 publisher HarperCollins rating Thought-provoking reviewer Joel Eidsath ISBN 006019247X summary A statistical history of human accomplishment.

For our species' resume, you probably would not list to put "Defeated Hitler" as one of humanity's accomplishments, because it sounds too much like 'Beat my Heroin Addiction.' You would want to include things like 'Painted the Roof of the Sistine Chapel' or 'Discovered General Relativity.' In other words, you would want to include examples of human excellence throughout the ages.

Not only has Murray set out to compile this resume, but he sought to do it for a reason that is at the same time both interesting and audacious: once you have compiled a list of the several thousand most important creators and discoverers of all time, you can stick it into a database. The idea is that with this database a person can spot trends in accomplishment; he can identify regions and cities where excellence has clustered; he can evaluate qualities of political systems that spur innovation and those that stifle it. Murray's book is a stunning profusion of graphs and plots that do much more to teach us about accomplishment that most narrative histories.

For this to work, however, Murray first had to tackle the problem of differing opinions on who exactly deserves a place in the database. Everybody's list would differ -- yours, mine, and Charles Murray's. There would be substantial similarities between our lists, to be sure; nobody is going to leave out Newton, Darwin, Goethe, Shakespeare, Confucius, or al-Mutanabbi. But when it comes to lesser achievements, the arguments would be endless. Does Hooke make it into the list of the top 20 physicists of all time, or does Pascal make it into the list of the top 10 mathematicians?

So what Murray has done is to split up accomplishment into a number of fields and tried to take a neutral measure of each person's respective 'eminence' in the field. He measures 'eminence' by taking a number of comprehensive sources on each field and counting the references to each person and how many paragraphs they get. The sources are from as many different languages as possible and Murray does a good job of avoiding the distorting effects of ethnocentrism. He uses sharp cutoff dates at 800 B.C. and 1950 A.D. to limit the data.

What Murray winds up with is a procedurally neutral measure of human accomplishment that is stable when new sources are added or taken away, and also has good face validity. In Medicine, for example, Pasteur is first with an index score of 100, Koch is third with 90 and Freud (for clinical descriptions of mental illnesses) is 18th with a score of 34.

The Lotka Curve Murray's other major work made a certain kind of statistical curve a household word, and Human Accomplishment prepares a second candidate for improving public statistical awareness: the Lotka Curve. In the mid-1920s, Alfred Lotka noticed an interesting pattern in scientific journals. About 60% of people publish only one article for a journal. The number of people publishing more that this falls off very fast with the number of articles. This makes up a Lotka curve and is almost L shaped.

It turns out that in just about every field of human accomplishment significant figures fall along a Lotka curve. In Western literature, Shakespeare is far out along the horizontal part of the curve, Goethe a bit less so, and a whole host of lesser figures make up the nearly vertical part of the data set.

Dead White Males

Despite using several data collection techniques that wind up exaggerating the influence of non-Western cultures, Murray's data shows a strong majority of Westerners among the significant figures of world history.

Fully 97% of significant figures in the sciences come from the West. The same figure is arrived at from looking only at significant events. Even America is dwarfed by European accomplishment in the sciences, hosting less than 20% of significant figures before 1950 compared to Europe's nearly 80%. Europe's dominance over America is even greater in the arts. And though Murray makes sure to calculate what is an upper limit for artistic accomplishment in non-Western parts of the world, the graph is substantially the same as that for the sciences.

One of the astonishing parts of Murray's data is how it demonstrates the significant effects of legal equality. Jewish achievement after 1850 skyrocketed due to their newfound position before the law. Between 1910 and 1950, Jewish achievement tripled despite even the Third Reich and the Holocaust.

The graph of the achievement of woman displays a different pattern, despite their having gained substantial legal equality in the past century. Though there are slight increases in the numbers, women only represent a few percent of Murray's significant figures after 1900. Nor does the data available for the years beyond 1950 bear out any substantial increase in women's achievement during the second half of the twentieth century. Murray provides several possible explanations. Despite legal equality, women did not gain the same degree of immediate social equality that other groups did. Moreover, the substantially greater demands of parenthood upon women make achievement harder.

Decline

The last section of Human Accomplishment is somewhat surprising. When adjusted for population, Murray's numbers show a decline in accomplishment after 1800. When numbers are used that take not only total population in account, but also urban population and educated population, the decline has brought us down to nearly pre-Renaissance levels. For example, we have 65 playwrights alive today for every one in Elizabethan England. Yet do we have dozens of Shakespeares? The picture is even more stark when the 12,000 members of the screen Writers Guild are taken into account.

As a percentage, the number of significant figures in the sciences compared to the total population has dropped a great deal; this is despite a far greater percentage of working scientists and far more science and technical journals being published.

Murray goes through the data and shows why he believes that the decline is real and is not explicable by any procedural artifacts brought about by his methods. It is a somewhat disturbing conclusion to a great work.

You can purchase Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

very curious indeed.

[rsfpc]

The numbers are without a doubt skewed. Come on... Saying 97 percent of the significant figures in sciences come from the west is like saying 90 percent of shark bite victims happen within 100 meters of the shoreline. Where did Murray receive his education? I suppose I'll have to read this book now. hmmmm, what to do this weekend, what to do...

Re:very curious indeed.

[rsfpc]

The point is this... metrics are compiled based on reported statistics. If one ascertains from reported numbers that 90 percent of all shark bite victims happen within 100 meters of the shoreline it gives a false indication of where the sharks actually are and why they bite. Everyone swims within 100 meters of the shoreline! Back to the article: In a per-capita sense I'd wager than America has a significant advantage over hmmm... everyone in that its population did not exist during the time period Murray specified. The metrics being reported are most assuredly skewed. Also, based on where Murray received his education, his conciseness is biased towards that culture and the curriculum he paid attention to during his id years.

Re:very curious indeed.

[sql*kitten]

Saying 97 percent of the significant figures in sciences come from the west is like saying 90 percent of shark bite victims happen within 100 meters of the shoreline

Consider, for example, gunpowder. Invented in China, but they only ever used it for fireworks to amuse the aristocrats. In the West, sure it was used as a weapon, but it was also used in mining. Western lateral thinking meant that Western mines were more efficient, which accelerated all forms of technological development.

Or mathematics is another example. Large amounts of it were invented by Arabs, but their religion doesn't permit advanced forms of banking, but when mathematics reached the West it was used for advanced finance, which permitted investment and insurance, which acclerated all forms of technological development.

It's not politically correct to say so, but the West really is a superior culture when it comes to making practical use of theoretical discoveries. Or it was; in the last century the West has spent less of its resources on developing technology and more on supporting those who aren't able to support themselves. Simple natural selection now means that our populations are becoming geared towards those who consume handouts but produce no new discoveries.

Re:very curious indeed.

[NearlyHeadless]

Consider, for example, gunpowder. Invented in China, but they only ever used it for fireworks to amuse the aristocrats.

Robin D. S. Yates, Professor of History and East Asian Studies at McGill University on Nova's web site:

" In my own research, I have been able to refute the common notion that the Chinese invented gunpowder but only used it for fireworks. I'm sure that they discovered military uses for it. I have found the earliest illustration of a cannon in the world, which dates from the change-over from the Northern Song to the Southern Song around 1127, which was 150 years before the development of the cannon in the West. The Song also used gunpowder to make fire lances - actually flame throwers - and many other gunpowder weapons, such as anti-personnel mines, which are thankfully now being taken out of general use."

Re:very curious indeed.

[jwsd]

As an Chinese living in the Western Culture for the past 10 years. I can testify that there are major differences between the two cultures. But I'm not convinced that Western culture is inherently better. In fact, I argue that the Western culture was able to take full advantage of science and technology because their societies evolved slower than the Chinese society. It is a well known fact in China that one of the major reasons China lagged behind Western societies in terms of science and technology in the past 300 years because the brightest people in the society were only encouraged to become managers of the country for the past 2000 years. Engineers were considered managers' tools and were looked down upon. Chronic lack of talented scientists and engineers eventually made China pay the price of defeat and humiliation in the hands of Western powers. What I have observed in America is that engineers are tools of upper management, especially in big corporations. It is human nature to pursue the best position within your society even though in the long run the society will fail. Everyday in America, corporate politicians back-stab each other to fight for their next promotions until the company fall apart under external pressure. Because China has been highly institutionized for a long period of time, the entire Chinese society have developed a culture of only pursuing management career track and avoiding engineer career track at all cost. Can you say this is not happenning in America right now? America has only achieved world dominance in the past 100 years. To dominate the world, America has to remain a big institution as a country just like China did since 2000 years ago. In the long run, the smartest Americans will learn to avoid science and engineer career tracks and pursue corporate executives and governments officials positions just like Chinese did for thousands of years. So the only reason the Western culture is ahead of other cultures in science and technology is that it was much less organized until recently. And this culture will evolve into the Chinese culture as the American government maintains its world's most powerful institution status in the future. FYI, ever since the Chinese were defeated by Western advanced technologies, its culture had made a 180 degree turn. Today all smart people are encouraged to pursue engineering degrees. Actually most top Chinese officials today graduated from engineering schools.

Yeah, Right ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The first spin is the fact that he chose the cutoff dates he did. If you chose cutoff dates of 2000 bce - 800 bce and 200 ad - 1200 ad, you'd decide that 97% of scientists and artists were Chinese, Arab, or Persian, and that Europeans were the giggling idiots of the planet.

The second spin is how he defines "significant."

Re:Yeah, Right ...

[jgardn]

The reason he probably chose the cutoff dates like he did is because we don't have much of a record of the achievements of humanity in those periods. Most of what we know is closer to legend and myth than anything else. The only thing we do know for a fact is that there are a couple of pyramids in the middle of a desert with mummified remains inside them, and other such things. But outside of that, the best historical record is the Bible.

I agree with you -- there were great societies that probably may have been far greater than the Romans back then. But we know nothing about them. We don't know even a fraction of their inventions, their theories, their political structures, their governments, or their societies. For all we know, they could've driven around in automobiles or flown around with wings. They could've had complex governmental structures that were at least as fair as the Roman system, and they may have had inventions that we would find quite significant.

800 BCE?

[Sebastopol]

I would think the author would go back to at least 2,000 BCE or even 10,000 and identify the collosal leap made in farming. For a species to go from forraging to agrigulture seems like an enormous effort of overlapping memes (and luck).

Can't wait to read the book.

Re:800 BCE?

[drinkypoo]

I strongly suspect that the cutoff at 800 BCE is due in part to the quantity of data available. Such a thoughtful author would not choose the date arbitrarily or based on simply one factor; I would hope that in the book somewhere he will tell us why he picked that particular time to begin, but the quantity of available trustworthy data is always significant.

A nit on the "dead white males" section...

[tcopeland]

....this line:

"Moreover, the substantially greater demands of parenthood upon women make achievement harder."

The problem is that it's difficult to quantify the contribution of a stay-at-home Mom to her childrens' education, welfare, development, etc. It's very significant; it's just difficult to measure with numbers. "Achievement" means different things to different people.

Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...

[Khomar]

Amen! This is one thing that has bothered me in today's society. It is assumed that because women do not make money or invent new technologies or lead successful companies that they are somehow inferior. The fact is that men and geared biologically and mentally to strive for what is commonly referred to as "achievement", but nearly every achievement can probably be traced back to the man's mother and her wise care and raising of him. Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future.

2 reasons for the West's dominance

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The west embraces the free marketplace of ideas more than others.

2. Western dead white males write the history books that most of us read.

Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance

[back_pages]

Yet the rise of Islam between 700-1200 in the common era was spread by the capitalist and free market practices of the predominantly urban members of the new faith. While Europe was struggling through the dark ages, Muslims were responsible for combining the Hindu concept of zero with more commonplace numeral systems to produce place-value and the easily recognizable 0-9 Arabic numbers which we use worldwide 1000 years later. A Muslim from this era define algorithms and algebra. Arabs in this era translated the ancient Greek works and snatched them from the very brink of obscurity; without those translations the West would very likely have no idea who any Greek philosophers were, or more importantly, what they said and accomplished.

I too find it peculiar that the author says 97% of anybody comes from the West. I would tend to place a far higher importance on the people who gave the world the foundations of modern science and slightly less importance on the people who explored those tools further. Surely there's a Jewish physicist or two who turned the universe on its ear, but to lump all these medieval Muslim scientists - many of whom had just as much impact (in context) as Einstein - into less than 3% makes me skeptical.

(Not that these Muslims were world famous or well received for their contributions, but place-value number systems and algebra were just as phenomenally world-shattering in the year 1000 as the theory of relativity in 2000.)

Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance

[benzapp]

yet the idea of free market is quite young. Adam Smith published Wealth of Nation in 1776. How do you explain all the innovations during the reneissance when merchantilism ruled? Or perhaps during the height of Greeks?

Thats easy.

Capitalism and Communism both fail because they measure value in materialistic terms only. When a society is directed by dedicated leaders, value is imposed. Florence doesn't have such beautiful architecture because the free market encouraged it, but because the leaders of the city demanded it. To a capitalist and a communist, ornate architecture is inherently inefficient and serves no real purpose. It isn't necessary for survival, but it feeds the soul. This cannot be quantified by a capitalist accountant, or a banker, or a communist bureaucrat. It is outside their realm of understanding.

When you realize this, it makes perfect sense that culture is destroyed by capitalism and communism.

Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance

[TKinias]

scripsit benzapp:

Capitalism and Communism both fail because they measure value in materialistic terms only. ... When you realize this, it makes perfect sense that culture is destroyed by capitalism and communism.

I don't know if you realize this, but you just about quoted Mussolini there. This is exactly the Fascist critique of socialism and liberal democracy -- they are solely materialistic and therefore soulless.

This is not a flame, by the way -- I in no way am suggesting you would agree with any other fascist ideas.

Out of curiosity, what would your `third path' be? How would your antimaterialist order work? Is it simply traditional conservatism (of the throne-and-altar type), or something different?

Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance

[benzapp]

I don't know if you realize this, but you just about quoted Mussolini there. This is exactly the Fascist critique of socialism and liberal democracy -- they are solely materialistic and therefore soulless.

This is not a flame, by the way -- I in no way am suggesting you would agree with any other fascist ideas.

Yes, I do realize it. Mussolini had some interesting ideas, but failed to impliment them very well. In reality, it is easy to identify the problem of modernity. It is much more difficult to find a reasonable solution.

And, no need to apologize. I admit that I am a fascist, in that I believe in the leadership principle, cultural standards, and I disagree with egalitarianism.

Out of curiosity, what would your `third path' be? How would your antimaterialist order work? Is it simply traditional conservatism (of the throne-and-altar type), or something different?

I believe in a system of social organization similar to that of Plato's Republic. It involves a hierarchical social structure based on philosophical education and eugenics. The best must be allowed to lead, not because they are popular or powerful, but because they are the most wise and the most excellent. The right to rule wouldn't come from God or popularity, but ethical superiority. This wouldn't be a dictatorship per se, but a new kind of aristocracy. Democracy and popular elections, along with the media structure which maintains such a system, must end however. Especially when the democracy is clearly a fraud, what advocate is simply honesty, and a leadership driven by clear ideals.

Further, any political system of class warfare must end. The purpose of the state is to facillitate class cooperation for the betterment of all. Artisans need to be allowed to flourish , and only when they are not treated as second class citizens can cultural art truly exist again. In some cases, it will be difficult. There are few stonemasons left in this world, but that is one trade I want to see improve. The economic system I advocate is very close to that suggested by the Green Party, which I look at as something of an intermediate step to a fully idealistic state. Without cultural unity or standards however, none of it matters.

As far as cultural renewal, this would be done on a local scale. Each culture should be allowed to thrive and exclude that which does not conform with its culture. In the US, after years of cosmopolitanism, this would very difficult... but I believe it could happen. It would probably be less like an actual state, and more like seperate districts within a state. You could even create a zone for the so called non-conformists where they could non-conform with each other, but visit other unified cities when it suits them.

Another important aspect of the future leaders would be the furthering and appraising of technological innovations. Technology is changing the world far more quickly than current bureaucratic governments can react. A prime role of the future leaders would be to ensure that technology is not abused, both in ways which harm people or the environment. Society must be careful that technological innovation does not weaken our people by reducing the impact of natural selection, thus eugenics is a necessary part of this future society.

I also believe that the warrior ethic should be a major part of this future society. Military service should be mandatory, and combat training should be a part of life from a very young age. In addition to standard militarism, a return to dualing as a legal means of conflict resolution would be beneficial.

Life should be centered around ordered art, combat, honorable behavior, personal excellence, technological innovation, and exploring the unknown.

thats all I can think of at the moment...

Time will tell

[BWJones]

The other significant problem with assigning "value" to more current achievements is that we have yet to find out what the implications of much research is. For instance, many people do not know who Mario Capecchi is, as he has yet to win a Nobel prize (but he will given his contributions to genetics). Furthermore, folks like Shakespeare were not recognized as the geniuses they were until long after their time on earth had passed.

All about the frames, all about the assumptions

[nanojath]

The principle of academy comes through european civilisations. Doing basic science is a luxury of people who don't have to go and scrape some kind of survival out of the dirt - if you look at the resumes of natural philosophers of yore you can't help but notice a preponderance of gentlemen of leisure - they had the means and the opportunity. And of course, any system (be it political, academic, ideological) ends up defining what is "significant" to some degree, how much being debatable to a well-nigh infinite degree. That these definitions tend to group within the boundaries of the system is hardly surprising.

It sounds like an interesting read, perhaps, but I tend to need to take these kinds of things with a whole shakerfull of salt. Human civilization is something that is occurring over a timescale of millions of years, not a couple thousand, and it is the seemingly inescapable tendency of every age to think it can see past the cultural and temporal blinders and set down the "objective" view of the way things are. If you believe anyone really has it, I've got a bottle of phlogiston to sell you.

Definition of Trivial

[Baron_Yam]

The Universe is a big place. It's mostly empty. Does that mean matter is trivial?

I'd suggest that matter is non-trivial, but in the minority when measured by volume occupied. I think we're like that; I think organized matter supporting intelligence is non-trivial, but is certainly in the minority when measured as a percentage of matter in the universe.

Re:Surprising figures!

[DG]

More to the point, given that his date range is 800 BCE to 1950 CE, and the Americas were colonies struggling to be self-sufficiant (with little time for art or science) up until about 1800 or so, that gives Europe a much larger time window.

And then there's a classification problem related to the increase in global travel post 1900-ish. Is Einstein American, or European?

As for the decline in achievement post 1800... that's probably because all the low-hanging fruit are gone. The remaining problems tend to be "hard" in some non-trivial sense.

DG

Human Resume

[NightWulf]

Human Race

humanrace@earth.com

Third Planet from Sun

Sol, Milky Way 90210

(555)0000001

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Sucessful downsizing of pesky animal and plant problem on planet.

Created science, religion, and McDonalds.

Created bureaucracy.

We're the ones sending out 50 year old "I Love Lucy" episodes in space.

Created the atomic bomb.

QUALIFICATIONS

Ability to split everything in to groups, reduce them to superficial views then discriminate.

Can eradicate anything you want in a quick, effeciant manner.

We laugh, we love, we play, we're like sea monkeys except we breathe air.

Terraforming.

Created computers, then made them useful enough to take over the jobs of 80% of our species, smart eh?

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Stone Age, Earth: (10KBC - 2000BC)

Mostly went around grunting at eachother.

Occasionaly raped and pillaged another cave.

Created art using feces and cave walls.

Dark Ages, Earth: (500AD- 800AD)

Not too much happened. We did kill off a shitload of our own people cause we lived like pigs and ended up catching the black plauge.

Technology Age, Earth: (1900AD - Current)

Created manned flight, space travel, robotics, computers, cloning and bio terrorism. Job seems risky right now and looking for new oppurtunities before recently created AI becomes new manager.

EDUCATION

Graduated first in class of 1,000,000,000,000 species on planet.

Top 1% of tool using monkeys.

HONORS

Created especially by this God fellow.

Well, since the conclusion of his last book

[Chris Burke]

was that blacks are inherently stupid, I'm not surprised that he comes to the conclusion in this book that Westerners do all the great work. Does George Washington Carver (presumeably an outlier on the Bell Curve) make the list?

Are there a dozen Shakespeares? Maybe! How would you know? There are dozens of great playwrights in the world today, and dozens of authors, etc. Which are today's Shakespeare? Ask me in three hundred years when can see which authors are still talked about and studied in school. Was Shakespeare hailed as "the Homer of today" at the time? No!

"Significant" figures in science are decreasing? Maybe it's because more science is being done by groups of scientists collaborating. If a dozen papers come out of one university research group, but each has a different author's name on the top, then is that less accomplishment than six papers with one author? I guess the accomplishments of groups of scientists working together isn't significant.

Frankly, I think the absence of "significant" figures is a sign of progress. It shows that our scientific base is widening, so that contributions come from a greater number of individuals. Contrast for example Galileo, one of the only people doing astrological work at the time. Whereas now there are observatories around the world with thousands upon thousands of individuals studying the stars, each making their own contributions.

This book sounds like crap, which I base half on the review and half on my opinion that the Bell Curve was crap. Knowing the way he covers his crap assumptions and the resulting crap conclusions with statistics and charts that seem reasonable at first, I'm seeing heavy potential for the same kind of thing here. Starting with taking whatever statistical feature he's actually looking at and calling it "Achievment", a mirror of taking scores from a military aptitude test and calling that "Intelligence".

But he'll probably get a lot of book sales from people who want to hear about how white folk from the west are the producers of all human achievment.

Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book

[Talisman]

"...since the conclusion of his last book was that blacks are inherently stupid..."

That's not what he concluded, now was it. The conclusion of The Bell Curve was that you can find IQ trends amongst races, and if you recall correctly, Asians had the highest rate of geniuses. Murray is White, so where is his bias?

He stated you will find geniuses in ALL races, but you will find higher proportions in certain races.

Just because GWC was a genius does not mean every other Black person will be or can be.

I always find it astounding how people will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs have undeniable traits (Jack Russel Terriers are smart, Bloodhounds have highly sensitive noses, etc.) but then look at humans and refuse to admit any bio-level distinctions might be there. I guess that's why 75+% of the NBA is Black - because Asians and Whites are every bit as athletic, right?

If you ask the question, "Are there really differences between races?" and eliminate "Yes" as a possible answer, you aren't being intellectually honest.

Talisman

Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book

[Chris Burke]

That's not what he concluded, now was it.

It was that as a race blacks have lower average intelligence and a much lower chance of producing a geniuses. The Bell Curve for blacks is shifted to the left. So yes, that is pretty much what he concluded: blacks are dumber than other races.

Just because GWC was a genius does not mean every other Black person will be or can be.

What's your point? That applies to everyone. I wasn't saying GWC proves all blacks are geniuses, I was questioning whether Carver was considered "significant" by Murray.

The conclusion of The Bell Curve was that you can find IQ trends amongst races, and if you recall correctly, Asians had the highest rate of geniuses. Murray is White, so where is his bias?

What, because he didn't put Whites at the top of the I.Q. Totem Pole that means he didn't have a bias? That's ridiculous. Particularly if his "bias" was against certain races less than for others. And "Asians are smart" is simply the parallel stereotype to "Blacks are dumb". Neither one was a new idea to the crowd the Bell Curve was written for, he was just providing them "proof".

I always find it astounding how people will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs have undeniable traits (Jack Russel Terriers are smart, Bloodhounds have highly sensitive noses, etc.) but then look at humans and refuse to admit any bio-level distinctions might be there.

I'm not denying the possibility of differences between races -- there are, obviously. I'm denying that his book was anything but overhyped shit designed to appeal to what rich white fucks already thought with sloppy science.

I guess that's why 75+% of the NBA is Black - because Asians and Whites are every bit as athletic, right?

I guess that's why 90+% of the NFL is White - because Asians and Blacks are every bit as athletic, right?

But that's the Bell Curve way, isn't it? Find the metric that tells you what you want to hear, then use that and ignore all other factors.

If you ask the question, "Are there really differences between races?" and eliminate "Yes" as a possible answer, you aren't being intellectually honest.

True. But if you cherry pick your data and measuring methods (one military aptitude test that was never even intended to measure "intelligence", number of paper references, percentage of one race playing a particular sport) to get the answer you have already assumed is true, then that's intellectually dishonest as well.

Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book

[gid-goo]

Murran is a publicity genius. But the Bell Curve is full of shit. The National Longitudinal Study of Youth was used for the most of the regression analysis in the Bell Curve. The youth in the study did indeed take the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. Where you are wrong is that the AFQT scores vary widely over education levels. Herrnstein and Murray LIED about the relationship between education and scores on the test. Anyway for a thorough debunking of the bogus Bell Curve science read this

Go ask a Korean where science development occured

[jgardn]

I spent several years living in Korea among the Koreans. I've studied their culture and personality up-close and personal.

Ask a Korean where all the science development occured, and they will point to Europe. Ask them what they have done to further humanity's knowledge and they might mutter something about a great world vision and system called Confucianism, but not much else.

It is true that recently (like in the past 50 years) Korea has experienced a rennaissance in that only now are their thinkers and artists truly free to express themselves. They understand that at this point, they are by no means pioneers. But soon their society will have "advanced" to a level that will be comparable with the European societies. They look to the West to find examples of great scientists, artists, political leaders (think American Revolution, Economic policy, etc...), in their effort to obtain the great wealth in all areas of life that we experience.

They are even now adjusting their entire education system to become like the Greek /Roman / European system we inherited. It used to be, "Do as the teacher says, memorize, and repeat". Now it is becoming, "Question the teacher, and when the teacher can't answer your questions, turn to other sources, or discover the answer for yourself." This is going counter to almost 5,000 years of history in that region.

The same holds true for Japan, China, and other Asian countries. It probably holds true for most of Africa, Australia, and even pre-1800's North and South America.

They literally contributed very, very little to humanity while the West was changing the world every 50 years or so. This is not racism, or me being and egotistical white male American, this is solid fact.

If you want to look at true human achievement, look at what the world is becoming. Only now do Asian, African, and other non-European begin to contribute to the arts and the sciences. Only now do you see advances in political and economical thought coming from there as well. This is all due to our natural sharing attitude, where we would rather teach and lift and bring others to our level than maintain our superiority with an iron fist. We understand that we are much more "wealthy" in true human achievemtn when we have two well-educated, intelligent people, than one well-educate and the other mis-educated.

Decline, or just higher standards?

[David Leppik]

For example, we have 65 playwrights alive today for every one in Elizabethan England. Yet do we have dozens of Shakespeares? The picture is even more stark when the 12,000 members of the screen Writers Guild are taken into account.

Simple reason: increased competition leads to decreased fame. If you have dozens of Shakespeares, no single one of them is going to be as famous as if you have just one. Since the measure of success is necessarily some form of popularity contest, you cannot fairly compare Shakespeare's talent to modern talent. It's like saying Perrier is better than tap water when you tasted the former at noon on a hot day in Death Valley and the latter on a cold and rainy October day in Minnesota.

Nor can you say "I saw a Shakespeare play today and a Tom Stoppard play yesterday, and X is better." We have a culture that primes you for Shakespeare starting before Kindergarden, with all of those "Romeo and Juliet" references, among other things. Stoppard, on the other hand, writes for a post-Shakespeare audience, and builds on Shakespeare. You can't isolate one from the other, nor either from its environment.

Neutral? My Butt!!!

[elwinc]

Hah! According to the review,

So what Murray has done is to split up accomplishment into a number of fields and tried to take a neutral measure of each person's respective 'eminence' in the field. He measures 'eminence' by taking a number of comprehensive sources on each field and counting the references to each person and how many paragraphs they get. The sources are from as many different languages as possible and Murray does a good job of avoiding the distorting effects of ethnocentrism. He uses sharp cutoff dates at 800 B.C. and 1950 A.D. to limit the data.

Are these "comprehensive sources on each field" written in russian or arabic or chinese or sanskrit or swahili?

I don't think so! I'll bet the great majority of sources are english and the rest are western european. Guess what? People tend to reference works written in their own native language! This is bias up the wazoo! So much for a neutral measure!

I've only spent about 5 minutes thinking about it, but a slightly less biased (but not neutral) measure would involve counting works translated into multiple languages. The idea being that if a work is worth the effort of importing from another language/culture, then it's more significant than an untranslated work.

The fact that Murray could build this obvious fundamental bias into his metric is laughable. Then to proceed blithely with the whole book pretending his metric is neutral is just absurd. A whole book about measuring science, and it's based on a warped ruler!

Truly, Schiller was right: against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Nonsense

[duffbeer703]

The Bell Curve (the book not the concept) has pretty much been completely discredited.

I imagine that this book will be as well. Measuring "achievement" is easy to skew since it is a moving target that you can define to suit your opinion.

If you asked a Chinese scholar a couple of hundred years ago about the meaning of achievement, he would probaly stress cultural and social stability.

If you asked a Sioux in 1750, he'd probaly describe a great buffalo hunt.

Mr. Murray has undoubtably done a great job describing how citizens of Western societies have done a great job of advancing western civilization.

What a revelation! Maybe in his next book he'll statistically analyze swimming and discover that fish are the best swimmers!

Born in the west? Good job!

[BorgCopyeditor]

We're the 2-3 billion people who have adopted Western Civilization. We're here, we're better than you, and we're not going away.

Congratulations on having adopted Western Civilization. You showed great discernment in having been born into it. Very shrewd, indeed. I suppose that's why you're entitled to call yourself better than people stupid enough to be born in the Third World.

Asshat.

What a pompous ass!

[SeattleGameboy]

As a Korean-American, I find your condenscending, ignorant view of Koreans to be offensive.

Koreans were the first to develop printing blocks, water clocks, submarines, etc. Not to mentions the most scientific and graceful written languauge in the world - Hangul.

Koreans are very proud of their scientific and artistic achievements. And you if actually spent ANY time learning about their 4000 years of culture and achievements, then you wouldn't be spewing your little ignorant diatribe.

Koreans are adopting to some (NOT ALL) western culture and methods because that makes them competitive in the modern economic world. And if you really want to nitpick, they are modeling themselves after Japan more than any other western country (yes, Japan modeled much from US, but I would argue they have improved much upon the original).

What a nimcompoop...

Re:Go ask a Korean where science development occur

[i_should_be_working]

If you want to look at true human achievement, look at what the world is becoming. Only now do Asian, African, and other non-European begin to contribute to the arts and the sciences. Only now do you see advances in political and economical thought coming from there as well. This is all due to our natural sharing attitude, where we would rather teach and lift and bring others to our level than maintain our superiority with an iron fist.

Teach and uplift and bring others to our level? This is certainly not what Europe was doing between the 1500s and 50 years ago. Granted, scientific achievement in the west is superior in my possibly biased opinion. But as for the rest of the world, well it's hard to do research when you're struggling under colonialism. The book review mentions that certain demographics acheived much more when legal equality was gained. A large portion of the world didn't gain legal equality Until the latter half of the 20th century. Thus "Only now do Asian, African, and other non-European begin to contribute to the arts and the sciences"