> That's why any good IQ test - like the ones used in the studies Murray draws from - test a mix of verbal, visuospatial, and numerical thinking ability.
This is, as I've repeatedly noted, not really true. There's some great criticism of the kinds of IQ tests he uses in the book, in fact, some of them weren't even IQ tests, which makes any conclusions drawn from them about academic achievement really quite silly. If you're asking trigonometry questions (as one test he uses does!), well you aren't testing innate knowledge, but academic progression.
See for example https://bolesblogs.com/1998/03/23/a-review-of-the-bell-curve..., which discusses the multitude of both logical and psychological errors in the book's analysis of IQ and intelligence.
Murray's response to this type of criticism is wholly unsatisfactory.
> No. Murray repeatedly emphasizes the role of environmental factors like schooling and parenting
Saying that he claims environmental factors have some effect, does not contradict that he claims that genetic factors are the majority. Those are, in fact, both true statements!
It's also a bit self contradictory: if he says that socio-economic factors have an impact on measured IQ, then what's the point of IQ as distinct from socio-economic factors? If improving educational access and such improves the measured values, it clearly isn't any sort of innate measure, and is obviously culturally influenced, which is precisely the point I'm making. I'm glad he agrees with me ;)
> The reality is that Murray's claims about IQ are not nearly as controversial or inflammatory than people make them out to be.
I agree! They're just scientifically inaccurate.
The odious things are the policy suggestions he pushes for based on the bunk science! And when one uses bad science to push racist policies, listeners (rightly) start to wonder if perhaps the science is being done to push the policies, and not vice versa. He starts from the conclusion and works backwards, and does so to justify inequalities that exist today. That is racist.
> people criticize Murray more out of perceived implication than about concrete claims.
Another way to put what I'm getting at here is that the scientific claims Murray makes are broadly not false, but they are often vague and underspecified. The policy proposals he suggests only make sense under a particular interpretation of his scientific claims, a particular interpretation he never explicitly states. That interpretation isn't supported by his data, and contradicts much of the softening he places in the book.
It doesn't make sense to advocate for removal of the social safety net as a "solution" to the problem of low IQ individuals reproducing too much[0] if you believe that IQ can be raised through policy that improves socio-economic outcomes. It is logically inconsistent to both believe that childhood economic status improves IQ, and that we should reduce government assistance to those with the lowest IQs. In fact, you'd want to do the opposite: stabilize them with additional income such that their economic status, and with it, IQ, increases.
His policy proposals only make sense if he believes that IQ is primarily genetic and that things like schools and socio-economic environment don't have a significant impact.
[0]: Let's ignore the giant question being begged here.