Charles Murray

mikepegg44

For those who don't know, Charles Murray is a pseudo-social scientist. He authored the bell curve which offered up some rather controversial positions.
I heard him on the radio last night waxing poetic about a different time in America. We can call it "my day". I think we all may have a tendency to do this in some way or another. The idea that 50, 30, 20, 10 years ago things were so much better. I have yet to read the book, but I assume it is similar in style to the Bell Curve...which basically is a text book on how to jump from statistics to causal links without taking into account all the variables necessary...basically, what he has a habit of doing (in my opinion) is looking at the number of tiger attacks in MN, and comparing it to the number of lakes we have and making the decision that the more lakes you have has a direct causal link to the likelihood of being attacked by a tiger...

But his interview did get me thinking about a couple of things...

1: Why do people have the habit of remembering things as being better than they may have been? and additionally, what will people remember about our current time...when we are all 40 years older...will we be remembering the early 21st century with rose colored glasses?

2. he also made a point of welfare programs making it possible for single parents, mainly mothers, to support a family...but he looked at this as a negative...that this has actually allowed for the decay of the traditional family unit...is he right? is this an unintended consequence of social programs...in other words, are we starting to see the long term negatives from these types of programs (traditional welfare) and is helping those in need immediately truly the best thing for society in the long run?

I suppose those questions may be a bit much, but I just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on these topics...as always let's keep it civil...this isn't meant to be an indictment or condemnation of those currently on welfare, and I would prefer it not go down that road.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

For those who don't know, Charles Murray is a pseudo-social scientist. He authored the bell curve which offered up some rather controversial positions.
I heard him on the radio last night waxing poetic about a different time in America. We can call it "my day". I think we all may have a tendency to do this in some way or another. The idea that 50, 30, 20, 10 years ago things were so much better. I have yet to read the book, but I assume it is similar in style to the Bell Curve...which basically is a text book on how to jump from statistics to causal links without taking into account all the variables necessary...basically, what he has a habit of doing (in my opinion) is looking at the number of tiger attacks in MN, and comparing it to the number of lakes we have and making the decision that the more lakes you have has a direct causal link to the likelihood of being attacked by a tiger...

But his interview did get me thinking about a couple of things...

1: Why do people have the habit of remembering things as being better than they may have been? and additionally, what will people remember about our current time...when we are all 40 years older...will we be remembering the early 21st century with rose colored glasses?

2. he also made a point of welfare programs making it possible for single parents, mainly mothers, to support a family...but he looked at this as a negative...that this has actually allowed for the decay of the traditional family unit...is he right? is this an unintended consequence of social programs...in other words, are we starting to see the long term negatives from these types of programs (traditional welfare) and is helping those in need immediately truly the best thing for society in the long run?

I suppose those questions may be a bit much, but I just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on these topics...as always let's keep it civil...this isn't meant to be an indictment or condemnation of those currently on welfare, and I would prefer it not go down that road.

sounds like an interesting interview...

1) he makes a great point about the rose colored glasses thing. For me, phrases like "we want our country back" and "we need to follow the constitution" come to mind...I always wonder "from what? " and "really, women couldn't vote and that pesky 3/5's compromise thing is not such a great thing to follow"..

2) not sure what to say, I seems that he has rose colored notion of "traditional family units"...it's interesting that he doesn't see that...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

For those who don't know, Charles Murray is a pseudo-social scientist. He authored the bell curve which offered up some rather controversial positions.
I heard him on the radio last night waxing poetic about a different time in America. We can call it "my day". I think we all may have a tendency to do this in some way or another. The idea that 50, 30, 20, 10 years ago things were so much better. I have yet to read the book, but I assume it is similar in style to the Bell Curve...which basically is a text book on how to jump from statistics to causal links without taking into account all the variables necessary...basically, what he has a habit of doing (in my opinion) is looking at the number of tiger attacks in MN, and comparing it to the number of lakes we have and making the decision that the more lakes you have has a direct causal link to the likelihood of being attacked by a tiger...

But his interview did get me thinking about a couple of things...

1: Why do people have the habit of remembering things as being better than they may have been? and additionally, what will people remember about our current time...when we are all 40 years older...will we be remembering the early 21st century with rose colored glasses?

2. he also made a point of welfare programs making it possible for single parents, mainly mothers, to support a family...but he looked at this as a negative...that this has actually allowed for the decay of the traditional family unit...is he right? is this an unintended consequence of social programs...in other words, are we starting to see the long term negatives from these types of programs (traditional welfare) and is helping those in need immediately truly the best thing for society in the long run?

I suppose those questions may be a bit much, but I just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on these topics...as always let's keep it civil...this isn't meant to be an indictment or condemnation of those currently on welfare, and I would prefer it not go down that road.

sounds like an interesting interview...

1) he makes a great point about the rose colored glasses thing. For me, phrases like "we want our country back" and "we need to follow the constitution" come to mind...I always wonder "from what? " and "really, women couldn't vote and that pesky 3/5's compromise thing is not such a great thing to follow"..

2) not sure what to say, I seems that he has rose colored notion of "traditional family units"...it's interesting that he doesn't see that...

that is the thing, he was the one with them on the entire time, which made me think why do people do that?
.

I see what you mean in your first point. I certainly am more of a constitutionalist by nature. I would prefer the concept of federalism be more the main stream. I also understand that the constitution isn't perfectly constructed, but the thing that is perfect is its ability to be changed. It can be changed and has been for the greater good of the nation, most of the amendments have done fantastic things to promote the civil rights of all human beings...the problem I have is when those rights that are guaranteed by the constitution are ignored by those who are supposed to protect it.

I think there is something to be said for the idea that welfare does make it possible for a single parent to raise a family...but a single parent household cannot always be looked at as a negative. That is the trap I was talking about with him. He jumps a lot of spaces to get to his conclusion...

edit

and it certainly was interesting. He makes common sense conclusions, but ignores so many other factors. But, having some past experience with Murray, I knew what to expect.

blackredyellow

mikepegg44 wrote:

1: Why do people have the habit of remembering things as being better than they may have been? and additionally, what will people remember about our current time...when we are all 40 years older...will we be remembering the early 21st century with rose colored glasses?

2. he also made a point of welfare programs making it possible for single parents, mainly mothers, to support a family...but he looked at this as a negative...that this has actually allowed for the decay of the traditional family unit...is he right? is this an unintended consequence of social programs...in other words, are we starting to see the long term negatives from these types of programs (traditional welfare) and is helping those in need immediately truly the best thing for society in the long run?

1) Most of us have that sort of romantic hindsight in life. Even look at more short term things... Years later, you might find yourself thinking of a past relationship... Even if it was up and down, and it ended badly, in moments of loneliness, you find yourself going back to the good parts that you miss, while ignoring the nasty arguments you had.

2) I guess this line of thinking makes sense if you don't believe that single parents situations would occur if our welfare system wasn't in place. I don't believe that... But I do think that there are long-term negative consequences with welfare/unemployment, but I'm not sure that the downfall of the traditional family are one of them.