Jack,

Murray’s solution is for the rich not to keep their superior moral wisdom to themselves and share it with the poor.

You should get the book to go over the graphs (don’t bother reading the text). The data there are breathtaking.

I will and just for kicks and giggles I’ll read the text anyway.The idea of “superior moral wisdom” sounds suspiciously like the protestant work ethic ideal!

Cap’t Jack

I imagine that if the rich shared their wealth and knowledge/skills of attaining and keeping wealth (instead of their “superior moral wisdom”), the poor wouldn’t be so poor anymore and would be more likely to take on the “superior morality” of the rich.

TimB - 11 May 2012 12:44 PM

I imagine that if the rich shared their wealth and knowledge/skills of attaining and keeping wealth (instead of their “superior moral wisdom”), the poor wouldn’t be so poor anymore and would be more likely to take on the “superior morality” of the rich.

The fact that you (and Murray) actually believe this is possible is more interesting to me than this whole problem with the division of the social classes. (Actaully I am not really surprised you believe it, but no idea what happened to Murray; I think he is getting old and confused.)

I haven’t read the book.  So he thinks that if the poor became better off financially, they would have “better moral behavior”?  I thought you were saying that Murray simply thinks that the poor need to be taught the superior morality.

No, he doesn’t believe they need more money. Why would he? The poor are doing financially better than they used to in the sixties. To tell you the truth, it’s not all that clear how the rich would share their wisdom with the poor from the book—not that I really care to figure out Murray’s nonsensical ideas.

It is key, I think, as to whether Murray is asserting that the “superior morality” leads to one being wealthy or, conversely,  that being wealthy leads to having the “superior morality”.  Note the scare quotes as I am not conceding that the overall morals of the wealthy are in fact superior to the overall morals of the poor.

Yes, that’s one of the problems with his theory. He does mention biology in the book and how it has a lot to do with how we behave (probably implying that being born with a sense of “superior morality” leads to greater achievements) but the chapter where he quickly covers it is quickly forgotten in the following pages towards the end of the book where all he talks about is reeducating the poor. Mambo jumbo.

BTW, according to Murray, within this century, science will prove that we have free will. I am telling you, he is really losing it…

George - 11 May 2012 01:09 PM

No, he doesn’t believe they need more money. Why would he? The poor are doing financially better than they used to in the sixties. To tell you the truth, it’s not all that clear how the rich would share their wisdom with the poor from the book—not that I really care to figure out Murray’s nonsensical ideas.

Then my original point is not in agreement with his stance.  My point is that superior wealth establishes contingencies that powerfully effect one’s behavior, and how one leads their life, and how one views the world. 

Sure, behaving according to a set of rules that helps you avoid economic pitfalls and attain more, will contribute to the possibility of having more wealth. But where are the powerful day to day contingencies to promote such rule governed behavior? If you are already wealthy, the contingencies for following these rules are in place (moreso than if you are not). 

On your side point, what is the data supporting the assertion that poor whites are doing better financially than they were in the 60’s?

He’s just doing what he’s being paid to do: fluff up the conservative billionaires who are paying his salary at the AEI.

TimB - 11 May 2012 01:33 PM

On your side point, what is the data supporting the assertion that poor whites are doing better financially than they were in the 60’s?

I don’t have the book with me, but I can look it up when I get home.

dougsmith - 11 May 2012 01:34 PM

He’s just doing what he’s being paid to do: fluff up the conservative billionaires who are paying his salary at the AEI.

Oh my!  That doesn’t appear to be a good organization to be associated with, for someone who infers that they know about “superior morality”.

George - 11 May 2012 01:42 PM

TimB - 11 May 2012 01:33 PM

On your side point, what is the data supporting the assertion that poor whites are doing better financially than they were in the 60’s?

I don’t have the book with me, but I can look it up when I get home.

I imagine that what constitutes “doing better financially” could be open to different perspectives or different kinds of data.  But if it is not too much trouble…

TimB - 11 May 2012 01:45 PM

dougsmith - 11 May 2012 01:34 PM

He’s just doing what he’s being paid to do: fluff up the conservative billionaires who are paying his salary at the AEI.

Oh my!  That doesn’t appear to be a good organization to be associated with, for someone who infers that they know about “superior morality”.

Nope.