Investigating human diversity in the twenty-first century Julien Delhez Anthropological Review • Vol. 83(3), 317–325 (2020) Investigating human diversity in the twenty-first century Julien Delhez Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been renewed academic and public debate on the topic of race. The present essay compares two books dealing with this subject. Charles Murray’s Human Diversity states that the social sciences are permeated by a rigid orthodoxy that puts unnecessary strain on researchers working on sex differences, race differences, and individual differences. Far from being scary, Murray argues, these differences are interesting and can be lived with. Adam Rutherford’s How to Argue With a Racist examines various claims with respect to race. It includes four sections dedicated, respectively, to skin color, ancestry, sport, and intelligence. The essay assesses the authors’ factual claims as well as their tone, their general mindset, and their personal attitude toward science. KEY WORDS: human differences, race, genetic variation, ancestral populations Introduction gue With a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality (Rutherford 2020). While both Research on human evolution and ge- books have already been reviewed sever- netics has greatly changed the way hu- al times by academics and by journalists, mans see themselves. While helping to I believe a comparative book review has understand the past and the present of several merits. Firstly, both authors are our species, research has also led spe- informed observers and have witnessed cialists and the broader public to revise the same scientific revolution, and yet their thoughts on some highly sensitive came out with very different conclusions; topics. it may be interesting to explore why. In this essay, I discuss two books ad- Secondly, an assessment of the authors’ dressing recent studies on human differ- viewpoints and writing may reveal many ences and what they mean for society: differences beyond factual disagreement. Charles Murray’s Human Diversity: The Thirdly and importantly, when one uses Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (Murray each book to cast light on the strengths 2020), and Adam Rutherford’s How to Ar- and weaknesses of the other book, it be- Review Article Received: July 28, 2020; Revised: XXXX XX, XXXX; Accepted: August 25, 2020 DOI: 10.2478/anre-2020-0024 © 2020 Polish Anthropological Society 318 Julien Delhez comes easier to overcome the temptation tackles sex differences in what Murray of selecting the best arguments on one calls “cognitive repertoires” (Murray side while ignoring valuable points on 2020: 8), i.e. differences in personality, the other side. All in all, the main lesson mental abilities, and behavior. To enable I have drawn from comparing these two the reader to understand how large an books is that the topic of race requires a average difference needs to be in order great deal of intellectual humility. to matter for society, Murray provides Human Diversity is a thick volume sum- an interlude explaining what Cohen’s d marizing the results of many recent stud- consists of (Murray 2020: 23), and he ies on sex differences, race or population points out one of the most important differences (see below for the distinction facts about sex differences in cognitive between race and population), and individ- repertoires: even if the vast majority of ual differences in relation to class struc- effect sizes for such differences are tiny, ture. The book does not require advanced it does not mean than such differences training in genetics or psychometrics. are socially irrelevant, because “in the Nonetheless, given how complex the is- real world, it is taken for granted that sues dealt with are, one can expect that small differences add up” (Murray 2020: it will mainly find readers among those 28). A very convincing example of this who are willing to familiarize themselves is given by the comparison between fac- with technical notions. Despite its as- es of both sexes: for isolated traits, it is sumed goal of challenging “an orthodoxy often difficult to perceive any difference that is scared stiff of biology” (Murray between the female face and the male 2020: 2), Human Diversity is noticeable for face, but when one looks at a face in its its non-confrontational tone. entirety, most of the time, it isn’t difficult How to Argue With a Racist is a short to find out whether it is male or female book which focuses exclusively on the (see Murray 2020: 29). topic of race. Compared to Human Di- The next three chapters tackle sex versity, How to Argue With a Racist has a differences in personality, neurocogni- more combative approach, as Rutherford tive functioning and abilities, and voca- (2020: 3) explains: “This book is a weap- tional choices. Murray generally focuses on.” The book has neither footnotes nor on the issues that are least contentious endnotes, only a list of forty references among psychologists and neuroscien- (Rutherford 2020: 189–194). tists. The difficult question of whether Before comparing the arguments the sexes differ in g (the general factor of both books on the topic of race, it is of intelligence) is treated very briefly, worth presenting Murray’s claims on the with a footnote allowing curious read- two other sensitive issues he deals with: ers to find articles from both sides of the sex differences and class. debate (Murray 2020: 386–387, n. 61). For sex differences in vocational choices, Latest research on human sex Murray relies on the results of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth differences (SMPY). This study is especially help- ful for assessing sex differences in life A substantial part of Human Diversi- choices insofar as all participants, male ty (Murray 2020: 11–127 & 337–372) and female, had the ability to embrace Investigating human diversity in the twenty-first century 319 a career in engineering or the physical (2020) wrote: “Murray leans hard on the sciences. Even within the SMPY sample, work of Cambridge psychologist Simon substantial sex differences in life prefer- Baron-Cohen. But while Baron-Cohen ences have been found: among others, is well respected, some of his published on average, females were more likely to claims have not been replicated (that is, choose a part-time employment (either confirmed by subsequent studies). This temporarily or definitely), and males doesn’t mean they are wrong, but that were more likely to give weight to a “sal- Murray’s confidence is unwarranted.” ary that is well above the average per- In fact, Murray (2020: 35) clearly urg- son” (Murray 2020: 69). Females were es caution about one of Baron-Cohen’s also more likely to end up in the human- most publicized studies: “It is a single, ities. Importantly, both sexes viewed unreplicated study with a sample of 102, their lives as equally satisfying, which no proof to take to the bank, but its find- suggests “that there are multiple ways ing was in line with many other studies to construct a meaningful, productive, that have found personality sex differ- and satisfying life” (Lubinski et al. 2014 ences in infants.” cited in Murray 2020: 76). Another chapter deals with the differ- Class and individual differences ences that have been observed, on brain scans, between brains of both sexes. For Human Diversity’s section about class the time being, the most important thing mainly presents conclusions that are al- to remember is that this research field is ready accepted among behavioral geneti- still in its infancy (Murray 2020: 125). cists. I will summarize them very briefly. Appendix 2 deals with medical condi- The author accepts neither the pessimis- tions that may constitute exceptions to tic view that socio-economic class is pri- the sexual dimorphism of the human marily a function of economic or ethnic species. Appendix 3 tackles sex differ- privilege, nor the optimistic view that ences in brain size, whose implications “people can become anything they want are not yet well understood, and the phe- to be if they try hard enough” (Murray, nomenon known as “greater male vari- 2020: 203). Instead, Murray (2020: 204) ance” (see Murray 2020: 357). states: “Class is a function of the genet- Are there additional topics the au- ic lottery plus character, determination, thor should have covered? In the spirit hard work, and idiosyncratic circum- that a chain is as strong as its weakest stances.” To clarify the role of the genet- link, Murray has willfully refrained from ic lottery, Murray outlines his argument discussing the findings of evolution- in three steps. Firstly (chapter 11), in an ary psychology (see Murray 2020: 6–7) overview of solidly established findings and studies on rodents in relation to of behavioral genetics, he points out that biological sex differences in the brain all behavioral traits are heritable, and the (see Murray 2020: 103). Some readers g factor substantially so, while the shared will probably miss a discussion of such environment (parental environment) has studies. In the author’s defense, though, little impact on the children’s cognitive one cannot say that wariness about un- repertoires. Secondly (chapter 12), he fair critics was not warranted: in a re- provides evidence as to the crucial role view for the New Statesman, Philip Ball of g in determining educational perfor- 320 Julien Delhez mance, job performance, income, and Importantly, while the number of groups occupation. Thirdly and finally (chapter (K) is decided by the analyst, analyses 13), he deals with various claims about conducted with different numbers offer allegedly substantial effects of exter- results that are consistent with one an- nal interventions. The sections on the other: “different values of K do not pro- growth mindset (Murray 2020: 255–258) duce a radically different pattern of re- and epigenetics (Murray 2020: 260–268) sults.