Murray vs. his opponents on policy matters

More thoughts, trying to figure things out...

I think various policy angles (help to) explain help some of the opposition to Murray.

1.) To the extent that he wrestles with specific policy RX's in BC, his opponents disagree with him vehemently, on what are often sacred cows for them.

2.) Over and over again, Murray notes that these results tell us virtually nothing about individuals (which is [conveniently] overlooked or ignored by the opponents). But the differences have (far) larger implications for groups—a painful reality for his opponents to consider, since they tend to focus on (and value) groups rather than individuals.

3.) To the extent that policy necessarily addresses groups, Murray’s implications for policy are negative and/or awkward—a problem for those who value political correctness and government policy as an ethical and practical means to various ends. (In Murray's view, these differences should not be overlooked if true—well, at least if one hopes to construct more effective policy, rather than succumb to good intentions and a desire to relieve guilt.)

4.) Because his opponents are relatively fond of govt as a means to various ends, they are self-conditioned to leaping to govt as an ethical way to deal with these problems—and are prone to assume the same about Murray. (In contrast, Murray is quite reluctant to use govt proactively!) So, I suspect there’s a disconnect between what he reports and what they assume he would want to do in terms of policy. For example, when he talks about the poor having more babies and those babies tending to have lower IQ, they leap to a policy conclusion that they might/would advocate for the greater good (if they believed what he believes), but which he would not (as a defender of individuals).