[ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement

[Lee Corbin]

Harvey wrote

Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Literary Criticism Technique

> [Murray] only looked at European histories and concluded
> that Europeans were the most important figures in history.

No, he did not make such a claim! He lists dozens of Chinese
and Japanese contributors to human achievement alone. And
breakthroughs from many cultures, not to mention amazingly
long lists of Indian or Arabic breakthroughs. The Europeans
were simply by far the most *numerous* contributors.

Someone had to be. Silicon Valley has done far more for
human accomplishment than has Nebraska (in population
about the same size), but the cultural and historical factors
are obvious. Same with the whole world.

> What do you think would have happened if he only read
> Oriental or only Middle Eastern histories?  No matter how
> much he claims to have "corrected" the data, it still comes
> from one culture only, biasing the results toward that culture.

What histories?  Exactly which ones do you have in mind?
In almost every case, you'll now find that the stories of
the (not insignificant) actual accomplishment which occurred
outside the west have now been most thoroughly catalogued
*by* western students, (or, as in the case I'm most personally
familiar with, (mathematics, see below), their disciples, in effect).

> His methodology clearly only polls European sources and
> therefore overcounts them.  Had he actually tabulated
> references from all cultures, he would have counted more
> entries for more non-European figures.

When you speak of "references from all cultures", could
you be more specific?  Yes, it would make sense to tabulate
references to Chinese writers that appear in the extremely
vast corpus of Chinese literature, but no, it wouldn't make
sense to take names off Mayan stelae just because some
king was mentioned dozens and dozens of times. How careful
was Murray?  Here is what he says in

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17821,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

An excerpt:

    The science inventories (subdivided into astronomy, biology,
    chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, and
    technology) were worldwide-that is, Chinese and Arab scientists
    were part of the same inventory that contained Copernicus and
    Newton. My working assumption was that historians of science
    are able to identify important scientific achievements
    independently of the culture in which they occur.>

to which, yes, your criticism might apply, and

     The arts inventories (subdivided into the visual arts, music,
     and literature) and the philosophy inventory could not be worldwide.
     Even though some sources for these topics purported to cover
     the entire world, the weight given to different artistic traditions
     involves judgments and preferences in ways that accounts of
     scientific accomplishment do not. It could not be assumed, for example,
     that a history of the visual arts written by a German would use
     the same standards for Chinese or French art as for German art.
     To avoid the problem of cultural chauvinism within the Western
     world, I selected sources balanced among the major Western countries
     (along with other precautions discussed in the book). For non-
     Western countries, the most direct way to sidestep this problem was
     to prepare independent inventories. For philosophy, I prepared
     separate inventories for the West, China, and India. For the visual
     arts, I made use of distinct inventories for the West, China,
     and Japan. For literature, I used separate inventories for the West,
     the Arab world, China, India, and Japan. Music was restricted to
     the West. Altogether, 4,002 people qualified as "significant
     figures," defined as those who were mentioned in at least 50
     percent of the sources, in one or another of the inventories.

to which it doesn't.  Please allow me to mention mathematics, on
which I claim to be moderately well read. About ten years ago I
purchased the unbelievably massive two volume "Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Mathematics" 2nd edition, published by the
Mathematical Association of Japan. It dwarfs any other world-wide
compendium

Although it lists two hundred (!) translators of the first edition,
---every single one of them Japanese---easily ninety-eight percent
of the mathematical achievement is attributed to Europeans
(or westerners in general). Of course, we know the historical
reasons for this. Indeed, since the opening of Japan in 1853,
the Japanese have, starting a half century later, demonstrated
that in terms of ability they're the equals of anyone (beginning in
1903 with Takagi, and working right through an extremely vital
component in Wiles' 1994 proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, the
Tatyana-Shumura conjecture. Do you think the Mathematical
Association of Japan suffers from Eurocentric bias?

> You are implying that my objections are not serious or not based on the book...

Have you read it?  If not, *what* summaries or criticisms did you read?

> I cannot imagine that you are unaware of the controversies
> surrounding Murray and his methods, including this book.

Of course I am *VERY* aware of the controversy over
one small part of "The Bell Curve" (the small chapter that
talked about race differences and that got everyone so
excited, but is *not* at all the main theme of the book).

But *no*, I am *not* aware of criticism of "Human Achievement".
And it doesn't look like Wikipedia is either. You must help if you can.

> Go Google it for yourself if you are unaware of the negative
> peer review and criticism that this book has received.

I tried!  Just after I read your post, I tried, and then tonight putting "Charles
Murray Eurocentrism" in google yielded no negative reviews in the entire first
two pages of links!  In fact, of the links shown were (I don't recommend them)

http://denisdutton.com/murray_review.htm  (link 6)

(This hasn't much substance: but at least it's a *criticism*:   (link 3)
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:0j8rjQegV6wJ:www.leeds.ac.uk/cers/toolkit/pdf/Toolkit_Endnotes.pdf+Charles+Murray+Eurocentric&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
just a bunch of footnotes.)

A predictable Wall Street Journal take:  (link 5)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004206

and so on.

Would you (or anyone) *please* provide any meaty critical
links at all? My book group is discussing "Human Achievement"
very shortly, and it would be great to have some substantive
criticism. I haven't found any.

Even Wikipedia is ominously silent. There is no "Criticism"
section, as so often there is, in their article on the book
itself.  Only near the end of the article on Murray himself is:

Pro
  a.. Cato Institute Book Forum (RealVideo) (RealAudio),
       1 hour lecture that Murray gave discussing his book
       Human Accomplishment, and some of the response to it.
  b.. Address to Commonwealth Club of California on 18-Apr-2006
       regarding his welfare reform proposals (RealAudio)
  c.. "10 questions for Charles Murray." McIntosh, Matt (2006),
       Gene Expression.
  d.. "The Idea of Progress: Once Again, with Feeling" in the Hoover digest.

[edit] Con
  a.. NY Times biographical article: Jason DeParle (1994), "Daring Research
      or 'Social Science Pornography'?: Charles Murray".
  b.. "Flattening The Bell Curve" by Nicholas Leman, at Slate Magazine
  c.. "Debunking The Bell Curve" Articles on The Bell Curve.

which only mention "The Bell Curve".

Even more oddly, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment
Their "External links" section has not even a single one that's negative.
Do you have any idea why?  I'm at a loss.

Thanks,
Lee