I found Murray’s major theses in Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, hard to believe, in particular, that the elite is sexually well behaved.
Everyone knows that high socioeconomic status males have high rates of marriage, low rates of divorce, and look after their kids, but that high socioeconomic status career women are worse than truck bar strippers, at least at the very top, such as high priced female lawyers: they have low rates of marriage, if married have high rates of adultery and high rates of divorce, seldom have children, frequently fail to look after their children, if divorced with children invariably demand custody but are then apt to ditch the kids as inconvenient. When young they have a rapidly changing parade of males who tend to be thugs, unsuccessful musicians, ski bums, and similar shiftless lowlifes, to whom they are apt to give large amounts of money, a financial relationship that more resembles being a complete idiot than hiring gigolos (or at least I hope it does). When they reach the age when promiscuity ceases to be intriguing and becomes disgusting they are apt to become cat ladies. (However women who pursue careers in traditionally female areas do not tend to be bad, apart from high status women who work in Human Resources who tend to be bad despite it being a traditionally female area)
But, according to Murray, what everyone knows is not so. Supposedly, it is a myth.
However Murray then piously follows the pretense that there are no significant differences between men and women, and offers us, not statistics for high socioeconomic status career women, but for high socioeconomic status people.
According to Murray, the myth is not about high socioeconomic status career women, but about high socioeconomic status people. Heaven forbid that there might be anyone anywhere who might think that men and women are very different.
As usual, statistics that might potentially be politically incorrect, statistics that might reflect adversely on favored groups, are hard to find but Euro had some:
Vassar economist Shirley Johnson calculated that every $1,000 increase in a wife’s earnings increases her chance for divorce by 2 percent….These working women, who earn $20,000-plus, are the most likely of all women to be separated or divorced.”
According to this study, the odds that an executive woman will never marry are four times greater than for the average American woman. Only 5 percent of most women age thirty and up have never wed (the 1985 Census), whereas 21 percent of our executive women have never been brides.”
“Even if our women do marry, the probability of their divorcing is twice as great as the norm. Thirty percent are currently divorced, and another 10 percent are on second or third marriages. Forty percent of all our women have therefore been divorced–compared with just 20 percent of most women in their same age range.”
“The differences between our women and their male peers are even more striking. Less than half (48 percent) of our women are currently married–compared with a whopping 96 percent of executive men … What’s more, just 11 percent of the men have been divorced, compared with nearly four times as many of our women.”
While much of the bad behavior of high socioeconomic status career women may well be the result of hypergamy, not all of it can be explained in this fashion. Possibly some of it is the result of feminism. Feminism demands that men behave well, and demands that women behave “transgressively”. High socioeconomic status people are more exposed to such doctrines, and more likely to conform to whatever they are exposed to, being selected for conformity.
Murray also claims that our universities are sorting out the cognitive elite.
Reading old books, it appears to me that sorting along cognitive lines was most selective and effectual quite some time back. Cognitive selection has been diminishing since at least 1950 and arguably since 1890.
The problem is that if you recruit on indicators that correlate strongly with intelligence, such as the SAT, you get politically incorrect results. So increasingly universities are recruiting on indicators of conformity, pliability, and political correctness, on which women and blacks score far better.
The increasing recruitment on conformity and consensus explains the bubble that Murray describes. It also explains obviously dim witted members of the elite, such as the world’s most influential scientist, Michael Mann. (Though as one of my commentators points out, he is more a megaphone for the state, not a himself holding the microphone) Similarly Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, though not dim witted, is not all that bright. Mann and Krugman are not the cognitive elite.
There is a myth going around that Murray is a prophet of the libertarian right. Not so. Murray represents how far right, and how far libertarian you can be, and still be mostly acceptable in polite company: Which is not very right, nor very libertarian at all, as compared with reality.