From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 09:47:32 MDT
In response to numerous requests that I offer any evidence against The
Bell Curve, I provide the following links. These were quickly googled
up because I don't have the time to do a lot of research right now.
The biggest complaints against this book seems to be:
- the authors were not skilled in the topic they tried to measure
- the statistical method they used is invalid for the type of data the
tried to measure (it was for single-factor traits not multi-factor
traits I think?)
- they extrapolate data from single-race studies showing correlations
within a group and apply them outside the groups to all races
- they assume cause-and-effect from statistics which is never
derivable from statistics. If blacks have lower income and lower IQ
scores it may be due to the same lower standard of education, and
cannot be assumed to be a cause-and-effect as this book assumes
- there are methods to try to break apart multi-factor traits, such as
comparing well-educated whites and well-educated blacks or blacks with
lower grades and whites with lower grades, which shows education and
not race is the determinant factor. This book does not try to break
apart multi-factors but just assumes the factors they desire to be the
cause. Studies that do try to break apart multi-factors show that
education is a better predictor.
- they did not publish this through normal scientific channels and it
was not peer reviewed, and most peer reviewers reject their methods as
statistically invalid
- other experts who review it usually reject it or find the
methodology invalid
- their representation of sources does not match what the original
sources said
- there is evidence that some data was cleansed or manipulated to make
it come out right
- many researchers say their data was misrepresented in the book and
did not say what they represented
- specifically the twin studies results seem to have been manufactured
from studies that never finished or made conclusions
- specifically the Scarr-Weinberg study found 1.5% correlation between
racial bloodgroup factors and IQ, but this book misrepresents it as
supporting their claim
- most IQ research shows that IQ does not fall in a normalized
bell-curve
- peer reviewers cannot make the data referenced in the book match the
bell-curve they claim. Different references come up with different
curves but do not show consistent predictability as the book implies.
- and/or the curve can take on any shape depending on the scheme used
to measure it
- the authors themselves claimed that IQ only accounted for 5-10-20%
of differences
- many of the studies they cite to support racial IQ differences were
funded by conservative groups specifically trying to prove race
differences, such as the Pioneer Fund <http://www.pioneerfund.org/>.
These "studies" are rejected by most scientists as political treatises
and not scientifically valid.
- the book suggests getting rid of welfare and controlling immigration
by race for the good of America. These are clearly political views
and not scientifically measured data.
We should firmly define what this book claims before we can argue for
or against it. This book claims that IQ is the predominant predictor
of success and social class in life. It argues that socio-economic
status has little if anything to do with success and status. It
argues that these are inborn traits that cannot be changed. People
born into one class are there because of genetic racial factors
relating to IQ which cannot be changed or altered. People cannot rise
above their current station in life and better themselves to another
class or status, because these are pre-determined by genes at birth.
More specifically, the book claims that IQ is genetic and cannot be
enhanced or developed by any means. People's status and class are
determined by genes and cannot be altered after birth. Specifically,
Murray claims that blacks have a lower average income because they
have lower IQs and that social and economic factors have little to do
with it. He also personally argues against social programs such as
welfare because he believes these people cannot be helped or educated
to do better. They will always make less money and hold lower class
jobs because as a race he thinks they are not capable as doing what
other races do.
I do not believe that these statements are true. They seem to go
against everything that transhumanists believe. They seem to run
counter to many people's successes in improving their lot in life. In
real life, scores on IQ tests vary greatly and are not good predictors
of success or status as this book claims.
Here are some quick google links with more details against The Bell
Curve. Since these were the first five I found, I conclude that it is
not difficult to find these scientific refutations if people want to
look further.
<http://www.apa.org/journals/bell.html> Two Views of The Bell Curve.
Breaking the Last Taboo by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. Soft Science With
a Neoconservative Agenda by Donald D. Dorfman.
<http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html> Skeptic
Magazine Interview With Robert Sternberg on The Bell Curve.
<http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.miele-murray-interview.html> Skeptic
Magazine Interview with Charles Murray
<http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html> Anatomy of an Analysis
<http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/bellcurveillustration2.html> The
Bell Curve Workbook (survey of a lot of sites about this)
<http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut27.htm> Challenging the
Racist Science of "The Bell Curve"
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:55 MST