From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 18:17:18 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
The biggest complaints against this book seems to be:
- the authors were not skilled in the topic they tried to measure
### Who said? The skilled ones?
------
- 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?)
### Details? I might not be an expert on statistics but I didn't find any
glaring errors.
--------
- they extrapolate data from single-race studies showing correlations
within a group and apply them outside the groups to all races
### They cite a lot of research on many 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
### Lower IQ correlates with lower income independent of race. The
underlying cognitive structures are causative of achievement in most
professions, and therefore in whites you can abbreviate your verbiage to say
that IQ differences cause income differences. Are you saying that blacks are
different from whites because among them low income is caused by other
factors than IQ? That would be a racist view.
-------
- 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.
### IQ tests were expressly designed to predict academic achievement and
they do it very well. Not surprisingly, poor educational achievements will
correlate with income, but it is IQ that predicts the achievement in the
first place (even before the kids go to school), so obviously it is IQ (or
the cognitive faculties measured by it) that are the cause of both academic
and financial performance. To assume otherwise would be to believe in
causation against the arrow of time.
-------
- 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was not peer reviewed, and most peer reviewers reject their methods as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
### All journals dealing with intelligence accept their methods and their
conclusions - not surprising, since they took their data and most
conclusions from peer reviewed literature. They didn't need to publish the
obvious - they wanted to inform the lay public, like us, about the
prevailing views of the relevant scientists.
------
- other experts who review it usually reject it or find the
methodology invalid
### Yeah, you will always find somebody who rejects something.
-----
- their representation of sources does not match what the original
sources said
### Examples?
-------
- there is evidence that some data was cleansed or manipulated to make
it come out right
### Examples?
-------
- many researchers say their data was misrepresented in the book and
did not say what they represented
### Who and how?
------
- specifically the twin studies results seem to have been manufactured
from studies that never finished or made conclusions
### Well, current twin studies confirm previous mid-range estimates of IQ
heritability, at about .5
-------
- specifically the Scarr-Weinberg study found 1.5% correlation between
racial bloodgroup factors and IQ, but this book misrepresents it as
supporting their claim
### I'll check on the weekend, don't have my copy of BC here.\
-------
- most IQ research shows that IQ does not fall in a normalized
bell-curve
### There are minor deviations. So what?
-------
- 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.
### Scientifically supported political views, explicitly stated as such, and
not presented as data.
Have you read the book?
-------
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.
### True for modern democratic states.
-------
It argues that socio-economic
status has little if anything to do with success and status.
### I didn't understand this sentence.
-------
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.
### Not claimed by the authors.
-------
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.
### Not claimed by the authors.
-------
More specifically, the book claims that IQ is genetic and cannot be
enhanced or developed by any means.
### Not claimed by the authors.
-------
People's status and class are
determined by genes and cannot be altered after birth.
### Not claimed by the authors.
-------
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.
### Correct.
---------
He also personally argues against social programs such as
welfare because he believes these people cannot be helped or educated
to do better.
### You think welfare educates anybody?
--------
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.
### Low IQ persons will make less money, because as individuals they are not
capable of doing better. Your above statement is a perversion of Murray's
message.
-------
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.
### They also have mostly nothing to do with the Bell Curve. Have you read
the book?
------
In
real life, scores on IQ tests vary greatly and are not good predictors
of success or status as this book claims.
### The test-retest variance for IQ is very low. IQ is the best known
predictor of success.
-------
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"
### Been there, done it. All the same overblown rhetoric, talking about a
lot of issues but not about the book, nit picking on trifles.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:56 MST