From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 11:26:02 MDT
On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 08:17 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### IQ tests were expressly designed to predict academic achievement
> and
> they do it very well.
Almost none of the tests they used were IQ tests. They used military
aptitude tests and other tests to estimate IQ in the absence of real
IQ tests.
> Not surprisingly, poor educational achievements will
> correlate with income, but it is IQ that predicts the achievement in
> the
> first place
Perhaps. But the authors did not show this. They used achievement
tests to estimate IQ. Based on low achievement they assumed low IQ.
Then when they looked at the low IQ scores they themselves
extrapolated, guess what, they were among the low achievers. They
forgot that they assigned the low IQs to the low achievers in the
first place. That is, they "discovered" the results of their original
assumptions. They used circular logic to conclude their original
beliefs with no additional data. Many of their studies were flawed
with this circular logic.
> ### 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.
Untrue. No scientific organizations endorsed this as far as I can
determine. Review panels were set up to evaluate this book by the
National Science Foundation, The American Psychological Association,
The Human Genome Project, statisticians, and similar groups. NSF said
the science was wrong. APA said the psychology was wrong. HGP said
the genetics was wrong. Statisticians said the math was wrong. No
scientific groups endorsed this book. If you have any counter
examples, I would be greatly interested.
> ### Yeah, you will always find somebody who rejects something.
But this is pretty much universal rejection. I would be interested in
any examples of scientific organizations accepting this book. I
couldn't find any.
> 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.
The book specifically states that non-whites have lower status,
lower-paying jobs, and less achievements due to their lower IQ and
specifically states that these are not due to education, social
problems, poverty, nutrition, or any other non-genetic factors. All
inequities between races are because they are born that way, not
because society treats them any different. This is what the book
specifically claims.
> 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.
You don't believe that lack of education, lack of money, lack of equal
treatment causes blacks to be paid less than whites? You believe that
all of their problems are due to their lower IQs? I find this
incredible.
> 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.
>
> ### Have you read the book?
I looked at it once and chucked it in the trash. The logic was so
obviously convoluted that I couldn't wade through it. The statistics
were invalid. The reasoning was circular. I gave up before finishing
it. I didn't learn about the Nazi connections or understand the
politics of this project until years later.
> ### The test-retest variance for IQ is very low. IQ is the best known
> predictor of success.
In what Universe? Mensa is full of genius failures, and the real
world is full of average successes. IQ doesn't predict anything. It
does not correlate to salary, grades, SAT scores, military
achievement, job success, social success, or anything else. It may
measure some raw brain functions, but the application of these brain
powers to result in real-world success is by no means certain or even
common.
> ### Who said?
> ### Details?
> ### Examples?
> ### Who and how?
> <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.
It seems that you followed the links to all the sources you are asking
for. But you have chosen to dismiss them all. That is your right,
but please quit asking for references, details, examples as if I
haven't given these sources. Here are some sources that are harder to
refute (maybe):
The American Psychological Association denounced the book by
concluding "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent."
The Human Genome project denounced it as a "misrepresentation of the
state of genetic knowledge in this area and the misuse of genetics to
inform social policy."
Within the scientific community there is almost unanimous consensus
"that ‘The Bell Curve’ was a primitive, over simplistic and flawed
analysis," says Craig T. Ramey, a professor of psychiatry and
pediatrics at the University of Alabama.
More details can be found in The Bell Curve FAQ at
<http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-bellcurvescience.htm>.
As for being racist, Murray himself admitted in an interview for The
New York Times Magazine to burning a cross with a group of friends as
a teenager. (Jason DeParle, "Daring Research or Social Science
Pornography?" The New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1994, p. 51.)
The racial IQ studies in The Bell Curve are almost all funded by a
single neo-Nazi organization called the Pioneer Fund
<http://www.pioneerfund.org>. All of the Funds' studies are
specifically designed to prove the superiority of the white race over
other races. See <http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/022.html>
for a history of this group.
An extremely detailed analysis of the first statistical model in the
book can be found at <http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html>. It is
very in-depth into the statistical methodology of the very first model
cited in The Bell Curve. This researcher could reproduce the numbers
from the book, but only following their instructions which seemed
convoluted and invalid. He concluded that "HM's model though did not
fit the data for subjects living under the POVERTY level: their model
predicted none of these cases correctly." Even using their own
models, the predicted curve did not match the data like they claimed
it did. <http://www.srv.net/~msdata/analysis.html#rep>
I can't imagine anyone NOT considering The Bell Curve to be a racist
political tome with no scientific value. It was universally rejected
by all scientists. It has been examined by many independent
organizations who all have concluded that it is fundamentally flawed.
The authors, the studies, the funding foundation, and all their
histories are so clearly racist and connected with eugenics, white
supremacy, Nazism, and racial politics, that I can't see how their
final product could be seen as anything but a neo-Nazi manifesto.
Other google searches should find more data and reviews. Perhaps you
can give some sources and references next time instead of just
dismissing all of mine and pretending that I haven't answered "who?"
"details?" "examples?" "how?", etc. I would be interested in any
scientific organizations supporting this book or any follow-up studies
that corroborated it. I couldn't find any.
-- 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 - 09:16:57 MST