From: deepbluehalo@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 03:02:15 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.>> I am very disappointed in this level of argument Harvey. Anyone
who
has studied this area (as perhaps you have not) understands that
military vocational tests, and other aptitude teats are constructed precisely
FOR their "g" loading. That g loading is precisely what makes IQ tests
so very effective. Raising this sort of objection seriously damages your
credibility Harvey.
> 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.>> Incorrect. They utilized achievement test scores
as indirect measures
of "g" and then examined the correlation with income/SES. They hardly
"forgot" an assignment, they merely advanced ethnic achievement
data and looked at it's consistency with the test scores they previously
examined. And the data fits.
> ### 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.>> Harvey you are being
ridiculous. I should expect Drexler's nanotech
books to bear the stamp of the American chemical Society or the
American Association for the advancement of Engineering? The APA
was ambivalent. The best minds in differential psychology (i.e. NOT
the generalist statisticians but the men and women who live
and breathe behavior differences and variance) solidly endorsed
the general outline of the Bell Curve. You would know this
if you read the literature. The specialist literature solidly supports
the Bell Curve. (not in every detail, ut the broad outlines certainly)
> 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.>> Incorrect, you again speak imprecisely. The book
argues that americans
of african extraction (i.e. blacks) differ significantly from whites, who
differ significantly from asians. These differences exist and do so
robustly,even when the environmental effects of family SES or discimination
are controlled
for. No one (least of all the psychometrists) is suggesting IQ is entirely
heriditary, is is merely heritable. Inequities cannot be completly eliminated
as some inequities WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST due to human ethnic variation.
<<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.>> You again have a confused causality chain, leading me to
suspect you are
grinding an axe. Low IQ causes one to be ineducable, this leads to
low income. Low ability leads to lessened opportunity.
<<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.>> Foul most foul. I didn't read
the book, I don't have to, my religous
belief in egalitarianism is more important than any facts so
I will just engage in name-calling. SHAME ON YOU!!!
<<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.>> Thank goodness you are not in charge of something that requires
good logical skills lest people die. IQ is NECCESSARY BUT NOT
SUFFICENT. Once you have it, then you
need good mental training and the right personality.,
<<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.)>> I
see. I'll avoid asking you about your past it could get very personal
VERY quickly.
<<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.>>
We are all QUITE familar with the history of the Pioneer Group. You keep
throwing around these Nazi slurs. I could make comments here but I will
forgoe them. I will suffice it to say that if the Waffen SS Foundation of
your silly liberal fantasies was paying good money for evidence of white
supremacy then they were cheated, as every scientist they hire keeps saying
the East Asians have more of whatever supposedly makes whites "superior"(your
words!) to the blacks.
<<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 note you still haven;t addressed the underlying literature. Maybe you
don't understand it hmm? Or maybe you'd prefer to be the ostrich. (or should
that be Oster-reich since you seem to love these N-word slanders)
<I can't imagine anyone NOT considering The Bell Curve to be a racist
political tome with no scientific value.> Right here chummer. Expect to get
firm resistance for
your crusade any time you mention it on the list.
< It was universally rejected
by all scientists. >> *All scientists*. Except the ones who matter. Except
the ones who
published an endorsement in the NY Times?
<<It has been examined by many independent
organizations who all have concluded that it is fundamentally flawed. >>
Usually for their own reasons. Enough already.
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.>>
They are Neo-nazis like you are a tool of the vast Zionist Overgovernment.
(i.e. not very!). You seem to think you can twist the facts to suit your own
intellectual jihad. You have lost all credibility on this issue and I am
serving you notice that I will not allow your lies to be unanswered in this
forum.
Comparing your opponents to the third reich is beyond the pale.
It clearly marks you as someone interested only in slander and villifying
your intellectual opposition.
While work is rather busy I shall be enriching myself by a careful analysis
of the statistical references you mentioned. It should prove fascinating for
me...
regards,
Brian
---- This message was posted by deepbluehalo@earthlink.net to the Extropians 2002 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=53108>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:58 MST