From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 05:03:06 MDT
deepbluehalo@earthlink.net wrote,
> Anyone who has studied this area (as perhaps you have not)
I have graduate coursework in cognitive testing methodologies, as well as
minors in Mathematics, Biology, Psychology and Science Education.
> > ### All journals dealing with intelligence accept their methods and
their conclusions
> > 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?
How is my answer ridiculous? I simply answered the claim that "all journals
accept their methods and their conclusions" by listing some respected ones
that don't. (At least I thought these groups were respected until I saw
your answer. I didn't realize they were considered part of the liberal
establishment like the news media.)
> 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.
I am still waiting for any such references to be posted.
> 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.
Perhaps. But the correlations between these four factors as claimed in the
Bell Curve does not demonstrate cause and effect. It could also be the way
I claim and still produce the same correlating curves.
> > 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 will just engage in name-calling. SHAME ON YOU!!!
Incorrect, I did read the book.
How is my statement name-calling? I didn't call them metaphorical Nazis as
an insult. I pointed to the information showing that the Pioneer Fund
literally supported Hitler and the Nazi party during the war. I provided
real references and data, not merely a bad name label. I don't think we
agree on what name-calling is. The Nazi party chose this name for
themselves, it is not an insulting term made up by their opponents.
> > 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.
You are not disputing my point. IQ alone is not sufficient to predict
certain or common success. Mental training and other personality traits are
required. Your statements seem to agree with mine, or else I am missing
your point.
> > 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.
> I see. I'll avoid asking you about your past it could get very
> personal VERY quickly.
How is my answer personal? I was simply answering the claim that Murray was
never involved in any racist activities by pointing out his own stated
history.
> > An extremely detailed analysis of the first statistical model
> > the book can be found at <http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html>.
> > 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.
How is my answer failing to address "underlying literature"? The above link
directly analyzes the statistics quoted in the book itself. I don't see how
it could get any more direct. Could you be more specific in what you want
me to address?
> > 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.
Fair enough. You are entitled to give me firm resistance. However, I
rather have real references that I can review that might persuade me
differently. Merely telling me I am wrong isn't very persuasive to me if
there is no specific data to refute my data. I really am willing to
consider anything presented.
> the ones who published an endorsement in the NY Times?
References, please? Statements like these provide me no information to
examine. I don't know who these "ones" are or where to look to find them.
My searches on the Internet have failed to find any scientific organizations
supporting this book. I would really like to know if anybody else knows of
any. I can't really get any information out of statements like these
without references or data.
> > It has been examined by many independent organizations
> Usually for their own reasons. Enough already.
You think the NSF, APA, Human Genome Project, etc. are all unscientific
liars? I would gladly review the scientific organizations that you might
suggest.
> 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.
Strangely, I seem to be the only one posting any references on the subject.
You claim they are all lies, but fail to give me anything to support your
assertion. It might be possible that I have been duped by a vast liberal
conspiracy of scientific organizations. But until I see any references or
data from the opposing side, I really have no basis for changing my mind. I
am serious when I say I want to review the work of any scientific
organization that endorses this book. So far, all I have gotten is a lot of
heat but no substance. While I try to respond to all criticism to be
polite, I really haven't gotten any actual data for me to consider.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:58 MST