Re: REVIEWS: The Bell Curve

From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 11:46:32 MDT


 mail@HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) writes:
>We should firmly define what this book claims before we can argue for

 It would be nice if people on this list could agree about what claims
the book makes, but I see little reason to expect such agreement.

>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

 "This does not mean that socioeconomic background is irrelevant.
The magnitude of the effect shown in the graph and its statistical
regularity makes socioeconomic status significant in a statistical sense."
- The Bell Curve, page 135 (discussing the causes of poverty).

>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,

 "Cognitive ability is substantially heritable, apparently no less than
40 percent and no more than 80 percent." - The Bell Curve, page 23.
 Do you claim that "no more than 80 percent heritable" is consistent with
"cannot be altered after birth"? Or that book somewhere claims that IQ or
status is more than 80 percent heritable (if so, where does it make such a
claim)?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey          | Free Jon Johansen!
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:09 MST