From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 06:53:19 MDT
On Monday, September 16, 2002, at 07:15 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Since neither one of us is a practitioner in the field of IQ testing,
> it is
> important to establish a list of the authorities we want to base our
> discussion on. I would like to establish a list of journals which
> both of us
> might accept as such authorities.
I actually do have some graduate work specifically in cognitive
testing and performed some internship in the State of Florida's
Department of Education developing gifted programs. But what does
that have to do with anything?
Why do we need to establish a list of pre-approved "authorities"? If
you have any scientific reviews of The Bell Curve that support it,
just post it!
>> The American Psychological Association denounced the book by
>> concluding "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent."
>
> ### Am I to infer that the above statement is an actual quote from an
> official APA policy statement? Please be so kind and provide a link.
No. Why would you infer that? I clearly gave the reference for this
as coming from The Bell Curve FAQ at
<http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-bellcurvescience.htm>. If you
look there, it clearly gives this quote right after the summary
paragraph at the top. That quote has a footnote that clearly
documents the news article where this exact quote came from. I don't
know why you people keep acting like I haven't provided links to my
evidence. It's all there if you read my postings.
> She re-analyzed specifically the relationship of poverty status, age,
> SES,
> and AFQT. This is only one of more than thirty similar analyzes in
> the book.
> The re-analysis is not rejecting the validity of TBC's approach, merely
> expresses some puzzlement, and warns that "the devil is in the
> details".
> And, of course, she expresses no opinion about the remaining 30 similar
> analyses in the book.
Strangely, you don't quote the very next paragraph:
"HM's model though did not fit the data for subjects living under the
POVERTY level: their model predicted none of these cases correctly."
> "I examined one analysis and don't know if it's representative of the
> other
> 34 basic analyses HM presented in Appendix 4. How well would HM's model
> predict unemployment? The model could predict very well or as poorly
> as it
> did in the original POVERTY analysis. At present, I have no
> idea--although I
> suspect I'd find more of the same, I do not know that I would.
>
> and
>
> "the devil is always in the details--details like the instruments you
> use to
> measure psychological constructs, pulling data from disks and tapes,
> creating variables, selecting cases, translating the preceding into
> one form
> of computer-ese or another, and so on down the daisy chain.
Strangely, you don't quote the main conclusion along with these two
minor caveats:
"In conclusion, I was able to replicate HM's analysis but found that
their model fit neither their published data (N=3367) nor those from
that independent group of white non-students in the NLSY
Supplemental(N=1067) subsample."
> ### OK, this is it for starters. Until tomorrow.
Feel free to post whatever you want. But the only thing I am waiting
to see is a scientific review of The Bell Curve that concludes that it
was good science. I posted my list of scientific studies that
reviewed The Bell Curve and concluded it was flawed over a week ago.
I am still waiting for a reference to any similar scientific study
that supports the other side. Until I see such a reference, all the
scientific reviews seems to support my beliefs.
-- 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 - 09:17:06 MST