echidna

You don’t see the connection ? Just quickly, whatever Murray and Herrnstein’s own conclusions, the Bell Curve has been seized by many Eugenics organizations as scientific justification of eugenics (as surely H & M must have anticipated). By denoting the larger attributing factor of genetics over environment, eugenicists conclude that environmental influences over IQ will always be limited.

While the Bell Curve makes little or no comment itself, it is often cited as providing strong reasons to place less economic worth on education as a way to alleviate social IQ change, and a strong reason to halt affirmative action programs since there is unlikely to be any longterm change in the group intelligence of various racial groupings (or as the book redefines it, cognitive ability).

Personally I’m also cool on AA, but for dramatically different reasons. While eugenicists would argue that certain races are “born stupid” or with low cognitive ability and there is little way to ever change this, personally I am simply of the opinion that AA is often counter-productive in demeaning those who genuinely merit higher positions of employment.

Just for starters, check <a href="http://www.eugenics.net/" target="_blank">http://www.eugenics.net/</a>

Names such as Murray, Lynn and Rushton feature prominently. Similarly, their links to organizations such as the Pioneer Fund are also well known.

BTW, I don’t think that’s quite the meaning of caveat emptor.

echidna

In answer to the demonising quote I used, which discredits many of their references, and associates them with the Pioneer Fund, Murray responds :

Now, purely on the subject of the Pioneer Fund, Murray does not distance himself whatsoever, he would seem to say that it is quite different from what its past history would have us believe. In fact his statement is to add credibility to the present work of the Pioneer Fund.

So contrary to Pioneer's own virulent denials of past accusations, Murray would actually seem to acknowledge them.

Let’s clarify. From <a href="http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html" target="_blank">http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html</a>

It is little wonder then that with such explicit interest in eugenics, the Pioneer Fund has frequently been branded a racist organization & has long been involved with numerous controversies surrounding allegations of eugenics and racism. Certainly the Pioneer-funded studies cited by Murray all support a conclusion that environment plays a significantly lesser role than genetics.

And yet Murray would have us believe it is now “roughly analogous” to the Ford Foundation ? Murray cannot be as innocent as he would have us believe.

Today the Pioneer Fund goes to great lengths to deny numerous racist accusations levelled against its members. No smoke without fire. While they selectively quote supportively from these people, the damning quotes from these same people are every bit as convincing. It is very hard to read these in a favourable context. Very few organizations receive this kind of vilification & I would suggest for good reason.

echidna

Remembering that much of the material studying the results of education programs in improving cognitive ability was funded by the Pioneer Fund, further on the role of education, from Murray himself …

Personally I read this as Murray heavily questioning the value of education in improving cognitive ability within racial groups.

“but at present only in modest amounts for most children, usually temporarily, and inconsistently”

How else would you read it ?

Later he responds to my opening quoted criticism, the Flynn Effect allegedly demonstrating the unreliability of IQ tests.

Pardon me, but this just about accepts the criticism, but then inexplicably (“something” ?) distances cognitive functioning from IQ, entirely inconsistently.

Also he doesn’t acknowledge that the gap has narrowed even in the short time since the book.

Special note that Herrnstein and Murray are not optimistic toward the possibility of improving IQ scores though environmental means. Their hypothesis is mainly genetic.

No, criticism still very solid AFAIC.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

If one assumes the Bell Curve is correct and factual then all the Eugenics people have done is commit an "is to ought" fallacy. There is a deep chasm between some idea of racial characterisitcs/IQ on one hand to "lets perform eugenics" on the other.

That is why I say they aren't related.

Sure it is.

DC

doubtingt

While the charges of racism and bias in the "Bell Curve" are probably warranted, there is no doubt that just as many lies, distortions, and bad science have been marshalled by those with an ideological fear of genetically based differences in intelligence. Plenty of reasonable people with a desire to protect the integrity of the research on intelligence have criticized the clearly ideological work of people like Gould, just as much as H and S.
Pinker's recent book "The Blank Slate" does a good job of talking about the ideological basis for those who unjustifiably deny the existence of general intelligence and its partial genetic basis.

The "Bell Curve" aside, here are the facts about
the current state of intelligence research that are endorsed by the majority of reputable cognitive scientists who work in this field.

1. African Americans consistently score 15 to 20 points lower (almost 1 standard deviation) on several different measures of general intelligence.

2. These differences occur on tests, such as Ravens Matrices, etc., for which there is no theoretical or empirical basis to assume cultural bias.

3. Genetic inheritance accounts for about 50% of the individual variance in scores on these tests.

4. Any factor, such as genetics, that is responsible for individual variance in IQ CANNOT be automatically assumed to be responsible for group level differences.

5. To date, there is no adequate socio-cultural explanation that has been able to account for these group level differences.

6. The only scientifically justifiable position on the source of these group differences is to remain agnostic and neutral until future evidence provides more insight.

echidna

Actually I’m no longer sure of this. It’s certainly the number which is bandied around, but the Bell Curve was sensationalised for its radical assertions & sensationalisation wins publicity but not necessarily accuracy.

While possibly true shortly prior to the Bell Curve, my reading cites several mentions that the gap has noticeably narrowed in subsequent studies. In part, this is pivotal to many of Herrnstein and Murray’s most controversial assertions.

I’m not familiar with Raven’s Matrices, but this site, <a href="http://www.sv.ntnu.no/psy/Bjarne.Fjeldsenden/Articles/GHANA199.html," target="_blank">http://www.sv.ntnu.no/psy/Bjarne.Fjeldsenden/Articles/GHANA199.html,</a> certainly seems to list :

… as possible reasons for different norms.

Umm, that’s an area of high uncertainty. Twin studies are largely relevant here however the ones used by the Bell Curve are cloudy at best.

Interestingly I gather that black women earn on average around 10% more than white women. So while Murray and Herrnstein use income gaps as evidence for their assertion of a genetic base for IQ, when this is presented, they immediately attribute it to Affirmative Action programs, thereby acknowledging alternative influences, albeit very selectively.

Well actually the many alternatives include education, nutrition, culture, social attitudes, many of which are overlooked by HM, and those which are studied would appear to have been studied very questionably.

Whew, finally I can agree to an extent. I am not familiar with more recent studies.

echidna

In a nutshell,

HM : P1. Lower socio-economic demographic groups are associated with lower IQ.
HM : P2. Lower socio-economic demographic groups have much higher fertility than educated higher demographics.
HM : P3. Cognitive function is not attributable to education (or if so only marginally), more so it is genetically hereditary.
C1. Average cognitive function should fall over time.

But but but, average IQ actually rises about 3 points every decade !!!

Murray’s explanation : “increase in IQ scores over time represents something besides gains in cognitive functioning”, ie IQ isn’t cognitive function.

Yeah, right.

As Murray says, “But what that something is remains unclear, and this issue is still wide open.” Well essentially that’s the entire area of debate over his book. So while Murray goes to great lengths to assert confidence in his book, with one sentence he dismisses his most controversial assertions as completely uncertain.

MBR

Runners keep breaking world records too, don't they?

What assertions are you referring to?

echidna

To take an extreme, say nurture counts for nothing and IQ is only attributable to genetics. Essentially education programs, social programs, health programs and so forth all become worthless. Of course HM don’t assert zero, but they do assert that environment counts for factorally lower than is generally considered. Separately they also assert that such programs are only marginally effective.

In doing so, the bettering of mankind is mainly achievable only by genetic improvements to the human race. Lower intelligence DNA would seem to be a liability for starters.

That’s why I say they are related.

MBR

Your assumption is that

1. The goal of educating an individual is to raise their IQ.

2. Having a higher IQ is always "better".

The goal of educating an individual is to help them perform to their highest abilities.

Labeling a higher IQ as inherantly "better" is a slightly bigoted opinion. Perhaps you could clarify this.

Is it so absurd to believe that congnitive ability could have developed at different rates for different groups that inhabited significantly different environments. Especially in the face of different physical characteristics that are obvious. It seems people are way too sensitive about it.