Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 05-13-2002, 12:04 PM

Anyone read this book, or familiar with the controversy?

I didn't read it, but after reading a few reviews, it seems that the central thesis in the 'bell curve' is that there is an irreducible intelligence gap between caucasians and other races, or something to that effect.

Anyone knowledgeable about this controversy? Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" that supposedly refutes the bell curve? On what side of the argument do you stand?

(NOTE: Reading some reviews at Amazon, it seems that many conservatives have used these findings to argue against liberal politics.)

Corey Hammer · 05-13-2002, 12:50 PM

Whites in the South averaged lower scores than Blacks in the North, and, no, I don't have a cite.

Corwin · 05-13-2002, 12:59 PM

I don't recall the specifics, but in general terms there were some horrible problems with their methodology... (basically they set out to prove backs weren't as intelligent as whites, and by gawd that's exactly what they found.) There was also some unpleasantness when one of their major funding sources was revealed to be a slush fund for a number of right wing organizations ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the White Knights. (Essentially someone traced the bulk of their funding back to the Ku Klux Klan. Gee... I wonder why they found blacks to be less intelligent?)

Essentially every sociologist that isn't an apologist for the supremacist movement took one look at their 'study' and either laughed long and loud, got disgusted, or both.

Principia · 05-13-2002, 01:04 PM

Quick note: Robert Plomin has done prominent research into the genetic and environmental etiology (i.e. the 'nature/nurture') of intelligence. It is worth putting up some citations of his work here, when I have time later...

[Space reserved].

Bill Snedden · 05-13-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>Anyone read this book, or familiar with the controversy?</strong>

I have read the book, am passingly familiar with the controversy, and have read Gould's "rebuttal".

In a nutshell, while the differences in I.Q. test performance between "racial groups" and sexes is undisputed, the analyses performed by the authors in order to identify "racial group" and sex as causal factors explaining the difference in performance did not have nearly as clear-cut results.

They then go on to complete a complex and sophisticated factor analysis relating I.Q. to a host of societal ills, purporting to find lower I.Q. scores causally related to crime, out-of-wedlock birth, drug use, etc, etc....

Unfortunately, IIRC, the highest R^2 value ("goodness of fit") in the entire set of regressions was something like .3, which raises serious questions about the validity of any of the correlations they pronounce.

Of course, an equally serious problem is that the concept of "race" has no biological basis. The classification of test results is done based primarily on the self-identification of participants rather than any "objective" means of classification. Add that to the also well-known fact that there is greater variation within so-called "racial groups" than between them and you have another set of reasons why the author's findings should be suspect.

I believe Gould covers these as well as other objections in his book.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

joshack · 05-13-2002, 01:41 PM

Unfortunately, IIRC, the highest R^2 value ("goodness of fit") in the entire set of regressions was something like .3, which raises serious questions about the validity of any of the correlations they pronounce.

Bill,

Correct me if I am wrong, but do you mean the Chi-square value here? I believe an r^2 of .3 is entirely reasonable (when speaking of variance accounted for).

Secular Elation · 05-13-2002, 03:04 PM

You guys seem confident that the bell curve finding is bunk, but some of the reviews at Amazon support the book well, IMO.
But I have not read it, so I cannot rightfully comment on it.

However, this review kind of heated me:

Quote:

The hyper-vulnerablility which the liberal establishment displayed when this book was published only served as additional confirmation of the book's findings. Almost none of the logic-free vituperation that greeted the Bell Curve's publication centered around the psychometric data presented therein. Instead, the authors themselves were attacked, usually as "racists," and even more audaciously by Jesse Jackson, when he said "the last time such racist tripe received celebrity was in Nazi Germany." This is an important logical misstep, and one Jackson isn't alone in committing.

Although I'm fairly certain IQ tests weren't administered in Hitler's Germany, it would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the Bell Curve's contents if it turned out they were. This is the fallacy known as guilt by association, in which a person refuses to believe something simply because "evil people" believe in it also. Claims must be evaluated independently of the company who keeps them. Hitler enacted environmental laws, but the legitimacy of environmental laws isn't affirmed on the basis of whether or not Hitler once believed in them.

Those who tacitly concede the genetic component of IQ, yet claim "IQ isn't everything" have woven themselves a tatty straw man -- neither author, nor any proponent of hereditarianism, claim this. For those who claim this data is "oppressive," prove it. Generally speaking, it has been the predominately low-IQ underclass that has financially oppressed the middle and upper-classes that support the underclass's opulent transfer payments. In short, the claims made in the Bell Curve stand or fall on their own, apart from Third Reich bogeymen and appeals to pity, emotions and the consequences of accepting such claims.

The main thesis of the Bell Curve is that scholastic performance, job placement, criminality and even automobile accidents correlate strongly with IQ. Of course, because the Bell Curve's data shows that some racial groups (mainly blacks and Hispanics) are overrepresented on the left half of the Bell Curve, liberals will be quick either to deny that IQ means anything, or that it does, but that the IQ-gap can be explained by socio-economic standing. But as Herrnstein and Murray point out, wealth attainment and IQ are closely correlated. That is to say, one's IQ is largely a casual factor of their socio-economic standing, not the other way around as egalitarians so often assume.

Why does this guy insist on directing his fire at liberals and egalitarians? Why would he find delight in the bell curve thesis? Why would he enjoy something that is against egalitarian ideas of equality?

Secular Elation · 05-13-2002, 03:05 PM

Also, looking at reviews for The Mismeasure of Man, there were many very scathing reviews.

Corwin · 05-13-2002, 03:15 PM

The basic problem here is that logical fallacies aren't exactly absolute. Applying what we call a 'logical fallacy' is frequently incorrect, true. However, applying SOME of what we call 'logical fallacies' does not invalidate an argument, as long as there is a justifiable reason for doing so. As an example, laughing hysterically at someone who uses Kent Hovind as a source can be seen as ad hominem or any of several other fallacies. HOWEVER... we must remember that this is someone who has a long past history of using misrepresentation, lies, and distortion to support his 'arguments' as well as demonstrating a complete lack of any sort of educational or factual standards or common sense, or any sort of complete understanding of his subject matter. Hence, in this case while informing other debaters that someone is quoting the illustrious and infamous Kent Hovind may technically be a logical fallacy, in THIS case I don't feel that it invalidates the argument. Likewise, informing people that a given study on race was not only largely funded by white supremacists, (a group that has shown itself to be only all too willing to distort facts in order to support its agenda) but that steps were in fact taken to cover up the source of these funds is technically a logical fallacy. Does that change the fact that that fallacy refers to? Or its influence on the end result? I think not.

Add to this that mainstream sociologists have gone over the study and found it to be horribly biased toward a predetermined result.... and you end up with a 'study' that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The only way to defend such a study is to attack the attackers.... in this case as being 'liberals' and 'fanatics' and other statements which unlike the biases of the Klan, can only be considered to be 'facts not in evidence.'

phaedrus · 05-13-2002, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong> I didn't read it, but after reading a few reviews, it seems that the central thesis in the 'bell curve' is that there is an irreducible intelligence gap between caucasians and other races, or something to that effect.

</strong>

Caucasians or Asians ?

small article ... <a href="http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950911/essay.europe.html" target="_blank">ARE ASIANS SMARTER?</a>

small paper....

<a href="http://209.41.166.116/presslandia/papers/BellCurve.doc" target="_blank">The Bell Curve and Intelligence </a>

05-13-2002, 12:04 PM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	The Bell Curve Anyone read this book, or familiar with the controversy? I didn't read it, but after reading a few reviews, it seems that the central thesis in the 'bell curve' is that there is an irreducible intelligence gap between caucasians and other races, or something to that effect. Anyone knowledgeable about this controversy? Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" that supposedly refutes the bell curve? On what side of the argument do you stand? (NOTE: Reading some reviews at Amazon, it seems that many conservatives have used these findings to argue against liberal politics.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2002, 12:50 PM	#2
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Whites in the South averaged lower scores than Blacks in the North, and, no, I don't have a cite.

05-13-2002, 12:59 PM	#3
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I don't recall the specifics, but in general terms there were some horrible problems with their methodology... (basically they set out to prove backs weren't as intelligent as whites, and by gawd that's exactly what they found.) There was also some unpleasantness when one of their major funding sources was revealed to be a slush fund for a number of right wing organizations ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the White Knights. (Essentially someone traced the bulk of their funding back to the Ku Klux Klan. Gee... I wonder why they found blacks to be less intelligent?) Essentially every sociologist that isn't an apologist for the supremacist movement took one look at their 'study' and either laughed long and loud, got disgusted, or both.

05-13-2002, 01:04 PM	#4
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	Quick note: Robert Plomin has done prominent research into the genetic and environmental etiology (i.e. the 'nature/nurture') of intelligence. It is worth putting up some citations of his work here, when I have time later... [Space reserved].

05-13-2002, 01:41 PM	#6
joshack Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: valley of the hell, AZ Posts: 26	Unfortunately, IIRC, the highest R^2 value ("goodness of fit") in the entire set of regressions was something like .3, which raises serious questions about the validity of any of the correlations they pronounce. Bill, Correct me if I am wrong, but do you mean the Chi-square value here? I believe an r^2 of .3 is entirely reasonable (when speaking of variance accounted for).

05-13-2002, 03:05 PM	#8
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Also, looking at reviews for The Mismeasure of Man, there were many very scathing reviews.

05-13-2002, 03:15 PM	#9
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	The basic problem here is that logical fallacies aren't exactly absolute. Applying what we call a 'logical fallacy' is frequently incorrect, true. However, applying SOME of what we call 'logical fallacies' does not invalidate an argument, as long as there is a justifiable reason for doing so. As an example, laughing hysterically at someone who uses Kent Hovind as a source can be seen as ad hominem or any of several other fallacies. HOWEVER... we must remember that this is someone who has a long past history of using misrepresentation, lies, and distortion to support his 'arguments' as well as demonstrating a complete lack of any sort of educational or factual standards or common sense, or any sort of complete understanding of his subject matter. Hence, in this case while informing other debaters that someone is quoting the illustrious and infamous Kent Hovind may technically be a logical fallacy, in THIS case I don't feel that it invalidates the argument. Likewise, informing people that a given study on race was not only largely funded by white supremacists, (a group that has shown itself to be only all too willing to distort facts in order to support its agenda) but that steps were in fact taken to cover up the source of these funds is technically a logical fallacy. Does that change the fact that that fallacy refers to? Or its influence on the end result? I think not. Add to this that mainstream sociologists have gone over the study and found it to be horribly biased toward a predetermined result.... and you end up with a 'study' that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The only way to defend such a study is to attack the attackers.... in this case as being 'liberals' and 'fanatics' and other statements which unlike the biases of the Klan, can only be considered to be 'facts not in evidence.'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.