echidna

So what ? US national average IQ actually rises 3 points every decade. Do you follow how this flies in the face of the Bell Curve’s most controversial assertions ?

Murray reluctantly concedes the Flynn Effect & responds in 2 ways which seem to contradict each other. First he arbitrarily places a limit on how similar IQ norms between the racial groups can ever become, then he somehow say that IQ and cognitive function are quite separate. His varying responses on this are very shaky.

HM assert that cognitive function is 60% attributable to genetics.
HM assert that therefore environmental improvements in cognitive function (social, educational, employment programs) are only ever marginally successful.

Albeit a single line, but their book also contains the assertion that the government should remove itself from all welfare and social programs. This would seem quite out of place in a so-called scientific work, especially when the assertion cannot be drawn from their conclusions. Very tellingly, this is Murray’s belief regardless of any racial conclusions he might draw.

echidna

Actually “higher IQ as better” is completely bigoted. In the past I have been quite vocal that my view of humanity does not worship IQ nearly to the extent that some do. Those who have been here longer may remember some of my past clashes on this issue. But in this instance IQ is being taken in the context of employment and socio-economic status.

As such “higher IQ as better for better paid employment” is a valid generalisation. By asserting that statistically blacks will always have a lower mean IQ than whites due to genetic differences (as HM assert), they open the door wide for those who would assert that there is ample evidence to support reasons why blacks should never be proportionately represented in higher paying white-collar jobs.

Of course, that is the entire point. I completely acknowledge that there are differing norms. Where I diverge from HM is in believing that these norms are more malleable than they assert. To me environment plays a pivotal role, more than HM give credit.

Sure we are a product of our genes, but reductionists such as HM oversimplify the brain and ignore the ability it has to reorganise itself based on environment. How else does one get a 3 point average IQ increase every decade ? Not by any genetic improvement which I am familiar with, that’s for sure.

So while I regard the issue as extremely complex and quite uncertain, suddenly HM and others make these sweeping conclusions, and on the basis of some very shaky analysis.

I think you’ll find with good reason.

echidna

Of course how reliably one can measure IQ or cognitive ability, and how well this correlates with employability is a whole other debate on this issue.

But given the controversial nature of the psychometrics I tend to steer clear of those easy assertions that psychometrics is simply pseudoscience (although it is a loose belief of mine). So for the moment I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that IQ can be related with employment in a meritocracy. So for the moment I’ll presuppose good psychometrics and bad psychometrics, & declare HM as the bad side.

Although personally whenever I’ve hired somebody, I’ve never placed any value on any IQ tests or even aptitude tests for that matter. I find extremely little correlation between these and performance as an employee.

Anyway, off for the weekend, but I’m sure that won’t trouble you at all.

doubtingt

First, let me suggest that you take a look at a recent article in the journal "Intelligence" that was signed by 53 leading scholars in the feild.
It was not a defense of the Bell Curve, but a reaction to the myths and misinformation that was being spread in the media by the ideological response to the Bell Curve.
The artivle actually highlight 20 mainstream ideas in addition to the 5 I posted.

"Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signitories, History, and Bibliography"
INTELLIGENCE, Vol 24, pg 13-23.


-------
As uncomfortable as these facts are, they are mainstream, scientifically backed facts. It could very well be the case that racial differences are entirely due to some complex interacting set of environmental factors that have yet to be conceived in a testable way. But genetics certainly cannot be ruled out at this point and there is some evidence that cannot be squared with the environmentalist assumptions that have been formulated thus far.
H and M may have secret motives and some of their rhetorical tactics seem to try and lead the reader to a genetic conclusion, while at the same time making the explicit claim that they are agnostic at this point. However, the anti-Bell curve and anti-intelligence rhetoric coming from the left is unquestionably and blatantly rife with bias, lies, and distortions, and is quite obviously motivated by ideology and fear (however benevolent) rather than a sober examination of the evidence.
I think Pinker's recent book makes an almost humorous observation about the self-contradictions in the anti-intelligence rhetoric that reveal it ideological roots:
"I find it truly surreal to read academics denying the existence of
intelligence. Academics are obsessed with intelligence. They discuss it
endlessly in considering student admissions, in hiring faculty and staff, and
especially in their gossip about one another. Nor can citizens or
policymakers ignore the concept, regardless of their politics. People who say that IQ is meaningless will quickly invoke it when the discussion turns to executing a murderer with an IQ of 64, removing lead paint that lowers a
child's IQ by five points, or the presidential qualifications of George W.
Bush. In any case, there is now ample evidence that intelligence is a stable
property of an individual, that it can be linked to features of the brain
(including overall size, amount of gray matter in the frontal lobes, speed of
neural conduction, and metabolism of cerebral glucose), that it is partly
heritable among individuals, and that it predicts some of the variation in
life outcomes such as income and social status" (pp.149-150)

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: doubtingt ]</p>

pug846

My two cents:

I’ve always wondered what all the critics of The Bell Curve would do if another book came out with the startling conclusion that African-Americans were better athletes than whites and Asians.

In my experience the people who have problems with the book are usually the closed-minded ones as they equate intelligence with being superior. Even if it could some how be shown that whites were the most intelligent “race,” it wouldn’t follow that we are better, superior, etc. It’s generally the bigoted critic who projects his or her own value of intelligence as some sort of objective standard.

These are also the same people who hurt women by telling them they were the same as men by assuming their moral worth was somehow related to their "abilities" in relation to men.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

Nonsense. These are tendencies. They aren't certain outcomes. If hypothetically we were buying into the race-IQ proposition, then it would still be true that not all white people have higher IQs than all black people.

HM? If you mean the Bell Curve authors then ou are incorrect. They discuss a number of things.

You are presuming what "bettering mankind" means.

Again you are not seeing there is a disconnection between the state of affair (the "is) and a prescribed course of action (the "ought"). I may be wrong but do you understand the basic "Is to Ought" fallacy? It seems you don't.

DC

Corey Hammer

Regarding Rising IQ:

There's a book on the subject editted by Ulric Niesser, one of the founders of cognitive psychology. It's a good read. I used it once for a presentation on the subject...

My argument...rising IQ is due to increased complexity in the environment...i.e., more shit to remember and use.

ps418

I don't follow. Since no one holds IQ to be 100% genetic, an across-the-board rise in IQ could be explained in terms of changes in the environment (training, nutrition, educated parents, television). Why do none of the experts in the field agree that the Flynn effect "flies in the face of the Bell Curve’s most controversial assertions"?

Charles Darwin has been used to justify eugenics as well, but that's no criticism of Darwin. Facts about the world do not become true or false by reference to their possible social consequences, I'm sure you'll agree.

Well, that's hardly a reasonable criticism of the BC. Environmental influences over virtually any trait would always be limited, unless there are no genetic factors at all. And the evidence is simply undeniable that many psychological traits are at least partly under genetic control, the question is only how much.

echidna

Pug, you’ll find this is quite a well known book already.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1891620398/ref%3Dase%5Fjonentineonline/103-4533242-7694254" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1891620398/ref%3Dase%5Fjonentineonline/103-4533242-7694254</a>
Taboo : Why black athletes dominate sports and why we are afraid to talk about it

FWIW I think the physical differences including sports performance are relatively obvious & I’ve argued their existence in the past. Where I differ is that psychometric analysis such as the BC oversimplify the brain’s complexity and ability to reorganise itself according to outside influences. Differences between gender intelligence is one obvious example but hopefully I can expand later.

Doubtingt’s description of the BC’s critics is more accurate than this one IMO.

The trouble is, when it comes to employment which is one of the most influential societal influences in determining an individual’s socio-economic status, some measure of intelligence (or cognitive ability) is objectively better. I’ve already said that this plays no role whatsoever in their value as a human being, however it is key in creating much of their well-being in society. Do you differ with this ? If so, how ?

This is largely why the findings of the Bell Curve are so hotly debated.

echidna

Doubtingt, I mostly agree with your concluding comments, as does the American Psychological Association. To date I don’t think I’ve denied the relevance of some measure of intelligence or cognitive ability, however I think the BC oversimplifies the measure.

<a href="http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html" target="_blank">http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html</a>