"Nick" wrote:
wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve:
Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray?

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies
on it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock.

Two questiuons beg to be asked he

1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience?
Are there no respectable scientists who support it?
Please give precise quotes from that book, where the authors
made scientific mistakes. If you know them of course.
I will await your examples.

If VKarlamov has a sincere interest in this matter, then
he should read the books that I already have cited:

"The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions"
"The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future
of America"

Are there any 'respectable scientists' who support
'The Bell Curve'?

52 persons signed an 1994 'Wall Street Journal' editorial,
'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' (a pretentious and
misleading title) written by Linda Gottfredson, which
supported many, though not necessarily all, of the
positions given in 'The Bell Curve'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstr...n_Intelligence

I am not familiar with most of the signatories' names.
But I do know some of them (e.g. J. Philippe Rushton) have
been strongly condemned as racists by other academics.
Many of the signatories have received grants from a foundation
associated with the extreme right-wing in the United States.

As far as I know, only a small minority of 'scientists'
('respectable' or otherwise) would endorse the conclusions
of 'The Bell Curve'.

While statisticians and mathematicians uniformly use the term "normal
distribution" for this distribution, physicists sometimes call it a
Gaussian distribution and, because of its curved flaring shape, social
scientists refer to it as the "bell curve."

Note that a scientist is a person using scientific methods. For a
discussion of what constitutes scientific method, see"

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...AppendixE.html

and in particular Section III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific
Method,

which, to me, suggests that most social scientists are not scientists.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience?
Are there no respectable scientists who support it?

Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable
scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then
it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable
scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience?

If VKarlamov would like to read some older books
and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable
scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions
such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically
superior in general intelligence to all other peoples.

Please give precise quotes from that book, where
the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know
them of course. I will await your examples.

Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for.

For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse.

I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail.
As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined to make
the effort to read them.

I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement,

"'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience."
--Ed Seedhouse

VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement.
VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement
is not proof.

and when asked to justify it, you respoind: "do
your own research for me".

My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books
that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are
too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to
reproduce their copyrighted material here for you."

So, you didn't have any evidence against that book,

Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind?
How could VKarlamov know what evidence
Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'?

yet you chose to badmouth it. Why?

Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms
than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'.

Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk
moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his
"political mentors" say.

In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about
Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may
have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov
happens to know my 'political mentors' and what
they have ordered me to say, then could he please
pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-)

As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed
to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work.
Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to
'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the
Pioneer Fund.

VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell
Curve' in some right-wing American publications
(e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the
American Jewish Committee), which support the
evident political agenda of the book's authors.

If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I
expect that he would note how 'scientific racism'
(as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to
impress some people, particularly those people
with self-interests to be impressed.

--Nick

Chess One wrote:
Nick has said it! Bell Curve argues racism, not sociology or psychology.

Actually, I mentioned that a black scholar (who wrote a chapter in
'The Bell Curve Wars') denounced 'The Bell Curve' as a racist book.
(I don't have 'The Bell Curve Wars' at hand, so while I believe that
I recall this scholar's name, I cannot confirm it immediately.)

While I concur with this scholar's view, it's not quite accurate
for Phil Innes to write as though I had written: "'Bell Curve'
argues racism, not sociology or psychology".

In the last 12 months such titles have become popular in China,

Is there any evidence to support Phil Innes's assertion?

and some there argue superiority in math for example,
by racist precept.

It has been widely noted (not only in China) that Chinese
students tend to do exceptionally well in international
comparative tests in mathematics. Several explanations
have been offered, and of these the 'Chinese ethnic superiority'
hypothesis is far from being considered the most respectable.

For whatever it's worth, here's an article by Richard Lynn,
a controversial right-wing white European academic,
"The Intelligence of East Asians: A Thirty-Year Controversy
and its Resolution":

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_lynn.html

(I don't subscribe to 'Mankind Quarterly',
and I have not read the complete article.)

--Nick

Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study on
chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific
American. The article is available on the web.

In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ
tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven
results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the
article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main
factors regarding chess mastership.

So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and
then discuss it here...

Henri

Henri H. Arsenault wrote:
Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study
on chess and intelligence published in the August issue of
Scientific American. The article is available on the web.

Henri H. Arsenault *has* missed the (at least) several posts
in more than one thread in rec.games.chess.* in which that
'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind', already has
been discussed.

As far as I know, I was the first writer in rec.games.chess.*
to mention the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind',
in the RGCM thread, 'Article on Chess Expertise' (28 July 2006).

In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between
IQ tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally
proven results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in
the article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are
the main factors regarding chess mastership.

Unlike Henri H. Arsenault, some writers in rec.games.chess.*
do *not* regard the 'Scientific American' article, 'The Expert Mind',
as representing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth about the nature of chess mastery.

So instead of speculating, go read the article to get
the facts and then discuss it here.

Instead of writing his ignorant and condescending post,
Henri H. Arsenault *could* have first searched the Google
archives of rec.games.chess.misc in order to find out
what already has been discussed here about that article.

--Nick

wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience? Are there no
respectable scientists who support it? Please give precise quotes from
that book, where the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know them
of course. I will await your examples.

Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for.

I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement, and when
asked to justify it, you respoind: "do your own research for me".

So, you didn't have any evidence against that book, yet you chose to
badmouth it. Why? Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk
moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his "political mentors"
say.

Here's an article, "Campus Storm Over 'Racist' Don":
http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...723806,00.html

"Students and lecturers are calling for a Leeds University don
(Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies) to be
sacked after he said he supported a theory that black people
were inferior to whites.
....
Ellis said he supported right-wing ideas such as the Bell Curve
theory, which held that white people were more intelligent than
black people.
....
Psychologists have said that IQ has been discredited
as a reliable measure of intelligence. Robert McHenry,
chairman of the psychology consultancy OPP, said:
'It was developed by white researchers and tested on
white populations, so is not suitable for measuring
other cultures.' He said the Bell Curve theory was
out of date and showed lower achievements among
the black population because they were economically
worse off. 'There is no scientific data that supports
the idea that the difference between blacks and
whites is genetic.' "
--'The Observer' (5 March 2006)

By the way, Frank Ellis has decided to retire early.

--Nick

Henri H. Arsenault wrote:

Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study on
chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific
American. The article is available on the web.

...
So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and
then discuss it here...

--------'It's' only factual according to the Sci. American publication.
Consider this _fact_ for exam. 20yrs. ago people crapped on about the
patent genius of the Japanese (a defeated people). Coincidentally their
economy was booming & strong @ that time. Now it's the Chinese who are
the 'wunderkinder' of the cosmos. Really, the arguement is too stupid
for words. Never mind the Great Wall, what about Hadrian?..

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
1. Is "The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience?
Are there no respectable scientists who support it?

Does VKarlamov believe that if at least one 'respectable
scientist' can be found who supports 'The Bell Curve', then
it must not be pseudoscience even though nearly all 'respectable
scientists' (in related fields) regard it as pseudoscience?


They do? How many exactly do so and how many don't?


If VKarlamov would like to read some older books
and articles, then he could find that many 'respectable
scientists', for their time and place, supported conclusions
such as the belief that white Europeans are intrinsically
superior in general intelligence to all other peoples.


What does that have to do that you two idiots have badmouthed a
scientific book without giving us a single example of errors in it?


Please give precise quotes from that book, where
the authors made scientific mistakes. If you know
them of course. I will await your examples.

Do some research on the internet. That's what it's for.

For the record, I write independently of Ed Seedhouse.


Congratulations. For you, that's an accomplishment.


I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail.


I haven't seen that post.


As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems disinclined to make
the effort to read them.


I will gladly read them as soon as you read books that I will tell you
to read. A deal?


I see. That's how you operate: you make a false statement,


"'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience."
--Ed Seedhouse

VKarlamov has *not* proven that it's a false statement.


Ed made a claim about some book that it is "pseudoscience". But you
don't expect him to substantiate his claim. Oh no. Instead you want me
to go over each and every one of maybe 50,000 sentences in this book
and give you 50,000 mathematical proofs that each one of them is
"scientific"?

You are a moron. This is not an insult. This is a statement of fact.

And now that we have established that, I will not read the rest of your
drivel, because life's too short to waste it on idiots.

Bye.


VKarlamov's predisposition to believe it's a false statement
is not proof.

and when asked to justify it, you respond: "do
your own research for me".

My response to VKarlamov is: "I have cited books
that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail. If you are
too lazy to read them, then don't expect me to
reproduce their copyrighted material here for you."

So, you didn't have any evidence against that book,

Can VKarlamov read Ed Seedhouse's mind?
How could VKarlamov know what evidence
Ed Seedhouse may have against 'The Bell Curve'?

yet you chose to badmouth it. Why?

Perhaps Ed Seedhouse has read more criticisms
than VKarlamov of 'The Bell Curve'.

Because you are an ignorant anti-science knee-jerk
moron, who like a parrot, repeats everything that his
"political mentors" say.

In contrast to VKarlamov, I don't know anything about
Ed Seedhouse's 'political mentors' or what they may
have ordered him to say. By the way, if VKarlamov
happens to know my 'political mentors' and what
they have ordered me to say, then could he please
pass on their orders to me--I have not received them. :-)

As far as I can tell, VKarlamov seems strongly predisposed
to believe that 'The Bell Curve' must be good scientific work.
Perhaps VKarlamov should consider subscribing to
'Mankind Quarterly' or making a donation to the
Pioneer Fund.

VKarlamov could find favourable reviews of 'The Bell
Curve' in some right-wing American publications
(e.g. 'Commentary', which is published by the
American Jewish Committee), which support the
evident political agenda of the book's authors.

If Stephen Jay Gould were alive today, then I
expect that he would note how 'scientific racism'
(as expressed in 'The Bell Curve') continues to
impress some people, particularly those people
with self-interests to be impressed.

--Nick

Henri H. Arsenault wrote:
Unless I missed it, no one here seems to be aware of the study on
chess and intelligence published in the August issue of Scientific
American. The article is available on the web.

In sum, it has been shown that there is no correlation between IQ
tests and chess ability. A whole bunch of othe experimentally proven
results regarding chess and intelligence can be found in the
article.The bottom line is that dedication and hard work are the main
factors regarding chess mastership.

So instead of speculating, go read the article to get the facts and
then discuss it here...

Henri


Henri, please note that we geniuses prefer to be given
*links* which we can easily click on, as opposed to having
to *labor* in search of some given article in parts unknown.

What those guys obviously missed was the fact that,
despite their finding no correleation between IQ and chess
ability, when you realise just how lazy we are, the idea that
we acheived "star" status (Sanny's word, not mine) is proof
positive that hard work was not the method of choice here.
That leaves the alternative (rejected outright by careless
scientists, who failed to study me properly before reaching
such sweeping -- and silly -- conclusions). What they ought
to have concluded was that to some degree, dedication and
hard work can substitute for intelligence, or make up for a
lack thereof. But this assumes one is not averse to hard
work -- which is a shaky assumption, at best. Make me
choose between hard work and having a high IQ, and I will
choose the latter every time. I know not what course others
may take, but as for me -- give me a high IQ, or give me
patzerdom!

-- help bot

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 02:03:52 -0700, wrote:


Does VKarlamov approve of the 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life', by Richard Herrnstein and
Charles Murray?

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience, and anyone who relies on
it to support an argument will rapidly become a laughingstock.


Hey, Ed, do you approve of the following Wiki article:

/////////////////////////////////
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

Ashkenazi Jews are the Jews of Central and Eastern European origin, the
descendants of Jews who settled in the Rhineland beginning about 800
CE.

Many studies show that Ashkenazi Jews, on standardized tests of general
intelligence, have the highest average IQ scores of any tested ethnic
group, being roughly one standard deviation higher than the mean of the
general population.[4] These studies also indicate that this advantage
is primarily in verbal and mathematical performance; spatial
performance is average.

Ashkenazi Jews achieve out of proportion with their numbers in areas
that presumably require high intelligence. For example, although
Ashkenazi Jews represent only about 0.25% of the world population, they
make up 28% of Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, and
economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess
champions.[5] In the United States, Ashkenazi Jews represent 2% of the
population, but have won 40% of the US Nobel Prizes in science, and 25%
of the ACM Turing Awards (the Nobel-equivalent in computer science). A
significant decline in the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Europeans
and a corresponding increase in the number of prizes awarded to US
citizens occurred at the same time as Nazi persecutions of Jews drove
them from Europe during the 1930s and the Holocaust reduced their
number in Europe during the 1940s.[6]

Whether this difference in measured intelligence and achievement is due
entirely to a culture of study and vocational training (environment),
or partially to a difference in genetic variables, is presently unknown
and controversial. (See Race and intelligence)

"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"

It has been suggested that European Jews' history of persecution
created social selection for high intelligence, leaving a positive
effect on the hereditary component of their IQ.[1]

A 2005 study by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending at
the University of Utah [7] notes that European Jews were forbidden to
work in many of the common jobs of the middle-ages from C.E. 800 to
1700, such as agriculture, and subsequently worked in high proportion
in meritocratic jobs requiring higher intelligence, such as finance and
trade, some of which were forbidden to gentiles by the church. Those
who performed better are known to have raised more children to
adulthood, according to Cochran et al., passing on their genes in
greater proportion than those who performed less successfully.[2]

Cochran et. al. hypothesize that the eugenic pressure was strong enough
that mutations creating higher intelligence when inherited from one
parent but creating disease when inherited from both parents would
still be selected for, which could explain the unusual pattern of
genetic diseases found in the Ashkenazi population, such as Tay-Sachs
and other sphingolipid diseases. Some of these diseases have been shown
to correlate with high intelligence, and others are known to cause
neurons to grow an increased number of connections to neighboring
neurons.[3]

Reviews of the controversial paper have been both positive and
negative, with critics finding the argument to be far-fetched and
unsupported by direct evidence.[8]

Other theories
There have been other theories along similar lines. One theory notes
that for Jews to be socially successful in their peer group, expertise
at Torah study has traditionally been an advantage, and since the
Enlightenment, those Jews lacking the intellectual skills for this
endeavour may have been more prone to assimilate into general culture,
thus leaving the reproductively-isolated Jewish population.(Murray
2003, Shafran 2005)

In general, among religious Jews, study of Judaism (especially, Talmud)
is historically a required and praised everyday activity (not only
among rabbis and Torah scholars but even simple people). When Jewish
families became secularized, the tradition of constant study of Judaism
was replaced by a tradition of rigorous secular studies, which by
itself became a part of the culture. As the number of generations
between the transition to the secular life style increases, the
intelligence of the generation approaches the average national
intelligence, as the generations assimilate into the general culture,
in which education is less favored.

In addition, Jewish families usually had many children. The wealthiest
families tended to be more educated (it was a common practice for
wealthy Jewish merchants to encourage young successful Torah scholars
to marry into their families and then support the scholars' studies for
several years after the marriage). This may have propagated not only
the tradition of education, but also the genes associated with the
higher intelligence.

Others say that, due to frequent persecution, Jews emphasized
education, an asset that is transportable. In this way, they could
adapt better in new locations. This hypothesis is not mutually
exclusive with others, because human intelligence is influenced by
genetic as well as environmental factors. Certainly, outstanding
success in chess and mathematics-heavy sciences requires an
above-average capability for memorizing a large number of complex and
abstract formulae (a function of intelligence that only in
comparatively recent times can be utilized to the fullest). Either a
favorable genotype, or an upbringing that placed high emphasis on study
and learning-by-heart of legthy, abstract and complex treatises such as
the Talmud, or a combination of both will provide a better-than-average
foundation for such success.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence"

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////