Ed Seedhouse wrote:
"Nick" wrote:

The context was snipped by Ed Seedhouse.

As far as I can tell, Ed Seedhouse is a contentious
writer who's poor at reading comprehension.
I am not responsible for Ed Seedhouse's fantasies
about what I have written or what I believe.

Well I will admit to getting the writers mixed up.
After I sent the article I put the writer in my "ignore" file
and lo and behold it wasn't Nick.

If Ed Seedhouse intends to criticise what VKarlamov
has written, then Ed Seedhouse should address
those criticisms to VKarlamov rather than attacking
me on account of what someone else has written.

--Nick

This post completes my earlier post (which
got interrupted and sent before completion).

Nick wrote:
wrote:
I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs,
but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight.

So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed
everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading,
VKarlamov feels that he has to respond.

Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will
regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading?

Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me
because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov
has written about 'The Bell Curve'.

Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess.

Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the
complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain.

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
wrote:
I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several
standard deviations above 100.
I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

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

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude?

So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give
a condescending lecture to me about rudeness.

In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhouse and me 'idiots'.
In his earlier post, VKarlamov wrote this nonsense about me:

"You (Nick) are a moron. This is not an insult.
This is a statement of fact."
--VKarlamov

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

Or maybe you are Golem, our precious?

VKarlamov has shown that he's an abusive troll who
warrants no more courtesy than what he has shown
other people, which is none.

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?

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you
are Golem, our precious?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

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

VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will)
about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread.

But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to
waste time on reading books on it.

*Without reading the books*, VKarlamov presumes
that he already knows what they must be about.

Again that shows VKarlamov's prejudice.

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.

Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically
superior in general intelligence to all other peoples?

How do you define "general intelligence"?

However VKarlamov may choose to define 'general intelligence'
(or simply 'intelligence'), does VKarlamov believe that white
Europeans are intrinsically superior in (general) intelligence
to all other peoples?

And why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you
are Golem, our precious?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

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?

His calling us (Ed Seedhouse and I) 'two idiots' is an
example of VKarlamov's 'courtesy' toward other people.
Would VKarlamov's parents approve of that 'courtesy'?

VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'.

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you
are Golem, our precious?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould)
who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who
have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book.

Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World,
and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons.

Let the record show that VKarlamov evidently believes that
only a small minority of scientists in the world would object
to 'The Bell Curve' and that those scientists' criticisms are
motivated only by 'political reasons'.

However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast
majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of
this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although
everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient.
Start with Wiki:

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

In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the
American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs
established a special task force to publish an investigative report on
the research presented in the book. The final report, titled
Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party
website. [10]

Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with
statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that:

IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in
school achievement.

IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even
when variables such as education and family background have been
statistically controlled.

Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by
genetics.

Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by
environment as well.

There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences
intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.

There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and
females.

Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks
and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be
diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test
construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences
in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and
culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical
support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic
interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////

VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many
diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that
these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be
easily looked up in books and articles in a university library.

Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's
evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i
also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism?

Evidently, VKarlamov regards criticising 'The Bell Curve'
as comparable to supporting creationism.

I would hope that VKarlamov's nonsense and extreme bias
has become evident to most knowledgeable readers by now.

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.

VKarlamov's condescension has been noted.

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

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

I haven't seen that post.

It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for
his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread.

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you
are Golem, our precious?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?

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?

1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms
of 'The Bell Curve'.
2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail.
3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he
should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for.

So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely
interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'
because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve'
and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons
have condemned, at least in part, as racist).

Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it.

Earlier in his post (to which I respond now), VKarlamov
has written comments denouncing and dismissing
criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. VKarlamov also has compared
criticising 'The Bell Curve' to supporting creationism
(which scientists regard as nonsense).

I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable.

VKarlamov has admitted that he regards the
conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' as 'reasonable'.

Given VKarlamov's extreme intolerance of criticisms
of 'The Bell Curve', it's reasonable to conclude that
VKarlamov admires 'The Bell Curve', even though
he may not have read it recently.

Then I moved on to ohter, more important subjects.

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.

That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who
likes to misrepresent what I think.

It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of
an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he
did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov
would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that,
then I would believe that's fair enough.

But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy
selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and
articles to support his statement, which seems to be
what VKarlamov was asking for.

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"?

That's more nonsense by VKarlamov.

It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of
'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in
a university library or even a good public library.

You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement
"'The Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false:

That's more nonsense by VKarlamov.
For the record, I wrote nothing about expecting a
'mathematical proof' (on a non-mathematical subject)

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

How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius?

VKarlamov likes to reiterate his nonsense
about a 'mathematical proof'.

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.

Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'),

"Abusive conduct"? LOL.

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov calling
other people (Ed Seedhouse and me) 'idiots'?
Is that the kind of 'courtesy' to be expected
from the Karlamov family?

I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest*
in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'.

That's correct.

VKarlamov has confirmed what I had suspected.
VKarlamov already has shown his eagerness to
denounce and dismiss criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'
without making any effort to consider them seriously.

I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor
reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am
not interested with your preoccupation with race
and intelligence.

'(My supposed) preoccupation with race and intelligence'?

I simply have noted the fact that 'The Bell Curve' has been
widely denounced as a racist book. I also should note
'The Bell Curve' has been embraced by some racist
publications and websites as allegedly providing
'scientific proof' that white people are intrinsically
superior in intelligence to black people.

If VKarlamov likes to continue acting as though
'The Bell Curve' (and its popular interpretations)
must have no implications whatsoever about
racism, then what does that say about VKarlamov?

Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess
and IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with:

I pointed out (citing the example of James Watson and his IQ)
that VKarlamov has made wrong statement(s) about IQ.

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

My question was expressed in non-provocative terms.
VKarlamov is responsible for what he wrote in response
to my question and for what he has written since then.

This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is
against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start
a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist
in Usenet.

Given the evidence of VKarlamov's abusive and dishonest conduct,
VKarlamov chooses to resort to the "But it's off-topic" excuse.

You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on
Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that
starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the
majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis.

But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion
of IQ vs, race:

It's VKarlamov who has expressed his approval of 'The Bell
Curve' and his intolerance of criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'.

1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak
correlator with various mental abilities.

Then why was VKarlamov impressed by 'The Bell Curve',
which places much importance on IQ scores.

VKarlamov seems to be attempting now *dishonestly*
to distance himself from his earlier comments on IQ.

2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ

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

Why, apart from his evident racism, would VKarlamov
be certain that my IQ score must classify me as a 'moron'?

Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for
himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by
looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will
blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me
could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions.

Which ones?

I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even
understand the concept of "proof".

How much would VKarlamov like to bet?

Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov,
I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from
sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell
Curve', which he apparently strongly admires.

Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard
it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he
were someone who warranted any respect in discussion.

The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of
VKarlamov's prejudices

Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else?

Evidently, VKarlamov is a racist, though he now
seems to be making an effort to deny it.

and his extremely base character.
I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist,
though it already seems substantial,

It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning
any Blacks, Asians or Native Americans at all.

VKarlamov's extreme intolerance of criticisms of
'The Bell Curve', which is widely condemned as
a racist book, is sufficient cause to suspect him
of racism.

And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the
substantial evidence of your own virulent antisemitism.

I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite.

Simon (who wrote here as 'chapman billy') is a British Jewish
friend of mine. Simon would regard what VKarlamov has
written about me as nonsense. Simon also regards
(we have discussed it) 'The Bell Curve' as nonsense,
which usually is supported only by racists.

but it's more than enough
for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain.

Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'),

I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your
opponents...


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

You consider the American Psychological Association's
Board of Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"?

It's wrong for VKarlamov to write as though the American
Psychological Assocation has endorsed 'The Bell Curve'.
A (white) friend of mine is a clinical psychologist and an
APA member, and he regards 'The Bell Curve' as nonsense,
which seems motivated largely by racism.

--Nick

(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:

When I google the above text, I get 2.47 million hits. Now,
how am I to know which .07 million to sift through? :D


On MY Google, it is the first one in the list...


I offer you 2.4 billion for your company -- cash on the
barrelhead. Take it or leave it. Or, we can do a trade:
my Yahoo! and ebay for your Google plus 5 million in
gold bars. I'll even throw in the Brooklyn bridge.

Hey, as I said, when I cut and pasted your link the
article did not come up. I had to find the search box on
that site, type in "chess", and *look for* the article in
question. All that ehausting work even when you gave
us the link! Now imagine what might happen without a
link and I think you will realise the lawsuits which could
ensue: heat strokes, pain and suffering, etc., etc.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I want to buy your
company anymore, considering the risk. I think I'll just
buy an island in the Pacific instead. How much do you
think they might want for say, New Zealand?

-- help bot

On 21 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0700, "Nick" wrote:

Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Ed Seedhouse's grudging mea culpa does *not*
excuse his earlier offensive conduct toward me, for
which he should apologise without making excuses.

It wasn't a "mea culpa", but this message is enough to convince me that
I shall miss nothing interesting if "Nick" too goes in the old "ignore"
file.

Nick wrote:
wrote:
I know that I promised never to read your posts on the subject of IQs,
but I did skim over your last post and want to set some points straight.

So after he just called me a 'moron' and an 'idiot' and dismissed
everything that I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading,
VKarlamov feels that he has to respond.

Is that because VKarlamov's not convinced that everyone else will
regard what I write as 'drivel' that's obviously not worth reading?

Even Ed Seedhouse now has admitted that he attacked me
because he wrongly believed that I had written what VKarlamov
has written about 'The Bell Curve'.


Which of the numerous "attacks" on you by Ed are you talking about?

The one when he wrote:


However, the article actually presents evidence, which is what really has Nick
in a knot since he has none to offer for his own case.


Or the one when he wrote:


You see that's how folks like Nick typically work. They make outrageous
claims and when someone rational points out they have provided no
evidence for their claims they attack that person for not providing
evidence that they haven't provided evidence. And so it goes.

I think I'll just slap "Nick" in the old ignore file. He has nothing
interesting to say on the evidence of what he has said so far.


Are you accusng Ed of being a very confused individual?


Sorry that Nick is dragging me further and further away from chess.

Given what VKarlamov has written in this thread (please read the
complete evidence) I regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain.


Thank god. "Tell me who your enemies are - and I'll tell you who you
are".

Nick wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
wrote:
Nick wrote:
wrote:
I assure you that you are wrong. If you take any group of top
performers in any intellectual activity - be it chess, math, science,
poetry, management, law, etc - their average IQ score will be several
standard deviations above 100.
I am amazed that intelligent people can dispute this obvious fact.
There must be some severe brain damage, caused by perverted political
correctness, that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious.

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

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude?

So VKarlamov feels completely qualified to give
a condescending lecture to me about rudeness.

In his earlier post, VKarlamov called Ed Seedhouse and me 'idiots'.


Could you please remind me when I called Ed Seedhouse an 'idiot'? You
wouldn't also be a patholoigical liar, would you?


In his earlier post, VKarlamov wrote this nonsense about me:

"You (Nick) are a moron. This is not an insult.
This is a statement of fact."
--VKarlamov

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?


My parents are extremely shocked by me calling you a moron. And ashamed
of me. My dad told me: "After you called that retard a moron, my whole
life has become a waste. Evidently, I haven't even taught you the
proper language skills."


Or maybe you are Golem, our precious?

VKarlamov has shown that he's an abusive troll who
warrants no more courtesy than what he has shown
other people, which is none.

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?

Why do you speak to your conversation partners in the third person?
Didn't your parents explain to you that it's highly rude? Or maybe you
are Golem, our precious?

Do his parents approve of VKarlamov's
extreme arrogance and hypocrisy?


Whose parents? Who is "he"? Golem?


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

VKarlamov should read the books (though I doubt he will)
about 'The Bell Curve' that I already have cited in this thread.

But the subject of race doesn't interest me enough to
waste time on reading books on it.

*Without reading the books*, VKarlamov presumes
that he already knows what they must be about.


No, I just don't want to read these books nor to find out what they are
about. There are millions of other, more interesting books that I
haven't read.


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.

Does VKarlamov believe that white Europeans are intrinsically
superior in general intelligence to all other peoples?

How do you define "general intelligence"?

However VKarlamov may choose to define 'general intelligence'
(or simply 'intelligence'), does VKarlamov believe that white
Europeans are intrinsically superior in (general) intelligence
to all other peoples?


I have no idea. Never bothered with this idiotic question. Tell me what
you think.


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?

His calling us (Ed Seedhouse and I) 'two idiots' is an
example of VKarlamov's 'courtesy' toward other people.
Would VKarlamov's parents approve of that 'courtesy'?

VKarlamov believes in his 'proof by name-calling'.


There are many scientists (including the late Stephen Jay Gould)
who have pointed out many errors in 'The Bell Curve' and who
have denounced it as a pseudoscientific book.

Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of good scientists in the World,
and several dozens of them denounce this book for political reasons.

Let the record show that VKarlamov evidently believes that
only a small minority of scientists in the world would object
to 'The Bell Curve' and that those scientists' criticisms are
motivated only by 'political reasons'.


Are you building a court case against me? Who is your lawyer?


However, read what encyclopedias write about it and see that the vast
majority of scientists, who expressed their opinion on the subject of
this book, came out in favor of its scientific quality, although
everybody agrees that the implications are politically inconvenient.
Start with Wiki:

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

In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the
American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs
established a special task force to publish an investigative report on
the research presented in the book. The final report, titled
Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at a third-party
website. [10]

Many of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with
statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that:

IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in
school achievement.

IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even
when variables such as education and family background have been
statistically controlled.

Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by
genetics.

Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by
environment as well.

There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences
intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.

There are no significant differences between the IQ scores of males and
females.

Perhaps most significantly, the APA task force stated:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks
and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be
diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test
construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences
in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and
culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical
support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic
interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////

VKarlamov's (apparently deliberate) ignorance of these many
diverse criticisms of 'The Bell Curve' does *not* mean that
these criticisms do *not* exist. These criticisms can be
easily looked up in books and articles in a university library.

Good for you. While at the library, look up the criticisms of Darwin's
evolution. I bet you will find 10000000 times more of it. So, should i
also stop believing in evolution and convert to creationism?

Evidently, VKarlamov regards criticising 'The Bell Curve'
as comparable to supporting creationism.

I would hope that VKarlamov's nonsense and extreme bias
has become evident to most knowledgeable readers by now.


Methinks the whole reading world has been reading all your posts with
baited(sic.) breath.


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.

VKarlamov's condescension has been noted.

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

I haven't seen that post.

It's earlier in this thread. VKarlamov is responsible for
his ignorance of the earlier related posts in this thread.

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?

1) VKarlamov apparently asked for sources of criticisms
of 'The Bell Curve'.
2) I have cited books that discuss 'The Bell Curve' in detail.
3) VKarlamov now prefers to make excuses about why he
should *not* be expected to read what he has asked for.

So I have concluded that VKarlamov is *not sincerely
interested* in reading criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'
because VKarlamov strongly admires 'The Bell Curve'
and its conclusions (which many divrerse persons
have condemned, at least in part, as racist).

Why do you think i admire it? Give quotes of mine that show it.

Earlier in his post (to which I respond now), VKarlamov
has written comments denouncing and dismissing
criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'. VKarlamov also has compared
criticising 'The Bell Curve' to supporting creationism.


Give exact quotes where I show admiration for the "Bell Curve".


I read parts of it many-many years ago and found it reasonable.


Oh I see... Is that what you mean by "admiration"?


VKarlamov has admitted that he regards the
conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' as 'reasonable'.


Wow. "Admitted"? Now that I have "admitted" my "crime", are you going
to send the police after me for that? Will you also send the police to
arrest the entire American Psychological Association's Board of
Scientific Affairs too?

Question to the rec.games.chess people? Who is this person wiht the
nick of "Nick"? Is he a known troll or brand new?


Then I moved on to other, more important subjects.

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.

That's another false statement by VKarmalov, who
likes to misrepresent what I think.

It's reasonable to expect Ed Seedhouse to make more of
an effort to support his statement than just to write, as he
did, "Do some research on the internet." If VKarlamov
would like to criticise Ed Seedhouse on account of that,
then I would believe that's fair enough.

But I do *not* expect Ed Seedhouse to reproduce lengthy
selections from (presumably) copyrighted books and
articles to support his statement, which seems to be
what VKarlamov was asking for.

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"?

That's more nonsense by VKarlamov.

It's quite easy to look up scholarly criticisms of
'The Bell Curve' among the books and articles in
a university library or even a good public library.


You wanted me to give a mathematical proof that the statement "'The
Bell Curve' is well-known pseudoscience" is false:


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


How do you expect one to give such a mathematical proof, genius?


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.


Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'),


"Abusive conduct"? LOL.

I suspect that VKarlamov has *no sincere interest*
in reading scholarly criticisms of 'The Bell Curve'.


That's correct. I have no interest in either re-reading Bell Curve nor
reading its criticism nor criticism of criticism. I am not interested
with your preoccupation with race and intelligence.

Here at rec.chess we were having a nice conversation about chess and
IQ, and then you came as a troll and tried to provoke me with:


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


This is rec.chess. Diverting conversations from chess IQ to race IQ is
against the Usenet etiquette. If oyu want to discuss race and IQ, start
a new thread in soc.culture.menza or whatever IQ-related groups exist
in Usenet.

You want to discuss chess and ethnicity? Fine. Read the Wiki article on
Ashkenazi, that i have posted, and let's discuss why it happens that
starting with the very first Chess Champion and his opponent, the
majority of the greatest chess players have been Ashkenazis.

But you are not going to troll me into a heated discusion of IQ vs,
race:

1. I don't care about IQ. To me, it's a rather weak correlator with
various mental abilities.

2. This is rec.chess not rec.IQ


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

Ah, well, I suspect that VKarlamov could determine for
himself the alleged 'fact' that I must be a 'moron' just by
looking at my racial appearance. Perhaps VKarlamov will
blame 'political correctness' to explain how a 'moron' like me
could have won mathematical problem-solving competitions.


Which ones?

I doubt it very much: you lack logic and don't even understand the
concept of "proof".


Given the much abusive nonsense written here by VKarlamov,
I would submit that it's clear enough that VKarlamov's far from
sincerely interested in any serious discussion about 'The Bell
Curve', which he apparently strongly admires.

Given his evident prejudices and abusive conduct, I regard
it as a waste of my time to treat VKarlamov as though he
were someone who warranted any respect in discussion.

The more that VKarlamov writes, the more that emerges of
VKarlamov's prejudices


Prejudices against whom? Morons? Yes, that's true. Whom else?


and his extremely base character.
I cannot be certain of the extent to which VKarlamov is a racist,
though it already seems substantial,


It is? Please give evidence. I don't recall evenmentioning any Blacks,
Asians or Native Americans at all.

And while at it, explain why the reader should ignore the substantial
evidence of your own virulent antisemitism.

I am certainle less of a racist than you are an anitsemite.


but it's more than enough
for me to regard VKarlamov with absolute disdain.



Given his abusive conduct ('proof by name-calling'),


I am glad you yourself never try to insult or intimidate your
opponents...


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


You consider the American Psychological Association's Board of
Scientific Affairs to be "right-wing"?


(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

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Ed Seedhouse's grudging mea culpa does *not*
excuse his earlier offensive conduct toward me, for
which he should apologise without making excuses.

It wasn't a "mea culpa",

So it's noted that Ed Seedhouse refuses
to admit that he has made any error.
Evidently, Ed Seedhouse is too insecure
to make such an admission.

but this message is enough to convince me
that I shall miss nothing interesting if "Nick"
too goes in the old "ignore" file.

Here are some facts:

VKarmalov has written that 'The Bell Curve' is
'scientific book', which he considers 'intelligent'
and 'reasonable'. Ed Seedhouse has written
that 'The Bell Curve' is pseudoscience.
I concur with Ed Seedhouse on that point.
But VKarlamov has called Ed Seedhouse
an 'idiot'.

Evidently, Ed Seedhouse *repeatedly* concluded
that what VKarlamov wrote was what I wrote.
No other writer in this thread has confused
what VKarlamov wrote with what I wrote.
Ed Seedhouse has no one else but himself
to blame for his repeated blunders.

Blaming me for what VKarlamov wrote,
Ed Seedhouse then repeatedly attacked
me in offensive terms. Ed Seedhouse
has refused to admit any error or to
make any apology to me.

Let me understand if this is Ed Seedhouse's
position: "Although VKarlamov and I completely
disagree about 'The Bell Curve' and VKarlamov
has called me an 'idiot', I, Ed Seedhouse, find
it's much more fun to attack Nick, who concurs
with me about 'The Bell Curve', than to criticise
VKarlamov". ?

Ed Seedhouse has shown enough of his
arrogance, dishonesty, and stupidity for
me to regard him with deep disdain.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

Here are some facts:

VKarmalov has written that 'The Bell Curve' is
'scientific book', which he considers 'intelligent'
and 'reasonable'. Ed Seedhouse has written
that 'The Bell Curve' is pseudoscience.
I concur with Ed Seedhouse on that point.
But VKarlamov has called Ed Seedhouse
an 'idiot'.


This is mere name-calling ("pseudo-science" and "idiot").

Perhaps the fact that such tactics are used has something
to do with why their comments are not being taken very
seriously.


I was surprised to read that there was not only a strong
correlation between IQ scores and such things as poverty,
birth rates, and marriage/divorce rates, but most shocking
of all, the comment about "blacks" averaging one standard
deviation lower than non-hispanic "whites" on IQ tests. My
gut reaction is to suppose that these tests were written in
language which these "whites" could easily comprehend,
while at least some of the lower-scoring "blacks" may have
had some difficulty resulting from the muddled English to
which many are exposed and which has become their
native language, so to speak. Not only this, but the IQ
tests (as well as the ASVAB, SAT, etc.) I have taken failed
to measure what I would consider intelligence, but rather
seemed geared toward measuring things which I was
taught in school; in a sense, had I not attended school I
could conceiveably score a big fat zero on some IQ tests,
and this seems just a bit low, IMO.


-- help bot

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 10:34:34 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful
innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability

Of course such a claim, as well as once again being supported by not one
bit of evidence, is unfalsifiable, a typical pseudo-science approach.

It isn't a claim it is a statement of fact.

Your confusion of "opinion" with "fact" is noted. Welcome to the
"ignore" file.

Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking. And you have deliberately
snipped the overall context to try and make a straw man argument. The
set of traits found in strong GM level players are perfectly amenable
to scientific testing and analysis.

And I did not say that all strong chess players must have certain
traits (although I suspect it might be the case) I said that I had
never met any that did not. That is a statement of fact.

Perhaps someone here has met a very strong player that cannot think
logically, and lacks innate pattern recognition skills. If they exist
then the ball is in your court to find one.

I do know a top mathematicain with a measured IQ of 60 (on a standard
test). But the problem there is with the test (and his lack of common
sense) not his intelligence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Chess One wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On 20 Oct 2006 03:11:29 -0700, "Martin Brown"
wrote:

I have yet to meet any strong chess player that didn't have powerful
innate pattern matching and abstract reasoning ability

Of course such a claim, as well as once again being supported by not one
bit of evidence, is unfalsifiable, a typical pseudo-science approach.
What test could possibly disprove this claim?

The reference is too general, and does not differentiate pattern matches to
what is /meaningful/ chessically. Otherwise strong chess players are proved
to have /memorizational/ prowess far beyond normal realms, though
pattern-matching is as the person says, an abstraction - in fact a potential
ability.

That is perhaps one of the key points here. Chess players (and also Go,
Draughts) are self selected in that one reason they play the game is
that they enjoy the challenge. So there is definitely more to it than
just the pattern matching, memory and reasoning skills. Unless you
enjoy the competitive aspects of chess as well you will not get very
far.

And the same goes for F1-racing, marathon running, basketball and
soccer. Some individuals are intrinsically better at hand-eye
coordination or stamina (or both). And no amount of diligent training
or hard work would ever turn me into a footballer like David Beckham or
a racing driver like Schumacker.

But how is it deployed so that it can be substanitated? Does the
potential ability also depend on a corresponding discipline to express it in
logical sequencing?

Crucially that potential ability can only be converted into actual
ability by hard work. You can get some very able people who are lazy
and do not use ther talent effectively. The thing missed in the SciAm
article is that experts are experts because they have both the aptitude
and discipline to work hard and use their skills to maximum effect.

I would hazard a guess that if you plotted mathematical IQ, logical
reasoning IQ or visuo-spatial IQ against chess rating you would get a
fairly good correlation and be able to determine an upper bound on
chess skill as a function of each parameter.

It would not be hard to find illiterate strong chess players for
instance. But I think you will struggle to find any that cannot solve
language independent logical puzzles.

Regards.
Martin Brown

wrote in message
ups.com...

..

Would you like to say more about your idea? Did you mean a correlation
that
average IQ produces average chess players? Does average IQ produce
average
piano-players? Or does IQ not measure piano playing? How does IQ measure
the
abstract spatial sense that master chess players have - and which I
defined
[citing de Groot] previously?


OK. Let me elaborate.

Intelligence is a high-dimensional phenomenon. If you take people with
high ability for differential toplogy, you will find that their average
ability to write poems is higher than overall average. But many
individual topologists may have no poetic abilites whatsoever.

Understood.

IQ tests are nothing more than a bunch of puzzles, chosen from a very
small set of patterns. Because they are intellevtual puzzles, the
ability to solve them is going to be significantly positively
correlated with other intellectual abilities.

Okay, but I think this neds more definition. For example, even though the
puzzle is intellectual, is it solved intellectually, or by rote memory?

But there is no magic nor
much science to these IQ tests, and the ability to do well on them is
certainly not the "cause" of intelligence.

Agree. It correlates ONE aspect of what is generally termed intelligence,
with some [small] patterning knowledge, or pattern awareness.

So, returning to chess and IQ, the abilities towards them are also
positively correlated. Especially since a lot of chess involves logical
thinking and problem solving.

Yes. This is a sociology. Its also true that people who go to college have
typically higher IQ range than those who do not. But please consider the
concert piano player again - the question is how much pressure to apply to
the 10,000th note with the little finger of the left hand, and this is
resolved not by 'logical thinking and problem solving'.

How many mathematicians could cite a string of 10,000 numbers? :0

But this is only to address part of the question - the other part is the
/level/ at which people play chess, and if there is any correlation with IQ.
I would say there is, but again for sociological reasons or even
physiological ones! Isn't the chess player the same sort of person who stays
indoors and solves intellectual puzzles and reads for his college degree?
Rather than go mountain climbing, for example. Or perhaps rehearses a
sport - since that also requires study to develop a physiological
'intelligence'.

What this man Gardner has done is to state that there are all sorts of
intelligences, and lists 9 specific ones - which include linear processing &
math skill as a discrete intelligence. I think IQ is the best measure of
this particular intelligence, but others include the Kinesthetic [you use
Greek word for body, soma?], and also there is a musical intelligence which
is a very deeply patterned activity, quite beyond any calculus or
rationcination [Greek again, ratio = measure, or beyond normal 'thinking'].

This is a bit boring, so I'll tell you in a minute what I insist a bit on
this music parallel.

That is, if you take a sample of great chess players and have them take
an IQ test in their language (yes, there are IQ tests in Russian),

I have Russian friend in Petersburg, also Moscow, and a local chess player
is for Baku. Anyway, I have much correspondance with Russians.

the
average of their scores will be probably higher than 100 and even than,
say, 130. But there will be some who will score as low as 105 and as
high as 200 (these are just my guesses). This is purely a 2-dimensional
probaility distribution whose components are positively but not
perfectly correlated.

Okay! Its interesting to specualte on the range of IQs among chess players.
Here is another speculation [guess]: that very strong players will have
higher IQs, but most chess players [say 90 of them] will not vary
significantly from their social group, and those who do not play chess.

To return to the question that started this thread: judging from the
way Kramnik plays chess and the way he talks and the way he carries
himself, I would estimate that his IQ score would be at least 170, if
he ever took such a test. Probably, higher than 190. Ditto for Kasparov
and probably Anand. Topalov? Probably somewhat lower: he seems to be of
a single-track (chess) mind, as exemplified by his stupid following of
his manager Danailov's advice. But still above 130.

Oddly, I might agree with you that Topalov would score less on IQ than for
example Kramnik. But that is because I do not attribute IQ as a good measure
of creativity - which you see - is the other essential factor here. Kramnik
may have phenomenal logical processing skills, and I am sure he has, but how
do these massively complex positions which Topalov achieves come to him? I
don't think he has the same process.

Anyway - there's lots of guessing in what I wrote. But I wanted to share
something from another top player
---

I was interviewing Adorjan, and [I think I made this a formal question to
him, anyway, we wrote thousands of words to each other on the subject], and
to provoke a response on this 'high dimensional intelligence', to use your
phrase, I asked him something like if seeing ahead in the position was like
having a movie camera in you mind, on fast-forward?

He replied mysteriously, and said, "I do not see the baord, I do nto see the
pieces." )

And he himself used a musical metaphor - the same I offer you above - ie,
how does the concert pianist play all those notes in the right sequence and
at the 10,000th note know the exact pressure to exert on the key?

This of course is consciously a counter metaphor from him, and not really a
suggestion that high level chess is like playing music, as much as to say
that it is NOT like 'seeing ahead', or some description of what is
concretely visual.

The mind googles! But Adorjan by not agreeing to this visual metaphor also
concludes with this Dutch researcher de Groot, that for 'master' play there
is no visual dependency.

Cordially, Phil Innes