Nick wrote:
Ed Seedhouse 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?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

--Nick

Nick,
Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests are sociologically
biased to Eurocentric cutlures?
Rob

Rob wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ed Seedhouse 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?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has written 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

The correct title is 'The Bell Curve Wars...'

Hasn't it been theorized that many current IQ tests
are sociologically biased to Eurocentric cutlures?

IQ tests have been criticised for being biased
on account of class, culture, race, and/or sex.

I consider it self-evident that the people who design
IQ tests would be satisfied with such tests only if
they themselves could score well enough on them.

Let's suppose that Herr Doktor Professor Ubermensch
designed an IQ test for which he was disappointed with
his score. Would he be more likely to think that
1) "There must be something wrong with me!
I am less intelligent than I had thought." or
2) "There must be something wrong with this test!" ?

--Nick

Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a
reason for that...

I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants to
make a new chess study.

Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community.
I began with trying to find significant ground that
is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work
seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is
currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also Howard
Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known to
mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an illustration
for one of his 'intelligences'.

There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely
a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in
a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your
local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as
opposed to empty claims.

None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess
skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change
the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum.


One item I bet the magazine overlooked is this:

a TRUE genius must come to the inescapable conclusion
that chess is a horrific waste of time. Hence, no TRUE
genius would devote the time and effort necessary to master
the game. It logically follows that all TRUE geniuses are
patzers (and I can probably give them Queen odds).

-- 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.


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.

2. Who plans to "rely on it to support an argument" in this thread?
You? Nick? What for?

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:42 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Actually, truly intelligent people will notice how not one shred of
evidence is provided in the referred post for these claims. There's a
reason for that...

I have just begun correspondence with a PhD student from India who wants
to
make a new chess study.

Fine - let him do it and report the results to the scientific community.
I began with trying to find significant ground that
is well covered, so as usual quoted Dutchman Adrian de Groot whose work
seems to be appreciated at only a perfunctory level [perhaps since it is
currently so counter-culture in implication for educators], but also
Howard
Gardner of Harvard, whose multiple intelligence theory is now well-known
to
mainstream educators. Significantly Gardner chooses chess as an
illustration
for one of his 'intelligences'.

There are recent studies which show that great skill in chess is largely
a result of lots of effortful study and practice. These are reported in
a recent issue of Scientific American and are easily available at your
local public library to anyone who is interested in actual evidence, as
opposed to empty claims.

None of these studies supports a correlation between "I.Q." and chess
skill, let alone causation. However I predict that this will not change
the opinions of the "I.Q." true believers who post in this forum.

I agree. In fact of the studies conducted [which are not transparently
self-serving attempts to siphon into the Federal education budget]
researchers also agree! The most provocative aspect of de Groot's study was
that, at master levels, chess may not even be 'teachable' - which is to say,
not learnable at master level either. Some may achieve it, and some not, but
the condition is very far from any prescription - as you emphasize had no
known causal relation to IQ alone.

Latterly -- in our time this is a substantial heresy since practically any
subject is thought to be teachable -- de Groot indicates that rote-learning
is insufficient to become a master - no matter how efficiently your memory
or linear processing of information. This has very large implications for
every field of study. Therefore, it was fascinating for Garner to fill the
gap, and to begin making suggestions and studies of what /does/ make for
that level of success.

Gardner takes another track than IQ entirely, and instead of discussing the
predominantly left-brain activity measured by IQ [plus token pattern
recognition inclusions, and assorted and seeming random cultural foibles] he
indicates the nature of one's own genius not as any sort of quantity [left
brain measurement] at all, but as a quality [right brain function],
moreover, her describes I think it is now 8 discrete right brain
intelligences.

Laughably other commentators have said that the reductio-ad-absurdam of
treating intelligence or genius as a quantity [as measured by IQ] is
proposed by people who treat the brain only as some form of meat-calculator.
In a profoundly mechanistic age, perhaps this is inevitable.

Quite evidently Binet is not at fault for these determinations, since IQ
certainly does measure something, and may even be a fair indicator of the
ability to conduct linear processing - it is the misapprehension, then
misapplication of IQ and of what a human being is, or may be, that is the
culprit.

Phil Innes

Nick has said it! Bell Curve argues racism, not sociology or psychology. In
the last 12 months such titles have become popular in China, and some there
argue superiority in math for example, by racist precept.

But there are no races! Except to say that there is a human race.

I don't think Bell Curve could have originated in any other country than
America, which is still coming to terms with race - in fact its still common
in psychological evaluations to inquire of race [!]

This is personally amusing for me, since as a white European the only option
seems to be to write what I consider to be a religious category as "Jewish"
or the generic "Anglo Saxon", whereas I am neither, but a Celt! It would
make more sense to ask about background culture than 'race'. In fact during
some tests black students in particular score less well when their is an
initial inquiry to 'race' !!

If you think I am a smart-arse about this, you are correct - and I don't get
it right either.

I have a friend who teaches divinity and is also a 2000 rated black person.
When asking him about Jesse Jackson's potential future political prospects
he turned around as said, "how come you are asking me, I'm not black, I'm a
New Yorker!"

Good answer )

Phil

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed Seedhouse 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?

wrote:
I don't remember details but it did seem like an intelligent book.

Given that VKarlamov has writen 'There must be some severe
brain damage, caused by perverted political correctness,
that is responsible for such blindness to the obvious' (about
IQ scores), it seems hardly surprising that VKarlamov seems
to have been impressed by 'The Bell Curve'.

"The Bell Curve" is well-known pseudoscience,

I regard 'The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life' by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
as pseudoscience in the service of political propaganda.

and anyone who relies on it to support an argument
will rapidly become a laughingstock.

As far as I can recall reading, 'The Bell Curve' did receive
positive reviews in several American publications (which
were sympathetic to the authors' evident political agenda).
But academic journals had much more critical reviews.

As I recall, a black scholar (who had been on cordial
terms personally with Richard Herrnstein) wrote that
he was quite disappointed that Herrnstein had come
to such racist conclusions in 'The Bell Curve'.

For further reading:

'The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions'
edited by Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman

'The Bell Curve War: Race, Intelligence, and the
Future of America' edited by Steven Fraser

--Nick

On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, wrote:


Ed Seedhouse 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.

Ed

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, wrote:


Ed Seedhouse 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.

On Oct 19, 2:08 pm, wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, wrote:

Ed Seedhouse 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.

As an example of serious criticism by a respected scientist, I refer
you to Stephen Jay Gould's 1994 New Yorker magazine review of the book
in question:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/cou...curveball.html

On 19 Oct 2006 11:08:17 -0700, wrote:


Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 01:04:01 -0700, wrote:


Ed Seedhouse 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.

And the descent into mere silliness proceeds apace....