"The Bell Curve": Twenty Years Later, Q&A With Charles Murray

[Trausti]

Your adulation of Gould may be misguided.



http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/nov/30/genes-memes-minds/

For another opinion

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/maynard-smith-on-stephen-jay-gould.html

And nearly a decade after his death:

But Ralph L. Holloway, an expert on human evolution at Columbia and a co-author of the new study, was less willing to give Dr. Gould benefit of the doubt.

“I just didn’t trust Gould,” he said. “I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=2&ref=science&

 

[untermensche]

His conclusions are that whites are harming themselves by mingling with other races.

Naturally if you really wanted to know his scientific findings and conclusions you could read any of his academic papers.

Naturally you can't defend this man's ignorance. As I said, numbers don't jump off the page and speak for themselves.

What you hope is that people without bias are working the numbers. But when they have severe biases, biases about "race mingling", something you would expect to hear from a Nazi, their credibility seriously comes into question.

This man has severe biases. It is possible his research doesn't simply reflect his biases, but that would require replicating his studies

If you have some evidence his research was replicated then present it.

Nothing in those parts was even remotely connected to your claim that "his conclusions" are that whites are harming themselves by mingling with other races.

You didn't watch the video then. At 24 seconds he asks "How can people behave in such a suicidal manner?"

It isn't until 3 minutes and 10 seconds we understand what this suicidal behavior is.

It is to "practice democracy and let many immigrants in, let foreigners in."

In other words it is suicidal for whites to practice democracy and let non-whites into a country. This is pure racism.

And then at the end of the video we get former Klan member David Duke asking about techniques to increase "ethnic solidarity". A code word for white supremacy.

This video reeks of racial hatreds and irrational fear of race mingling.

If you don't, we can safely assume it was just another cockroach claim needing sprayed.

A cockroach would be somebody who supports this racist.

Many of his critics--in particular proponents of sociobiology and other theorists of biological determinism--believed that he allowed his leftist political beliefs to govern his observations. Gould himself, like his colleagues Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose, freely acknowledged Marxist sympathies while insisting that his conclusions were supported by objectively gathered data.

First of all, Marx was first and foremost a critic of capitalism, and his criticisms are accurate.

So to believe Marx's critiques of capitalism is to be reasonable.

All you are saying is that Gould was reasonable and not blinded by some knee-jerk prejudice against Marx that inflicts many apologists of capitalism.

A given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria.

One of the most striking phenomena in this field is the steady worldwide rise in test scores, now often called the “Flynn effect.” Mean IQs have increased more than 15 points-a full standard deviation-in the last 50 years, and the rate of gain may be increasing. These gains may result from improved nutrition, cultural changes, experience with testing, shifts in schooling or child-rearing practices, or some other factor as yet unknown.

The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

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 socioeconomic 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.

You claim this supports the conclusions from The Bell Curve and disputes Gould? Perhaps you never actually read what you posted?

Still stuffing strawmen and moving goal posts are we? I did not say it "supported conclusions" (whatever ones you may be referring to) but that contrary to Gould's criticisms, many directed at and/or applicable to Murray (et. al.), the report concluded that IQ testing measures a real intellectual ability , that there are racial and ethnic differences in group average IQ, quality IQ tests are not culturally biased, and that IQ is a product of both nature and nurture.

If the scores can go up one whole standard deviation in 50 years and nobody knows why, what exactly are the tests testing?

They certainly aren't testing any static feature within individuals, like eye color. They are testing something that can change a great deal.

That there is a Flynn effect is interesting but irrelevant to this dispute, and that the APA avoided taking sides by declaring no theory is adequate to explain group differences misses the point. The point is that the APA consistently undermines the premises of Gould's criticisms (e.g. his denial that IQ testing measures a real human trait, and denial that it does so objectively), not that it uncritically endorses all of Murray's views.

The Flynn effect is central to this dispute and it shows the differences between blacks and whites could be surmounted under the right conditions.

I can understand why you want to dismiss the most damning piece of evidence to claims that whites are innately superior to blacks on IQ tests.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

For another opinion

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/maynard-smith-on-stephen-jay-gould.html

And nearly a decade after his death:

But Ralph L. Holloway, an expert on human evolution at Columbia and a co-author of the new study, was less willing to give Dr. Gould benefit of the doubt.

“I just didn’t trust Gould,” he said. “I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=2&ref=science&

And once more into the breach

In the latter study, entitled "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias"[10] and authored by six anthropologists, it was concluded that the bias came from Gould, who failed to examine and remeasure the crania in order to determine Morton's level of accuracy.[11]

However, this study was reviewed in an editorial in Nature, which recommended a degree of caution, stating "the critique leaves the majority of Gould's work unscathed," and noted that "because they couldn't measure all the skulls, they do not know whether the average cranial capacities that Morton reported represent his sample accurately."[12] The journal stated that Gould's opposition to racism may have biased his interpretation of Morton's data, but also noted that "Lewis and his colleagues have their own motivations. Several in the group have an association with the University of Pennsylvania, and have an interest in seeing the valuable but understudied skull collection freed from the stigma of bias" and did not accept Gould's theory "that the scientific method is inevitably tainted by bias."[12]

A 2014 restudy of Morton's data by University of Pennsylvania philosophy professor Michael Weisberg, tended to confirm Gould's original accusations, concluding that "there is prima facie evidence of a racial bias in Morton's measurements". Weisberg concludes that although Gould did commit mistakes in his own treatment, Morton's work "remains a cautionary example of racial bias in the science of human differences".[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_George_Morton#Allegations_of_bias_in_data_collection

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Now if there are those who wish to debate tangents, I totally understand why.

But getting back to the rehabilitation of Charles Murray and his bankrupt ideas, in his later tome Coming Apart, Murray applies his "the culture made them do it" argument from his book Losing Ground to white people not in the upper percentiles of the economic elite. Rich white people are rich because they practice a culture that superior to less affluent white people and as they intermarry with other rich smart white people, they become genetically superior to poorer white people as well.

This man is a kook and if you want to put your intellectual eggs in the basket of kook, don't be surprised when they are broken and the yolks on you.

 

[ksen]

Actually the yolks on us because the Very Important Derps take Murray very, very seriously.

 

[maxparrish]

From the Wikipedia article.

Rushton's work was criticized in the scholarly literature; he generally responded, sometimes in the same journal. In 1995 in the Journal of Black Studies, Zack Cernovsky wrote, "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semi-pornographic book and to an article by Philip Nobile in the Penthouse magazine's Forum."

To use this severely flawed source to discredit Gould merely shows desperation.

Besides this singular "researcher", who else can you produce that questions Gould's conclusions on 'The Bell Curve'?

Evidence of Rushton's political views (real and imagined) that you find repulsive does not make his peer reviewed publications "severely flawed",

Was his criticism of Gould peer-reviewed? I thought not, but if this is becoming a thing may be we should check?

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf

If you looked at it you should have thought not. Academic Press Book Reviews, even special book reviews, are not normally refereed in academic journals, especially so when the book or article reviewed was not itself peer-reviewed and is in the popular press. That Rushton, Jensen and many others bothered to review the Mismeasure of Man in academic publications was primarily due to its unearned popularity, not its academic quality.

Anyway, while Rushton offered a tidy article that debunked Gould,

Debunked Gould's portrayal the early pioneers of eugenics. I hate to keep repeating the same point, but the Rushton article leaves Gould's criticisms of the Bell Curve almost untouched.

He debunked Gould's book, and the one or two most basic points of Gould in his article Curveball; namely, the claim that g does not really exist and Gould's questioning of heritability. However, other writers have addressed the same points, as well as his poor grasp of factor analysis, sloppy scholarship, etc. If you have some specific criticism by Gould of Bell Curve, please quote.

you seem unaware of both the scope of, and many participants opposed to, Gould (et. al.). Apparently you are one of millions of the non-expert left who (unlike the academic psychometric and cognitive science press) has canonized Gould as the arch-critic of Murray (et. al.) when, in reality, Gould is not even considered a serious critic by those he attacks - there are expert critics (such as James Flynn) who do warrant high respect and admiration, but Gould was little more than a self-promoting crusader for the scientifically ill-informed anti-racist missionaries. The less you knew about the subject, the more he was quoted by the wanna-believe knaves.

Um.. With respect Max, this seems to be a conclusion you've pulled off of a magazine article or something. The Mismeasure of Man was a popular science book, sure, but Gould was no more or less respected than Rushton, or the other critics you're citing. Obviously those who sympathise with the views expressed in the Bell Curve don't agree with his conclusions, but I've not heard of any serious researcher in this field dismissing him in the way you suggest.

It's not 'something I read', it has been equally observed by others long before me. Gould was not a cognitive scientist or psychologist, he was a paleontologist. He did not publish in academic journals on the issues of IQ (etc.). He was "widely respected" as an evolutionist and for his political views, but on this subject he was merely an anti-racist driven popularizer whose book was widely praised by the social science and political press, and largely (but not entirely) panned by the Science press.

Rushton was widely respected by many for his contributions to the actual science (250 academic articles and his path breaking book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior which The New York Times published a joint notice with The Bell Curve on the front page of its Book Review), and was he just as widely hated by many on the political left for his prominence and success in research and in developing theories they detested. Please read the two links I provide below (as well as the link to Commentary I provided earlier) to obtain informed perspective. For example:

The scientific reviews

While the non scientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical. In Science, a widely read American publication that covers all the sciences, the book was reviewed by Franz Samelson, a psychologist at Kansas State University. He concludes that as a history of science the book has a number of problems... On another point, Gould's discussion of the "fallacy of reification"--the grouping of different abilities, ..."remains blurred, since Gould's emphasis seems to shift about. Exactly what does he object to? [Gould] never tells us directly what his own proper, unreified conception of intelligence is." Finally, Gould fails to acknowledge...(etc).

In Nature, a distinguished British journal of general science, Steve Blinkhom, writing from the Neuropsychology Laboratory at Stanford University, is blunt: "With a glittering prose style and as honestly held a set of prejudices as you could hope to meet in a day's crusading, ... More specifically, "the substantive discussion of the theory of intelligence stops at the stage it was in more than a quarter of a century ago." Gould "has nothing to say which is both accurate and at issue when it comes to substantive or methodological points." ...

Science 82, a journal designed for the general public, chose as its reviewer Candace Pert, a biochemist at the National Institute of Mental Health, who has been researching the application of molecular biology and cell biology to the study of the brain. "Gould's history of pseudoscientific racism...does not, despite his claims, negate the sociobiological notion that differences in human genetic composition can produce differences in brain proteins, resulting in differences in behavior and personality." ...

The most extensive scientific analysis of Gould's book appeared in Contemporary Education Review. Arthur R. Jensen, of the Institute for Human Learning at the University of California, Berkeley, analyzes Gould's technical arguments in great detail and reaches sharply critical conclusions. He also discusses recent research demonstrating a high correlation of IQ with speed of information processing, as measured by simple reaction-time techniques. These findings encourage a hope that a merger with neurobiology may soon make studies of intelligence much more penetrating and less controversial.

The review that appeared in Scientific American is an exception to the harsh criticism in the scientific press.... The publisher, Gerard Piel, and the book editor, Philip Morrison, have long seen the study of the genetics of intelligence as a threat to racial justice. According to Morrison, as "a persuasive chronicle of prejudice in science, founded on scrupulous examination of the record, enlivened by the talent of a gifted writer, this volume takes on some of the sinister appeal of a tale of heinous crime."...

AND:

To Davis' list of generally critical reviews (of Mismeasure) in scientific journals, I would add those by Spuhler (1982) in Contemporary Psychology, and by Jones (1983) and Humphreys (1983) in Applied Psychological Measurement (the latter appearing also in the American Journal of Psychology, 1983).

http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_davis.html

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/carroll-gould.html

Arthur Jensen, UC Berkeley Education Psychologist (and pioneer in IQ studies and heritability) who in a review of The Mismeasure of Man criticized him for misrepresenting research, failing to address "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields" etc.

Specifically, Jensen was annoyed that Gould tried to suggest that IQ study in general was flawed because of books like The Bell Curve, claiming that it wasn't representative of the general standards of research, which were far more rigorous.

Where do you get this stuff? Jensen's criticism of Gould's first edition of the Mismeasure of Man (and its mangling of Jensen's work) was LONG before the Bell Curve was written. Jensen demolished more thoroughly and ruthlessly than even Rushton did fifteen years later (which addressed the almost unchanged 2nd edition). For a true believing Gould groupie it is a painful read, but well worth it for the open minded.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

A difficulty using factor analysis was shared by several of his critics. It is complicated, Gould did make a hash of it, he admits as much, but the point he made that factor analysis alone is not enough to demonstrate reification is no less valid.

The reification issue is worth calling out. Basically, the criticism is that Gould did not distinguish properly between research that uses g as an abstract measure, and work that assumes for it's conclusion that g is an actual thing rather than a correlation of other factors. Factor analysis does not distinguish between the two. Doubtingt doesn't distinguish between the two when he claims that because the correlation is strong and reliable, that increases the plausibility of g being a causal factor. While this is a complicated subject, The Bell Curve does indeed rely for it's conclusions on reification of g, Gould is still correct to call out the fallacy of its reification, and his critics in general focus not on that, but on whether this is a valid criticism of psychometrics in general.

I tend not to debate based on the basis of what someone's claim of what Gould argued with his critics - too often I have found I am debating on the basis of someone's mangled understanding, which is pointless. Should you like to actually quote what he said, with any of your attendant clarifications and justifications, I will reply.

It's worth reading the full exchanges that Gould made with his various critics over the years.

If so, please point out the links in which post you provided to read said exchanges, or provide them now.

The psychometrist researchers and supporters opposed to Gould, such as "Herrnstein and Murray, Jensen, Eysenck, John Carroll (whose 1993 treatise, Human Cognitive Abilities, offers the most extensive factor-analysis of mental tests), and most psychologists who have traditionally studied the topic" also hold to a conception of intelligence of common sense...", which means their expert views refute Gould's belief that "unitary, innate, linearly rankable intelligence” does not exist.

No, that isn't what it means...

Yes it does, read my links.

Gould is pretty readable, and the 2nd edition Mismeasure is a pretty fun read. Just don't take his personal characterisations of people seriously, as they're not very fair. Flynn gives another perspective, and you should definitely get more than one perspective, but you should probably ignore his characterisations of his critics too. What you won't find is many people defending The Bell Curve specifically, and there is good reason for that - it goes well beyond the available science.

What I don't take seriously is baseless advice on how I "take" anyone's personal characterizations of people" . What I do take seriously are claims of truth that have no other basis than puffery. You claim that the Bell Curve went "well beyond the available science". Please define what is "available science" and how it went "well beyond". Links and quotes please.

But what you shouldn't do is assume that there is a broad consensus on the issue - there isn't.

It depends on what you consider "The issue". As should be clear by now, there are MANY issues, and many issues are outside the narrow focus of the Bell curve.

There is the view of researchers who have chosen to use g-based psychometric techniques in their research, precisely because they find them useful, and valid for the purposes they are putting them to. And there is the view of researchers who have not chosen to use g-based psychometric techniques in their research, precisely because they find them not useful, and not valid for the purposes they would be putting them to. Everyone agrees you can accurately measure something called IQ, but what reliance and validity you can put on that measure depends very much on who you talk to and what you're trying to prove. The idea that g, as measured by IQ, is a real thing that actually exists and causally drives other behaviours is further than most researchers in this area, serious or otherwise, are willing to go.

Your last paragraph is too generalized and too imprecise to be useful. All you are saying is that researchers have different ideas of "useful" for "their purposes" and that it "depends on what you are trying to prove". Well yes, and that can be said of any research area - perhaps you should also note that the sky is blue?

 

[Metaphor]

If the scores can go up one whole standard deviation in 50 years and nobody knows why, what exactly are the tests testing?

Height has increased by more than one standard deviation in the past 100 years. That doesn't mean that height is a meaningless concept. It means that as a whole the environmental effects that increase height (proper nutrition, etc) have increased, and the environmental effects that decrease height (e.g. smoking) have decreased.

They certainly aren't testing any static feature within individuals, like eye color. They are testing something that can change a great deal.

Intelligence is not as static as eye colour, but it does not vary wildly either, except downwards as the result of traumatic brain injury or some other illness or event.

The Flynn effect is central to this dispute and it shows the differences between blacks and whites could be surmounted under the right conditions.

I can understand why you want to dismiss the most damning piece of evidence to claims that whites are innately superior to blacks on IQ tests.

There is evidence that the Flynn effect is due to a reduction in the variance in the low end of scores; that is, those in the lower half of the intelligence spectrum have increased their scores (I don't mean individuals; the Flynn effect is a secular trend over generations).

Whether this would be enough to 'close the gap' between Black and White IQ scores depends on the shape of the distribution of Black and White IQ scores. But in many of the most relevant measures (e.g. college and high school outcomes) the gap remains.

 

[maxparrish]

Naturally if you really wanted to know his scientific findings and conclusions you could read any of his academic papers.

Naturally you can't defend this man's ignorance. As I said, numbers don't jump off the page and speak for themselves.

And just what "ignorance" might that be, given that you won't read his work to find out what he does and does not know? Ignorance of his ignorance, is it?

I understand your complaint that numbers don't jump off pages, and I am sure it is equally vexing to you that his language in his findings and explanations don't leap from the pages of articles either. You have to (gasp) READ THEM.

What you hope is that people without bias are working the numbers. But when they have severe biases, biases about "race mingling", something you would expect to hear from a Nazi, their credibility seriously comes into question.

Yes, and I am sure that others don't trust researchers that are red diaper baby Marxists (or fellow travelers), and yet others don't trust researchers with beards. And while your characterization of his political view is a caricature, it does not mean there is bias in his work. In fact, it may be that (unlike Gould) he developed his views BECAUSE of his research.

This man has severe biases. It is possible his research doesn't simply reflect his biases, but that would require replicating his studies

He published his work for three decades, there has been ample opportunity for his hair-pulling critics to actually study the same data, if they did there is no evidence that they found significant bias.

If you have some evidence his research was replicated then present it.

LOL...if you have some evidence that his research could not be replicated or that his studies were tainted by bias, then present it. You seem obsessed with the notion that Rushton is guilty till proven innocent BECAUSE you don't like his politics.

Nothing in those parts was even remotely connected to your claim that "his conclusions" are that whites are harming themselves by mingling with other races.

You didn't watch the video then. At 24 seconds he asks "How can people behave in such a suicidal manner?"

It isn't until 3 minutes and 10 seconds we understand what this suicidal behavior is.

It is to "practice democracy and let many immigrants in, let foreigners in."

In other words it is suicidal for whites to practice democracy and let non-whites into a country. This is pure racism.

Wow, when you talk about bias in research your own exposition gives us an insight into blinding bias.

He was NOT advocating a policy, he was answering the questioner (who used the word suicidal) on how he views the apparent paradox between sociobiological theory that says that there is a strong biological imperative in humans for the replication of similar genes, with the reality that many humans and groups act in manners that undermine to that groups biological goal.

His own thought on this is that psychology, the willingness of people to follow and trust the leader or fellow group members like themselves (as with Hitler and Germany) can check this imperative - for good or bad "depending on your politics".

He did not say practicing democracy was suicidal, or that races shouldn't mingle, or that you shouldn't let foreigners in. He is plainly stating an obvious truth, peoples and cultures do not always act evolutionarily to preserve themselves...Japan being an obvious example (but Europe as well, with its declining population and EU migrant policies).

So unless you want to argue that peoples and cultures always seek to increase their own numbers, your complaints are little more than woefully strained and tortured readings in search of your favorite bug-a-boo "RACISM".

 

[Togo]

From the Wikipedia article.

Rushton's work was criticized in the scholarly literature; he generally responded, sometimes in the same journal. In 1995 in the Journal of Black Studies, Zack Cernovsky wrote, "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semi-pornographic book and to an article by Philip Nobile in the Penthouse magazine's Forum."

To use this severely flawed source to discredit Gould merely shows desperation.

Besides this singular "researcher", who else can you produce that questions Gould's conclusions on 'The Bell Curve'?

Evidence of Rushton's political views (real and imagined) that you find repulsive does not make his peer reviewed publications "severely flawed",

Was his criticism of Gould peer-reviewed? I thought not, but if this is becoming a thing may be we should check?

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf

If you looked at it you should have thought not.

I did look at it, and that is indeed why I thought it wasn't. However, some cognitive psychology publications in magazine review do go through an informal peer-review process, particularly if it is an article that challenges an existing orthodoxy (which is reasonably common)

[ Academic Press Book Reviews, even special book reviews, are not normally refereed in academic journals, especially so when the book or article reviewed was not itself peer-reviewed and is in the popular press. That Rushton, Jensen and many others bothered to review the Mismeasure of Man in academic publications was primarily due to its unearned popularity, not its academic quality.

And their reviews are famous for the same reason. It was a very public disagreement. As before, if you want to make the point that these views are not peer-reviewed papers, then you have to apply the same logic to all the sources.

Anyway, while Rushton offered a tidy article that debunked Gould,

Debunked Gould's portrayal the early pioneers of eugenics. I hate to keep repeating the same point, but the Rushton article leaves Gould's criticisms of the Bell Curve almost untouched.

He debunked Gould's book,

If you say so. However, the article you cited doesn't debunk the book. It criticises Gould's approach to dealing with historical figures in Eugenics, a subject he felt strongly about. It doesn't touch any of the criticisms he made of The Bell Curve, except to say he should have applied those criticisms more widely.

and the one or two most basic points of Gould in his article Curveball; namely, the claim that g does not really exist and Gould's questioning of heritability.

Many IQ researchers are quite happy with the idea that g doesn't exist, which is precisely the issue regarding reification that was being discussed earlier. The criticism of Gould is not that reification is true rather than false, but that reification is an unnecessary for much of a academic research that goes on in IQ. The reason why they don't touch the criticisms of The Bell Curve in particular is precisely because they can't - it relies on this kind of reification to reach it's conclusions, which goes well beyond what the academic literature can support. All the critics can do is dispute Gould's implication that The Bell Curve is typical of research around the concept of general intelligence.

If you have some specific criticism by Gould of Bell Curve, please quote.

I've described it in some detail now. The books is not long, and I'm not going to copy out long chapters for you. If you want to criticise the book, you should probably read it.

you seem unaware of both the scope of, and many participants opposed to, Gould (et. al.). Apparently you are one of millions of the non-expert left who (unlike the academic psychometric and cognitive science press) has canonized Gould as the arch-critic of Murray (et. al.) when, in reality, Gould is not even considered a serious critic by those he attacks - there are expert critics (such as James Flynn) who do warrant high respect and admiration, but Gould was little more than a self-promoting crusader for the scientifically ill-informed anti-racist missionaries. The less you knew about the subject, the more he was quoted by the wanna-believe knaves.

Um.. With respect Max, this seems to be a conclusion you've pulled off of a magazine article or something. The Mismeasure of Man was a popular science book, sure, but Gould was no more or less respected than Rushton, or the other critics you're citing. Obviously those who sympathise with the views expressed in the Bell Curve don't agree with his conclusions, but I've not heard of any serious researcher in this field dismissing him in the way you suggest.

It's not 'something I read', it has been equally observed by others long before me. Gould was not a cognitive scientist or psychologist, he was a paleontologist. He did not publish in academic journals on the issues of IQ (etc.). He was "widely respected" as an evolutionist and for his political views, but on this subject he was merely an anti-racist driven popularizer whose book was widely praised by the social science and political press, and largely (but not entirely) panned by the Science press.

In other words, some scientists agree, others don't, and you've read about it?

The scientific reviews

While the non scientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical. In Science, a widely read American publication that covers all the sciences, the book was reviewed by Franz Samelson, a psychologist at Kansas State University. He concludes that as a history of science the book has a number of problems... On another point, Gould's discussion of the "fallacy of reification"--the grouping of different abilities, ..."remains blurred, since Gould's emphasis seems to shift about. Exactly what does he object to? [Gould] never tells us directly what his own proper, unreified conception of intelligence is." Finally, Gould fails to acknowledge...(etc).

Samelson being a good choice of reviewer, since he writes in the same area. However, Gould's criticisms don't rely on pushing a rival theory of g, so I don't see where Franz is coming from. A link, or longer quote, might help?

In Nature, a distinguished British journal of general science, Steve Blinkhom, writing from the Neuropsychology Laboratory at Stanford University,

Where he was on a one-year posting from Hatfield Polytechnic...

is blunt: "With a glittering prose style and as honestly held a set of prejudices as you could hope to meet in a day's crusading, ... More specifically, "the substantive discussion of the theory of intelligence stops at the stage it was in more than a quarter of a century ago." Gould "has nothing to say which is both accurate and at issue when it comes to substantive or methodological points." ...

In other words, Gould was writing about the history of eugenics and psychometrics, Blinkhorn was heavily involved in setting up psychometrics as a profitable industry, and wanted to make the point that Gould was attacking the history, and not modern IQ testing.

Science 82, a journal designed for the general public, chose as its reviewer Candace Pert, a biochemist at the National Institute of Mental Health, who has been researching the application of molecular biology and cell biology to the study of the brain. "Gould's history of pseudoscientific racism...does not, despite his claims, negate the sociobiological notion that differences in human genetic composition can produce differences in brain proteins, resulting in differences in behavior and personality." ...

Well no, of course it doesn't. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

The most extensive scientific analysis of Gould's book appeared in Contemporary Education Review. Arthur R. Jensen, of the Institute for Human Learning at the University of California, Berkeley, analyzes Gould's technical arguments in great detail and reaches sharply critical conclusions.

Well of course he does. He's criticised by name in several sections of the book! The book calls out Cyril Burt's research as fraudulent, and Jensen based some of his early work on Burt's findings. Jensen was a long-term defender of Burt, and argued with Gould on and off for several decades. He did eventually agree that Burt's work was fraudulent, as Gould had claimed.

Arthur Jensen, UC Berkeley Education Psychologist (and pioneer in IQ studies and heritability) who in a review of The Mismeasure of Man criticized him for misrepresenting research, failing to address "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields" etc.

Specifically, Jensen was annoyed that Gould tried to suggest that IQ study in general was flawed because of books like The Bell Curve, claiming that it wasn't representative of the general standards of research, which were far more rigorous.

Where do you get this stuff? Jensen's criticism of Gould's first edition of the Mismeasure of Man (and its mangling of Jensen's work) was LONG before the Bell Curve was written.

We're discussing the second edition, which added a chapter specifically on the Bell Curve, and also reprised some of Jensen's arguments with Gould in the intervening time. That's why it was brought up in the first place - as a book that criticised the The Bell Curve, the subject of the OP of the thread.

Jensen demolished more thoroughly and ruthlessly than even Rushton did fifteen years later (which addressed the almost unchanged 2nd edition). For a true believing Gould groupie it is a painful read, but well worth it for the open minded.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

<shrug> By all means read it, since it bears out exactly what I've been saying. That Jensen was primarily annoyed with the criticism of Burt, the history of Eugenics, and himself, and at no point touches the argument levelled at the Bell Curve, that it goes beyond the available science. Jensen himself makes the argument several times that Gould is wrong because the scientific tradition of which he is a part does not do what Gould suggests - that it doesn't make definitive public policy statements, that it doesn't claim that the case that racial differences are inevitable has been proven, and so on. Jensen himself may believe in these positions - he once suggested that IQ could be biologically linked to skin pigmentation - but he denies that he has argued that the case has been demonstrated by the available science. The Bell Curve does argue that the case has been demonstrated by the available science - that's the point of the book. Jensen's point is that academic science around measures of g are not like The Bell Curve.

[

A difficulty using factor analysis was shared by several of his critics. It is complicated, Gould did make a hash of it, he admits as much, but the point he made that factor analysis alone is not enough to demonstrate reification is no less valid.

The reification issue is worth calling out. Basically, the criticism is that Gould did not distinguish properly between research that uses g as an abstract measure, and work that assumes for it's conclusion that g is an actual thing rather than a correlation of other factors. Factor analysis does not distinguish between the two. Doubtingt doesn't distinguish between the two when he claims that because the correlation is strong and reliable, that increases the plausibility of g being a causal factor. While this is a complicated subject, The Bell Curve does indeed rely for it's conclusions on reification of g, Gould is still correct to call out the fallacy of its reification, and his critics in general focus not on that, but on whether this is a valid criticism of psychometrics in general.

I tend not to debate based on the basis of what someone's claim of what Gould argued with his critics - too often I have found I am debating on the basis of someone's mangled understanding, which is pointless. Should you like to actually quote what he said, with any of your attendant clarifications and justifications, I will reply.

Ok, so you're attacking a book you've not read?

Maybe you could explain your understanding of what Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve actually are? I feel like I'm debating you based on your mangled understanding of what he's said, which appears to be based in turn on the comments of his critics. If this is such a waste of time that you can't bring yourself to discuss them, then maybe your own views should be similarly discarded?

The psychometrist researchers and supporters opposed to Gould, such as "Herrnstein and Murray, Jensen, Eysenck, John Carroll (whose 1993 treatise, Human Cognitive Abilities, offers the most extensive factor-analysis of mental tests), and most psychologists who have traditionally studied the topic" also hold to a conception of intelligence of common sense...", which means their expert views refute Gould's belief that "unitary, innate, linearly rankable intelligence” does not exist.

No, that isn't what it means...

Yes it does, read my links.

I have, and no it isn't. Based on your 'mangled understanding' clause above, please quote or cite the paragraphs that the critics use to make clear that's what they're doing.

Gould is pretty readable, and the 2nd edition Mismeasure is a pretty fun read. Just don't take his personal characterisations of people seriously, as they're not very fair. Flynn gives another perspective, and you should definitely get more than one perspective, but you should probably ignore his characterisations of his critics too. What you won't find is many people defending The Bell Curve specifically, and there is good reason for that - it goes well beyond the available science.

What I don't take seriously is baseless advice on how I "take" anyone's personal characterizations of people" . What I do take seriously are claims of truth that have no other basis than puffery. You claim that the Bell Curve went "well beyond the available science". Please define what is "available science" and how it went "well beyond". Links and quotes please.

Max, I can't read the book for you. You need to read the chapter in the book (2nd edition) that specifically addresses The Bell Curve. I'm not going to waste time trying to prove to you what's in the book.

The reason why I'm not going to waste that time is because it doesn't matter to me if it's in the book or not. The arguments against The Bell Curve, like most scientific arguments, work just fine no matter who makes it. If you want to believe they aren't in Gould's book, then your critics of that book become irrelevant to the discussion.

I have described and discussed the content, including describing the arguments employed and how they work, on the understanding that you were familiar with what was actually said. The fact that you're trying to refute this with criticisms of an edition of the book that doesn't contain the chapter on The Bell Curve suggests there may be a basic problem.

Either it's in the book, and you need to address it as part of the book, or it's not in the book, and you need to address it separately. What you can't do is cite critics who don't mention a discussion of the Bell Curve as attempting to debunk a criticism of The Bell Curve.

There is the view of researchers who have chosen to use g-based psychometric techniques in their research, precisely because they find them useful, and valid for the purposes they are putting them to. And there is the view of researchers who have not chosen to use g-based psychometric techniques in their research, precisely because they find them not useful, and not valid for the purposes they would be putting them to. Everyone agrees you can accurately measure something called IQ, but what reliance and validity you can put on that measure depends very much on who you talk to and what you're trying to prove. The idea that g, as measured by IQ, is a real thing that actually exists and causally drives other behaviours is further than most researchers in this area, serious or otherwise, are willing to go.

Your last paragraph is too generalized and too imprecise to be useful. All you are saying is that researchers have different ideas of "useful" for "their purposes" and that it "depends on what you are trying to prove".

Which is directly relevant to the criticism of The Bell Curve that you're disputing. If g is not reified, and most serious researchers do not go that far, then The Bell Curve's social pronouncements are not supported by their scientific data. Because their social pronouncements rely on g being inherent, g being fixed, and g being not due to environmental factors. If g is just a arbitrary collection of factor variances, then it can't have those characteristics, and The Bell Curve suddenly has no science behind the recommendations it makes.

 

[untermensche]

Height has increased by more than one standard deviation in the past 100 years. That doesn't mean that height is a meaningless concept. It means that as a whole the environmental effects that increase height (proper nutrition, etc) have increased, and the environmental effects that decrease height (e.g. smoking) have decreased.

It means there is more to height than genetics. It can't be reduced to a genetic imperative.

They certainly aren't testing any static feature within individuals, like eye color. They are testing something that can change a great deal.

Intelligence is not as static as eye colour, but it does not vary wildly either, except downwards as the result of traumatic brain injury or some other illness or event.

It can vary at least an entire standard deviation with just changes to environment.

The Flynn effect is central to this dispute and it shows the differences between blacks and whites could be surmounted under the right conditions.

I can understand why you want to dismiss the most damning piece of evidence to claims that whites are innately superior to blacks on IQ tests.

There is evidence that the Flynn effect is due to a reduction in the variance in the low end of scores; that is, those in the lower half of the intelligence spectrum have increased their scores (I don't mean individuals; the Flynn effect is a secular trend over generations).

Whether this would be enough to 'close the gap' between Black and White IQ scores depends on the shape of the distribution of Black and White IQ scores. But in many of the most relevant measures (e.g. college and high school outcomes) the gap remains

We don't know what causes the gap.

One thing we do know, it isn't genetics as the Bell Curve claims to demonstrate.

 

[untermensche]

You didn't watch the video then. At 24 seconds he asks "How can people behave in such a suicidal manner?"

It isn't until 3 minutes and 10 seconds we understand what this suicidal behavior is.

It is to "practice democracy and let many immigrants in, let foreigners in."

In other words it is suicidal for whites to practice democracy and let non-whites into a country. This is pure racism.

Wow, when you talk about bias in research your own exposition gives us an insight into blinding bias.

Assigning ideas to those who hold them is not bias.

He was NOT advocating a policy, he was answering the questioner (who used the word suicidal) on how he views the apparent paradox between sociobiological theory that says that there is a strong biological imperative in humans for the replication of similar genes, with the reality that many humans and groups act in manners that undermine to that groups biological goal.

He described believing in democracy and letting foreigners into your country as suicidal behavior. Right there at 3:10.

How is this suicidal behavior?

And what do we make of David Duke in this video? Why was a person with Duke's background so interested in this man's musings?

 

[maxparrish]

Academic Press Book Reviews, even special book reviews, are not normally refereed in academic journals, especially so when the book or article reviewed was not itself peer-reviewed and is in the popular press. That Rushton, Jensen and many others bothered to review the Mismeasure of Man in academic publications was primarily due to its unearned popularity, not its academic quality.

And their reviews are famous for the same reason. It was a very public disagreement. As before, if you want to make the point that these views are not peer-reviewed papers, then you have to apply the same logic to all the sources.

Actually they are not famous in the popular press, having published in the academic press. And the only point worth making is that it was Gould who declined to play without umpires and rules, so its a bit cheeky for his supporters to fault Team Science players who showed up to play on Gould's terms. In fact, as a "you too" claim it is ludicrous.

(Besides, as it is you who has claimed that there are journals who do require a formal process or at least informal process, chances are some portion were peer-reviewed, which also makes the "you too" argument moot.)

Anyway, while Rushton offered a tidy article that debunked Gould, and the one or two most basic points of Gould in his article Curveball; namely, the claim that g does not really exist and Gould's questioning of heritability.

Debunked Gould's portrayal the early pioneers of eugenics. I hate to keep repeating the same point, but the Rushton article leaves Gould's criticisms of the Bell Curve almost untouched.

He debunked Gould's book,

If you say so. However, the article you cited doI pesn't debunk the book. It criticises Gould's approach to dealing with historical figures in Eugenics, a subject he felt strongly about. It doesn't touch any of the criticisms he made of The Bell Curve, except to say he should have applied those criticisms more widely.

I can't tell if your actual thoughts are being obscured by sloppy wording, confused understandings of the material, or its just a willful obtuseness. YES HE debunks the book (2nd edition) which is about MORE than "historical figures" or the Bell Curve chapter. And several reviewers have reported that the 2nd edition, except for the Bell Curve chapter, is mostly an unrevised version of the first edition (which I mostly read 30 years ago). THEREFORE, the book is mainly a repeat of the first edition with an added Bell Curve chapter, which (by the way), is also the article he wrote for the New York Times book review, "Curveball". THAT article is freely available on the net.

Therefore, here (once again) are my MAJOR points:

First, I provided you the link to Rushton's article, and yet you keep chattering a robo-call looped message of 'he only criticizes Gould's dealing with historical figures in Eugenics'. Yet, even a 30 second reading of Rushton's paper shows a broader criticism and refutation of Gould's book. You may not consider his debunking successful, but the summary notes on the FIRST PAGE gives you NINE points he addresses:

The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man appeared in 1981 and was quickly praised in the popular press as a definitive refutation of 100 years of scientific work on race, brain-size and intelligence. It sold 125,000 copies, was translated into 10 languages, and became required reading for undergraduate and even graduate classes in anthropology, psychology, and sociology. The second edition is not truly revised, but rather only expanded, as the author claims the book needed no updating as any new research would only be plagued with the same philosophical errors revealed in the first edition. Thus it continues a political polemic, whose author engages in character assassination of long deceased scientists whose work he misrepresents despite published refutations, while studiously withholding from his readers fifteen years of new research that contradicts every major scientific argument he puts forth. Specific attention in this review are given to the following topics: (1) the relationship between brain size and IQ, (2) the importance of the scientific contributions of Sir Francis Galton, S. G. Morton, H. H. Goddard, and Sir Cyril Burt, (3) the role of early IQ testers in determining U.S. immigration policy, (4) The Bell Curve controversy and the reality of g, (5) race/sex/social class differences in brain size and IQ, (6) Cesare Lombroso and the genetic basis of criminal behavior, (7) between-group heritabilities, inter-racial adoption studies, and IQ (8) why evolutionary theory predicts group differences, and (9) the extent to which Gould's political ideology has affected his scientific work.

So there are NINE points of criticism and refutation of Gould's book, and not just Gould's mistreatment of early eugenics researchers. So if you are going to keep telling us that Gould's book has nothing to say about group heritabilities, adoption studies, group brain size, evolutionary theory, the role of IQ testers and immigration policy, bias'd views, and the reality of g THEN I suppose the rest of us will have to decline boarding your mother ship.

Second, some of Rushton's points are on subjects directly addressed in the Bell Curve chapter/Curveball article. Items (4) and much (7) in particular - something you keep denying.

Third, the article Curveball is available to anyone who wishes to quote Gould's other Bell Curve criticisms unaddressed by Rushton. If you wish to continue protesting that Rushton (or others) are avoiding a Gould criticism, then it is incumbent upon you to point out what that criticism is (not your reimagination of his criticism). So quote and/or cite the Gouldian Bell Curve criticism YOU CLAIM is unaddressed, and I will point out and quote where the cognitive scientists and critics address it, if Rushton does not.

To underscore, if you wish to discuss Gould's ACTUAL criticisms in the Bell Curve chapter, and not your mangled or unclear reinterpretation of what he said, I am game. If you wish to bloviate with uncited claims, unclear representations, etc. feel free to do your own shadow boxing.

Many IQ researchers are quite happy with the idea that g doesn't exist, which is precisely the issue regarding reification that was being discussed earlier. ... The reason why they don't touch the criticisms of The Bell Curve in particular is precisely because they can't - it relies on this kind of reification to reach it's conclusions, which goes well beyond what the academic literature can support. All the critics can do is dispute Gould's implication that The Bell Curve is typical of research around the concept of general intelligence.

If you have some specific criticism by Gould of Bell Curve, please quote.

I've described it in some detail now. The books is not long, and I'm not going to copy out long chapters for you. If you want to criticise the book, you should probably read it.

In other words your going to make claims about the issue, the critics inability to defend the Bell Curve, and the academic literature without bothering to produce a single quote, cite, or link. IE: your going to fog horn us with unsupported impressions.

You don't have to "copy long chapters" - most folks here manage to copy and paste a couple of sentences of their source material as a grounding, before bloviating on what it means. Prove it: go to curveball and point out what criticisms the critics are unable to refute.

BTW, I have not been criticizing "the book", I am criticizing the uncritical acceptance of his book and his article by Gould's groupies who are blissfully unaware of how little the real experts think of the guy. I read most of the first edition and all of Curveball, which covers all the major points under contention.

The scientific reviews

While the non scientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical. In Science, a widely read American publication that covers all the sciences, the book was (critically) reviewed by Franz Samelson...Steve Blinkhom,... Candace Pert,... Jensen, ...Spuhler, ...Jones (1983)...Humphreys (1983).etc.

Samelson being a good choice of reviewer, since he writes in the same area. However, Gould's criticisms don't rely on pushing a rival theory of g, so I don't see where Franz is coming from. A link, or longer quote, might help?...

You missed the point. I presented this evidence to back my point that Gould is not a serious source by experts for criticism of the Bell Curve or the Science. If you wish to argue with the criticisms made by each of these reviewers, you may. However, it won't change that fact that they don't think much of his work, in contrast to the popular groupie media - in other words, the original scoffing of Unter that there were critics of Gould's views has been decisively answered. Yes Dorthy, there are critics.

Maybe you could explain your understanding of what Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve actually are? I feel like I'm debating you based on your mangled understanding of what he's said, which appears to be based in turn on the comments of his critics. If this is such a waste of time that you can't bring yourself to discuss them, then maybe your own views should be similarly discarded?

You are arguing with a ghost of your own making. I have not made any claims regarding Gould's specific criticisms, I have presented evidence of his lack of credibility in his criticisms as judged by the scientific community. My "issue" is not the validity of those attacks, but simply to point out to the Gould worshippers that he is NOT a demi-god among those who are serious minded.

But repeatedly you are off and running to argue with each of those critics with your speculations, assertions, and unsupported characterizations but without bothering to even offer us supporting quotes, cites, or links - all of which is actually tangential to our discussion (so far).

To repeat: YOU are making the case that Gould's criticisms of the Bell Curve are largely unaddressed. So it is not up to me to guess which criticisms YOU THINK are being ignored and are unanswered. I am not going to answer ghosts in your head. YOU claimed that BELL CURVE CRITICISMS OF GOULD ARE UNANSWERED THE BY CRITICS. Therefore tell us EXACTLY what those criticisms are with quotes and cites from the source material AND I will argue. But STOP the dodging, its tiresome.

If you can't or won't, we have no duty to participate in your world of shadow boxing.

SO NOW WE WAIT...

 

[Togo]

For pity's sake...

And their reviews are famous for the same reason. It was a very public disagreement. As before, if you want to make the point that these views are not peer-reviewed papers, then you have to apply the same logic to all the sources.

Actually they are not famous in the popular press, having published in the academic press.

I wouldn't know, I only tend to read the journals.

And the only point worth making is that it was Gould who declined to play without umpires and rules,

I don't know what you mean here. He repeated his critics points in the 2nd edition of his own book, (which you'd know if you'd read it).

(Besides, as it is you who has claimed that there are journals who do require a formal process or at least informal process, chances are some portion were peer-reviewed,)

I don't believe so, which is precisely why I suggested it be checked. You've already criticised me for supposedly not knowing that they weren't, and now you're criticising me for suggesting they might not be. Are you just looking for stuff to disagree with?

THEREFORE, the book is mainly a repeat of the first edition with an added Bell Curve chapter, which (by the way), is also the article he wrote for the New York Times book review, "Curveball". THAT article is freely available on the net.

And the section he wrote in the 2nd edition directly addressing some of the criticisms made by Jensen and others. I suggest you get hold of a copy of the book.

Therefore, here (once again) are my MAJOR points:

First, I provided you the link to Rushton's article, and yet you keep chattering a robo-call looped message of 'he only criticizes Gould's dealing with historical figures in Eugenics'. Yet, even a 30 second reading of Rushton's paper shows a broader criticism and refutation of Gould's book. You may not consider his debunking successful, but the summary notes on the FIRST PAGE gives you NINE points he addresses:

No, it gives nine points he claims to address. Unfortunately I actually read the article when you first cited it, and despite the headings and summary paragraph you quoted, Rushton keeps on coming back to historical figures in eugenics, or the usefulness of g measures, in almost every one. You'll note that his headings don't actually match his introduction, and the paragraph about The Bell Curve focuses on data Gould should have included or paid more attention to, and does little if anything to address his specific criticisms of The Bell Curve - Murray's use of statistics, confusing between groups with within groups, and the point that the claims of the Bell Curve rely on a reification of g that is not supported by the scientific data.

Second, some of Rushton's points are on subjects directly addressed in the Bell Curve chapter/Curveball article. Items (4) and much (7) in particular - something you keep denying.

That because I read Rushton's points, rather than his description of them. They're easy to find - just search on the page for references to The Bell Curve and have a read for yourself. Then at least we'll be on the same page.

To underscore, if you wish to discuss Gould's ACTUAL criticisms in the Bell Curve chapter,

I've already been discussing them in some detail. As I said before, if you want to discuss them, feel free to start at any time, by addressing the points I've made. You've instead been focusing on discussing Gould, which seems to be where your interest lies.

Many IQ researchers are quite happy with the idea that g doesn't exist, which is precisely the issue regarding reification that was being discussed earlier. ... The reason why they don't touch the criticisms of The Bell Curve in particular is precisely because they can't - it relies on this kind of reification to reach it's conclusions, which goes well beyond what the academic literature can support. All the critics can do is dispute Gould's implication that The Bell Curve is typical of research around the concept of general intelligence.

If you have some specific criticism by Gould of Bell Curve, please quote.

I've described it in some detail now. The books is not long, and I'm not going to copy out long chapters for you. If you want to criticise the book, you should probably read it.

In other words your going to make claims about the issue, the critics inability to defend the Bell Curve, and the academic literature without bothering to produce a single quote, cite, or link. IE: your going to fog horn us with unsupported impressions.

Well, to be fair, my interest is in The Bell Curve, not Gould. And if you want to make the case that critics have debunked Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve, without in any way identifying any of Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve, why is it suddenly my job to hunt up the text? I'm really only interested in whether the critics sucessfully defend The Bell Curve, and they don't appear to, and mostly don't appear to try to.

BTW, I have not been criticizing "the book", I am criticizing the uncritical acceptance of his book and his article by Gould's groupies

Then you're attacking a straw man.

I read most of the first edition and all of Curveball, which covers all the major points under contention.

So what did you think of Gould's replies to Jensen then, as published in the 2nd edition? If you reckon all the relevent content is online, I'm not going to dispute it with you. But I'm also not going to go off and hunt online sources for you becuase you want to attack a book you've not read.

The scientific reviews

While the non scientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical. In Science, a widely read American publication that covers all the sciences, the book was (critically) reviewed by Franz Samelson...Steve Blinkhom,... Candace Pert,... Jensen, ...Spuhler, ...Jones (1983)...Humphreys (1983).etc.

Samelson being a good choice of reviewer, since he writes in the same area. However, Gould's criticisms don't rely on pushing a rival theory of g, so I don't see where Franz is coming from. A link, or longer quote, might help?...

You missed the point. I presented this evidence to back my point that Gould is not a serious source by experts for criticism of the Bell Curve or the Science.

How were examples of critical reviews supposed to establish that there are no experts that take the criticism seriously?

I mean, obviously if someone sets out to attack an entire specialism, then many of the reviews of that attack by people in that speciality are going to be unenthusiastic. So the existance of critical reviews by specialists in the area are not suprising. But you're making a further claim, that no experts take the criticism seriously, and I'm not sure how you could possibly back that up in the context of an internet forum.

If you wish to argue with the criticisms made by each of these reviewers, you may.

Wasn't that the point of presenting their arguements?

Maybe you could explain your understanding of what Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve actually are? I feel like I'm debating you based on your mangled understanding of what he's said, which appears to be based in turn on the comments of his critics. If this is such a waste of time that you can't bring yourself to discuss them, then maybe your own views should be similarly discarded?

You are arguing with a ghost of your own making. I have not made any claims regarding Gould's specific criticisms, I have presented evidence of his lack of credibility in his criticisms as judged by the scientific community.

But you havn't. There's nothing in what you've presented that could possibly represent the scientific community. You have reviews and opinions by those who were directly or indirectly criticised by Gould's book. How does any of this even suggest that no scientist takes Gould's arguements as credible?

My "issue" is not the validity of those attacks, but simply to point out to the Gould worshippers that he is NOT a demi-god among those who are serious minded.

So why are you arguing with me? I've been criticising Gould myself in this thread.

To repeat: YOU are making the case that Gould's criticisms of the Bell Curve are largely unaddressed.

Nice try, but no. I'm disagreeing with YOUR claim that the critics refuted Gould's arguements. Beyond that claim, I have no interest in the critics at all - why would I?

Burden of proof can be complicated to work out, but it helps to think it through logically. If both your claims and my claims on this subject were taken away, what would we have? The answer is Gould's criticisms of The Bell Curve, which is where we started. You made the claim that those criticisms had been refuted and I disagreed with you. All I'm doing is maintaining that you've not demonstrated your claim. If that claim were dropped, then I have no further stake. Which means it's your claim, and your case to prove.

If you don't want to do that, either because of the practical difficulties, or because you somehow still feel it's my duty, or because you're really only interested in Gould in general, then I'm more than happy to drop the subject and go back to discussing unanswered criticisms of The Bell Curve. I still think they were made by Gould, but if you disagree, then that doesn't make them any less compelling.

 

[maxparrish]

Togo,

This exchange is becoming tiresome and pointless. I will make a last attempt to corral it and focus our discussion. As far as Rushton, Gould, etc. I am not going to waste our time trying sort out our vastly different perceptions. Therefore, I am (at the moment) deleting most of my long draft in reply - starting over. Please don't ask "why did you say this" and I won't ask "why did you say that". As of this moment I will assume that I have NEVER heard your opinions on this matter. My thoughts are:

A) The Bell Curve is a book that had findings that were within the discipline, and within the literature. It used no methodological techniques that were unusual. It's policy recommendations, however, are less conventional.

B) I have no problem with anyone pointing out where they disagree with me. If they do, they need to be specific. I have no interest in more fuzzy analysis, stream of consciousness reflections, snide polemics denouncing the book as racist, or to hear from muttonheads who want to focus on the authors as drunks and baby killers.

C) I have no interest in discussing any critic or defender of the Bell Curve as a person. I am more than happy to discuss their qualifications, experience, and any of their technical arguments.

D) If anyone thinks there are "unanswered criticisms" then the who, what, when, where, and how rule applies. Who made the criticism, when and where did he/she make it (book, article, etc.), what is the specific criticism, and how does it undermine the Bell Curve. If the criticism has been published or a link is available, please cite and or link.

E) If someone wants to focus on specific disputes over specific sub-issues (e.g. Jensen and Gould and "g") then I will likely respond. But cover the bases; the who, what, when, where, and how rule. In fact, I may start such a discussion.

That's it.

 

[Metaphor]

It means there is more to height than genetics. It can't be reduced to a genetic imperative.

Of course it can't. Yet, there are multiple genetic influences on height. That there are environmental effects as well (clearly there are) doesn't mean there aren't genetic ones.

It can vary at least an entire standard deviation with just changes to environment.

In a population over generations, not within individuals (except downwards, as previously mentioned).

We don't know what causes the gap.

One thing we do know, it isn't genetics as the Bell Curve claims to demonstrate.

How is it that you've ruled out genetics?

Ethnically White Europeans are taller than ethnically Asian populations. That's mostly genetics.

South Koreans are taller than North Koreans. That's mostly environment.

Since there is an observed IQ gap between Blacks and Whites, and we know genetics influences intelligence, it would be foolish to rule it out.

 

[untermensche]

Ethnically White Europeans are taller than ethnically Asian populations. That's mostly genetics.

How do you know?

The only way to know would be if all members of both populations lived under the same conditions.

You would only know this if every member of both groups experienced the same environment during their growing years.

Only then could you eliminate environment as the key factor.

Since there is an observed IQ gap between Blacks and Whites, and we know genetics influences intelligence, it would be foolish to rule it out.

It would be foolish to claim it was the key factor until all other factors have been eliminated.

But it is hard if not impossible to eliminate the effects of being in a "lower" caste within a society with a caste structure, even when that caste structure isn't formalized but only exists in the way people are generally treated by power within a society.

 

[Metaphor]

How do you know?

The only way to know would be if all members of both populations lived under the same conditions.

You would only know this if every member of both groups experienced the same environment during their growing years.

Only then could you eliminate environment as the key factor.

This is bizarre. Do you really think there is not a genetic difference between Asian and European populations? Do you really think that environment is the key factor in height differences between the populations? Why?

It would be foolish to claim it was the key factor until all other factors have been eliminated.

But it is hard if not impossible to eliminate the effects of being in a "lower" caste within a society with a caste structure, even when that caste structure isn't formalized but only exists in the way people are generally treated by power within a society.

Factors don't need to be 'eliminated' for something else to be a 'key' factor.

It seems to me there's almost nothing you would accept as a genetic difference. Do you think the height difference between men and women is genetic?

 

[Togo]

A) The Bell Curve is a book that had findings that were within the discipline, and within the literature. It used no methodological techniques that were unusual. It's policy recommendations, however, are less conventional.

Understood. I disagree. We agree that the Bell Curve used studies within the science, to reach policy conclusions not within the science. So the disagreement is over where the line should be drawn. In my opinion, The Bell Curve crosses the lines by asserting that its policy recommendations are the findings of the science. This is both in general, in terms of the policy recommendations not being closely enough tied to the science, but also in terms of arguments that they claimed are supported by individual studies. In my view this does cross the line of going beyond the available science.

I feel this view is supported by some of the criticisms that have been quoted, such as Jensen. One of the points consistently made is that Gould was in error in assuming that the psychometric science around g requires reification of g. To the extent that the Bell Curve's arguments rely on a reified g, that means The Bell Curve is going beyond the available science.

I also feel bound to point out that The Bell Curve is a book, not a study, and it is quite normal in books to go beyond the science, run with a concept, and see how far it takes you. If it didn't go beyond the science it wouldn't be a very interesting read.

B) I have no problem with anyone pointing out where they disagree with me. If they do, they need to be specific. I have no interest in more fuzzy analysis, stream of consciousness reflections, snide polemics denouncing the book as racist, or to hear from muttonheads who want to focus on the authors as drunks and baby killers.

Then I'll keep on posting as I have been.

C) I have no interest in discussing any critic or defender of the Bell Curve as a person. I am more than happy to discuss their qualifications, experience, and any of their technical arguments.

Fair enough. For my part, I'm sufficiently familiar with this area of science that any argument along the lines of 'this is the reported opinion of a prominent scientist therefore those who disagree must be wrong' simply won't wash. I'll want to see what the argument is, and how it is supported. I have very little patience for people who post articles that they claim make their case, and then refuse to discuss their content.

D) If anyone thinks there are "unanswered criticisms" then the who, what, when, where, and how rule applies. Who made the criticism, when and where did he/she make it (book, article, etc.), what is the specific criticism, and how does it undermine the Bell Curve. If the criticism has been published or a link is available, please cite and or link.

I'm happy enough to just focus on the what. I'm not sure how the 'who, when, where and how' are really relevant? Obviously supporting information from an author might be useful if it provides insight, but trying to dismiss a point by attacking the author's credibility seems to me to be an example of 'fuzzy analysis, snide polemics and muttonheads who want to focus on the authors', and thus a spectacular waste of time.

E) If someone wants to focus on specific disputes over specific sub-issues (e.g. Jensen and Gould and "g") then I will likely respond. But cover the bases; the who, what, when, where, and how rule.

Depends on the subject. I tend to focus somewhat mercilessly on the what. I'll consider the others if they're relevant.

 

[Togo]

Intelligence is not as static as eye colour, but it does not vary wildly either, except downwards as the result of traumatic brain injury or some other illness or event.

It can vary at least an entire standard deviation with just changes to environment.

In a population over generations, not within individuals (except downwards, as previously mentioned).

We are talking about a test that comes with a warning not to allow those taking it to practice taking IQ tests, in case that distorts the results? And for good reason, since practice in assembling your own IQ tests and understanding how the questions are put together can raise your score.

 

[untermensche]

This is bizarre. Do you really think there is not a genetic difference between Asian and European populations? Do you really think that environment is the key factor in height differences between the populations? Why?

The average height in Japan has risen in the last 60 years.

The genes are the same.

Genes are only part of the story. But how do we know when genes for height are being fully realized?

You could do a study, but in the study to look at the effects of genes you would have to have all subjects experiencing the same environment.

Factors don't need to be 'eliminated' for something else to be a 'key' factor.

That's the scientific method. To study the effects of any variable you have to keep all other variables constant.

It seems to me there's almost nothing you would accept as a genetic difference. Do you think the height difference between men and women is genetic?

Since men and women in the same environments have differences in height you can say more about the genes. The key is controlling the environment to the greatest extent possible.

My contention and it may be the contention of others is that many black Americans don't live in the same environment as many white American's.

Their vision of the society is different. And therefore their reactions to institutions, like school, will be different.

IQ in a way tests your feelings towards your education. It tests how motivated you were to learn in the past. It tests what things you have been motivated to think about.

These things can easily change.