Has The Bell Curve been completely discredited?

[holmes]

John Mace I’m not going to fight with you over this, I’m just not. I don’t believe I am reading more into that article that’s there, but maybe it’s me.

Lying about the enduring Black–White difference in phenotypic g would seem to be both futile and harmful in the long run. It is futile because the truth—and attempts to suppress it—will become increasingly obvious to the average person. Phenotypic differences in cognitive ability have relentless real-world effects that are neither ameliorated nor hidden by claims to the contrary. They also have more obvious effects in more cognitively demanding settings, such as high-level jobs and educational programs, and when entry standards differ by race.

Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments
mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be
natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at
fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains
unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpabil-
ity, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy

What does that statement mean to you?

To me it says, If I am a member of a group that’s proven to be genetically inferior, so much so that the average person will recognize it, if I lack the ability to function in cognitively demanding settings, isn’t it giving me false hope, to create programs designed to help me reach beyond my genetic limitations?

What is she saying johnmace?

[John_Mace]

@holmes

John Mace I’m not going to fight with you over this, I’m just not. I don’t believe I am reading more into that article that’s there, but maybe it’s me.

If you just want to agree to disagree, that’s fine with me.

What does that statement mean to you?

To me it says, If I am a member of a group that’s proven to be genetically inferior, so much so that the average person will recognize it, if I lack the ability to function in cognitively demanding settings, isn’t it giving me false hope, to create programs designed to help me reach beyond my genetic limitations?

What is she saying johnmace?

It means what it says, and your interpratation simply isn’t in there. In fact, she explicitly counters your interpration (my emphasis):

This does not rule out the possibility of reducing the disparities,
especially in achievement, nor does it provide any reason to “give up” on anyone or conclude that some people “can’t learn.”

You are, in fact, making the exact conclusions that “these people” (from your earlier post) would make. You are saying, in effect:

Group X has an average IQ lower than Group Y
I am a member of Group X, therefore I have a low IQ.

And that simply isn’t the conclusion that can be drawn.

[holmes]

In fact, rather than seeking racial parity in all outcomes, we might do better by helping lower-IQ individuals of all races. The weaker learning and problem-solving abilities of people in the lowerpart of the IQ distribution make their daily lives much more difficult and hazardous.

That’s the rest of that quote, John. To me she’s saying, that group will never reach parity, so instead of wasting resources trying, we should help them to the extent their genetic capabilities will allow us to…this includes all other races as well, but primarily that race whose group has the lowest g.

You keep ignoring the gist of her article and focus on her ‘out’.

Group X has an average IQ lower than Group Y
I am a member of Group X, therefore I have a low IQ.

No, this has nothing to do with me or my believes, what I’m saying is, she’s saying:

Group X has an average IQ lower than Group Y
This a fact, therefor Group X on average can only reach level C
It’s a waste of resources to train Group X to do level A work
Let’s spent our time ensuring Group X can be the best level C’s they are, but don’t lie to them or ourselves with the belief they can on average reach level A. They can’t.
Group Y can.
Which is why I support the Bell Curve.

[holmes]

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/gottfred.htmLinda Gottfredson

John you asked for more info on her. Not saying it proves malice or a race-based agenda, just additional info.

[John_Mace]

@holmes

No, this has nothing to do with me or my believes, what I’m saying is, she’s saying:

Group X has an average IQ lower than Group Y
This a fact, therefor Group X on average can only reach level C
It’s a waste of resources to train Group X to do level A work
Let’s spent our time ensuring Group X can be the best level C’s they are, but don’t lie to them or ourselves with the belief they can on average reach level A. They can’t.
Group Y can.
Which is why I support the Bell Curve.

Emphasis added. But that mixes up the group and the indvidual. There’s nothing in the data that says NO member of group X can do level A work, and so it makes no sense to treat all members the same. Murray acknowldegs that the variation within the group is greater than the variation between groups. If that weren’t true, then your analysis might be appropriate.

At any rate, I think we’ve hashed this over as much as we can. I don’t discount that there might indeed be racist elements in this analysis, I just don’t see that there MUST be. And since I don’t agree with the major premise these guys are making (ie, that the mean “intelligence” of Blacks is lower than that of Whites) I feel kind of silly defending policy decisions based on that premise.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Nixon1937

I understand this is a political hot button issue but in fairness, I’ve linked a statement signed by a number scientists in support of Herrnstein and Murray. The statement covers twenty-five points related to positions reached in The Bell Curve. These 50 or so signatories are described as *“experts in intelligence and allied fields.”

I missed the part in the quoted WSJ article that endorsed Murray and Hernstein. Still, I may have been sloppy.

Now, there are psychologists who, IMO, take standardized tests way too seriously. M&H touched upon a genuine area of research.

Nonetheless, I think John Mace’s characterization of M&H’s work as nonscience is apt:

From GOLDBERGER and CHARLES F. MANSKI, JEL, June 1995:

A serious scientific book should be the culmination of a program of research that has been subjected to external scientific scrutiny, revised appropriately in the light of that scrutiny, and iteratively honed into a well-reasoned and credible final form. In this paradigm, research that purports to be scientific would first be reviewed on its scientific merits. Only if that review is passed successfully would society at large be concerned with the research.

HM and their publishers have done a disservice by circumventing peer review. The Bell Curve was sprung full blown without external scientific scrutiny, but with beautifully orchestrated initial publicity. A vast stream of reactions in the general media followed immediately…

Through essays like ours, a process of scientific review is now under way. But, given the process to date, peer review of The Bell Curve is now an exercise in damage control rather than prevention.

Empahsis added.

[tomndebb]

After the initial hoopla died down over the book, (when professionals were finally permitted to review it after publication), the book was pretty thoroughly sliced and diced by people who had the credentials to do so.

I was able to cite several of the scientific criticisms in this earlier discussion of the book.

[tomndebb]

From the same thread, here is another group of professional criticisms of the book.

The first link provided, to a University of Wisconsin site is dead. In its place, one may review the following current related links:
The Bell Curve, a perspective from Sociology
The Bell Cure, a perspective from Economics
A discussion of convergence in intelligencemeasrement that Murray and Herrnstein ignored. (.pdf format)
The korpios link is also dead, although this mirror site reproduces the original page.

[DMC]

@Nixon1937

These 50 or so signatories are described as “experts in intelligence and allied fields.”

A more accurate description for the 50 would probably be “Recipients of Pioneer Fund grants”, as most of them are.