It is easier to say that Cochran and Harpending are quacks than it is to prove it. Like Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein they provide plausible scientific explanations for facts that are not in serious dispute.

They do not say that single genes determine intelligence, but single genes certainly influence it.

 

Since he's a buddy now, you ought to understand the basis for the death-grip he maintains on his faulty conclusions.

He's been assaulted, more than once, by young, virile, black men. He was helpless to defend himself. They were more powerful than he was and they took advantage of his weakness. He will never be as physically powerful as those guys and he fears attacks in the future.

It seems the only way his psyche can cope with this reality is to find a way to define his attackers as somehow inferior - "You can rob me and beat me, but you're still dumber than I am." Note the endless repetition in his aggrandizing clarion call - master of facts - he believes he alone wields unrefutable arguments - he longs to be as clever as his Ashkenazic heroes. When that doesn't work out, he attempts to change the subject, runs and hides, or drinks and lashes out.

His position is the definition of pre-disposition. Good Luck!

 

Instead of your shallow efforts at psychoanalysis, why don't you try to deal with my arguments? If blacks and whites had the same crime rates one could dismiss my opinions as due to unfortunate and somewhat unique experiences. However, blacks have a rate of violent crime that is about eight times the white rate. No, I do not think whites are responsible for that. Nor do I think we are responsible for their low test scores.

Keep in mind, unlike sewer rats like CFH420 I do not post attitudes. I do not write things like, "N*****s suck," and so on. I post facts that I document, and draw logical conclusions from them.

 

The last half of the highlighted sentence is in dispute. I have responded to you rationally on this subject multiple times & given you multiple opportunities to move beyond the data from The Bell Curve and support the conclusions at which you arrive.

I'll say it again - likely for the 10th or 12th time over the years - assuming every fact in The Bell Curve is accurate . . . so what?

If past history is any guide, this is when you dig yourself an enormous fallacious hole in which to sit, arms crossed, repeating your mantra over and over and over again.

Now, tell me again why you believe your personal experience at the hands of the black man does not effect your attitude and assertions in this matter?

 

Gawd, I hate it when my shallow psychology hits the target . . .

 

Howard Gardner on “The Bell Curve”

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/howard-gardner-on-the-bell-curve/

​

 

North Carolina to Repay Eugenics Victims

North Carolina ran an aggressive eugenics program as late as 1977, sterilizing thousands of people to supposedly keep welfare rolls small, reduce poverty, and "improve the gene pool." Though 31 states ran similar programs, North Carolina's was especially aggressive, giving social workers the power to designate people for sterilization, often using I.Q. tests as a criteria. The state is debating how to compensate the estimated 7,600 victims—whether $20,000 per person is enough or whether the state could manage more on its stretched budget.



Read it at The New York Times December 10, 2011 8:08 AM



http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/12/10/north-carolina-to-repay-eugenics-victims.html

 

There. Now, did we really have to provide DL with yet another forum in which to espouse his bogus, discredited, race-baiting theories? To once again here him tell us that he alone is in possession of the facts, and the rest of us are just politically-correct dupes?

 

The Bell Curve demonstrates that a child's IQ tested at the age of seven is a better predictor of adult earning than the income of the parents. As our economy becomes increasingly technological superior intelligence is becoming increasingly valuable. Those of average intelligence who become rich nearly always do so because of exceptional talent in entertainment or athletics.

 

If the government allows the biologically inferior to reproduce it does not follow that the government has a responsibility to subsidize that reproduction with Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

 

I guess they should just be exterminated like the vermin they are, eh?

 

Myth: The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science.

Fact: Most psychologists and geneticists regard it as crank science.



Summary

The science behind The Bell Curve has been denounced by both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project. Its authors were unqualified to speak on either genetics or intelligence, since their expertise lay in other fields. Their project did not rise through the usual system of academic publishing, and in fact the authors ducked the process of peer review. The Bell Curve was ultimately funded by the wealthy, far-right Bradley Foundation, which used its media connections to launch a massive national publicity campaign. And The Bell Curve relies heavily on studies that were financed by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organization that promotes eugenicist research.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm

 

It is unnecessary to exterminate them in order to prevent them from spreading their bad genes. It is only necessary is to terminate Aid to
Families to Dependent Children, while initiating a draconian criminal justice system.

The human species reached its present level of evolution because the prehistoric equivalent of the unmarried, crack addicted welfare mother did not survive and reproduce.

 

After The Bell Curve ignited an uproar, the National Academy of Sciences found itself competing to be heard among all the voices assessing the work. Nonetheless, peer review occurred after the fact. The American Psychological Association set up a task force of its top experts to review the science and politics of the controversy. According to Dr. Ulric Neisser, the task force chair, the investigators were commissioned to research the issues "in an unbiased, systematic manner." (3) Ideologically, the task force spanned the spectrum of opinions, from Thomas Bouchard, Ph.D. (generally supportive of The Bell Curve) to Ellin Bloch, Ph.D. (generally against). (4)

In August 1995, a year after The Bell Curve hit the bookstores, the task force released its report. Its press release opened with the following general observation:

• "What is intelligence and can it be measured? These questions have fueled a continuing debate about whether intelligence is inherited, acquired, environmental, or a combination of these and other factors. In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place." (5)

As for specific assessments of The Bell Curve, the findings of the task force can be summed up in three points:

• Much of the book's data are accurate, especially when addressing the fundamentals of intelligence and IQ testing. One of the stated purposes of the book was to serve as an introduction to the topic, and in this respect the book succeeded. Stephen Ceci, Ph.D., said that despite Herrnstein and Murray's political agenda, they have been "the clearest and most comprehensive writers" on the topic to date. (6)
• However, much of the data are also wrong, and analysis of it severely flawed. Halford Fairchild, Ph.D., who led one of the panels assessing the scientific accuracy of the book, summed up their conclusions this way: "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (7) Indeed, some of the errors were so large as to be attributable to non-experts attempting to write in the field.
• The policy recommendations suggested at the end of the book do not follow from the book's own arguments on genes and IQ. On this point the task force was emphatic: it called The Bell Curve a "political" work, not a "scientific" one. (8)

What were the errors that the task force found? A major flaw was that most of the "IQ" scores used by the authors were not from an IQ test at all! They mistook an armed forces qualifying test that measures vocabulary and verbal reasoning for IQ tests, Fairchild said. "This is an achievement test. It shows the extent to which you've benefited from school. To assert it's a proxy for IQ is a big lie." (9)

Another problem the task force found was the authors' handling of the "Flynn Effect," a world-wide phenomenon which is raising average IQs about three points per decade. That is much too fast to be genetic; therefore, social factors must play a large role in raising IQs.

Another problem was the authors' thesis that the smart classes are getting smarter, and the dull classes duller. However, the task force found quite the opposite: "We're getting a convergence, not a divergence," Ceci noted. Specifically, the IQ gap between those at the top and bottom rungs of the social hierarchy in job status has shrunken from a 12.5-point difference in the 1930s to an 8.5-point difference today, with people testing higher on average than they used to. (10)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm

 

Stumbler, you should know by now that it doesn't matter how many sources you cite, or how authoritative they are. DL's adherence to the theories espoused in The Bell Curve, and to the false conclusions he derives from them, are religious in nature, not scientific. His faith in them cannot be shaken by facts.

 

Good grief..

There will be an ultimate irony to all of this one day.

 

Yes I know you super fox but I'm not really investing a lot of time demonstrating that few things in junk science have been as thoroughly and scientifically trashed as DL's much beloved Bell Curve. I'm also anticipating the ridiculous arguments of El Casanova.

 

The American Psychological Association is not the only expert organization that has denounced The Bell Curve. The Human Genome Project has weighed in as well. In a letter written to Science magazine, its members wrote: "As geneticists and ethicists associated with the Human Genome Project, we deplore The Bell Curve's misrepresentation of the state of genetic knowledge in this area and the misuse of genetics to inform social policy." (11) In particular, they raised three objections:

• "First, Herrnstein and Murray invoke the authority of genetics to argue that 'it is beyond significant technical dispute that cognitive ability is substantially heritable.' Research in this field is still evolving, studies cited by Herrnstein and Murray face significant methodological difficulties, and the validity of results quoted are disputed. Many geneticists have pointed out the enormous scientific and methodological problems in attempting to separate genetic components from environmental contributors, particularly given the intricate interplay between genes and the environment that may affect such a complex human trait as intelligence.
  
  "Second, even if there was consensus on the heritability of cognitive ability, lessons from genetics are misrepresented. The authors argue that because cognitive ability is substantially heritable, it is not possible to change it and that remedial education is not worth the effort or cost. This is neither an accurate message from genetics nor a necessary lesson from efforts at remedial education. Heritability estimates are relevant only for the specific environment in which they are measured. Change the environment, and the heritability of traits can change remarkably. Saying a trait has high heritability has never implied that the trait is fated to be. Height is both genetically determined and dependent on nutrition. Common conditions in which genetics play a role, such as diabetes or heart disease, can be corrected with insulin or cholesterol-lowering drugs and diet. The disabilities associated with single-gene conditions, such as phenylketonuria or Wilson disease, can be prevented or significantly ameliorated by medical or nutritional therapy.
  
  "Third, the more scientists learn about human genes the more complexity is revealed. This complexity has become apparent as more genes correlated with human genetic diseases are discovered. We are only beginning to explore the intricate relationship between genes and environment and between individual genes and the rest of the human genome. If anything, the lack of predictability from genetic information has become the rule rather than the exception. Simplistic claims about the inheritance of such a complex trait as cognitive ability are unjustifiable; moreover, as the history of eugenics shows, they are dangerous." (12)

Finally, there is the reception of the entire scientific community itself. "Within the sophisticated research community, the opinion has been virtually unanimous that ‘The Bell Curve’ was a primitive, oversimplistic and flawed analysis," says Craig T. Ramey, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Alabama. (13) Many scientists have been writing detailed, technical refutations to The Bell Curve. A team of sociologists led by Claude Fischer has addressed the sociological arguments raised by The Bell Curve in their book, Inequality by Design. (14)

Reanalyzing the very data used by Herrnstein and Murray, they correct many of the statistical errors and show how the environment, not genes, plays a larger role in who gets ahead in life.

For example, Herrnstein and Murray analyzed a long-term survey (the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth) and concluded that a person's future success is far better predicted by IQ than by childhood socioeconomic status. But they failed to include several important factors in their definition of "socioeconomic status": the number of siblings, the presence of two parents in the home, farm residence, etc. Correcting for these factors, the authors of Inequality by Design recalculated the data and showed that socioeconomic status, not IQ, is a far better predictor of future success. Based on the corrected data, the authors conclude: "If we could magically give everyone identical IQs, we would still see 90 to 95 percent of the inequality we see today." (15)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm

 

I have talked to instructors in college and high school who have told me that it would be dangerous to their careers to publicly agree with The Bell Curve. As long as that persists we should be skeptical of those who claim to disagree with it.

Those who pretend to disagree with The Bell Curve cannot explain why some people are better than others at everything they do. They cannot explain why members of some racial groups tend to perform better than members of other groups on all the mental aptitude tests however they are designed. They cannot explain why the better performing racial groups have a prominence in fields requiring superior intelligence that exceeds their numbers in the population.

Those who attribute obvious racial differences in average ability levels, crime rates, and sexual responsibility to environment cannot explain why those differences exist everywhere in the world, and always have. Culture and environment can change in a generation. Biology requires centuries and thousands of years to change.

 

You can tell the Bell Curve is true for 1 reason.

Look at the country of origin.

For example, Africa, its 2011, they still do not know how to get running water or how to not spread AIDS without our help, if it wasn't for us, the country probably would have killed itself.

Now look at the Africans here. Do they act the same way? Not all, but 60% of them do.

People just get mad at the truth because they cant argue with facts.

If you do not think its true, move to Detroit, see how long your nice things last.