That Bell Curve Crap -- Again

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/29/1040928/-That-Bell-Curve-Crap-Again

 

Cmon DL. Don't ignore this. I think this must be the third or fourth time I've asked these questions of you and I'm not going to stop until you provide me with a rational explanation of why significant groups perform in contradiction to the premise of the Bell Curve.

I have submitted that the Tuskagee Airmen, the conduct of the Japanese Nation before and during WWII and the conduct of the German nation in WWII refute the premise of the Bell Curve Thingy. I have given DL examples and links to assist him in his research.

DL suggests that The Tuskagee Airmen did not perform as I have described. He has not however refuted the evidence, only demanded more evidence from me.

He has stated that the above examples are "anomalies"

DL has failed repeatedly to explain how the examples I have cited can be reconciled with the Bell Curve Thingy.

In scientific study, finding a valid exception to a premise proves the premise false, or requires a refinement of the premise to account for the exception.

Let me help DL out. The Bell Curve Thingy can't explain it. The Bell Curve thingy is a compilation of unconnected facts used to support an invalid premise. It's a theory proven false by real life events.

Kind of like the perfessor asserting that the earth is flat. One could find all manner of things to support such a premise. But reality disproves it.

Accepting a theory or premise without understanding the proof behind it is ignorant. Continuing to support a premise or theory proven false is delusional.

 

The Bell Curve will be disproved when blacks begin to perform and behave as well as whites. Until then studies by college professors, who are afraid to tell the truth about racial differences, will mean nothing.

 

False premise alert! First of all, some blacks DO perform as well as some whites. Second, blacks will perform as well as whites ON AVERAGE as soon as blacks are not at an economic and educational disadvantage in comparison to whites, ON AVERAGE.

Let me know when that happens.

 

If you look at the bell curves I posted, you will see that some blacks perform as well as some whites. Nevertheless average differences persist, and are significant.

I asked this before, Kimiko. If you answered, I missed your answer. Do your children attend predominantly black public schools. If they do not, would you want them to? If not, why not?

 

I didn't answer it before because the question is of no relevance whatsoever.

 

Yes, but I am a noob. I have shied away from DL's bigotry, because generally I find him to be an affable and articulate, moist-snozzed pooch.

Stumbler is beating the pants off DL right now, and I don't want to get in his way. But at the risk of being sucked into this again, I do have this to say:

DL, last night you said it is easier to denounce Cochran and Harpending than to prove them wrong.

You're right.

I cannot prove them wrong. Because they do not have a falsifiable theory. All they have is a poorly informed opinion, backed by a half-baked and untested (and indeed untestable) hypothesis.

That is why they are quacks.

The burden of proof is not on me. It is on them.

And if they are going to use their credentials to spew their race-charged vitriol upon the world, they should at least have the common decency to back it up with substance. If they have identified a genetic precursor to super-intelligence, let them name it. Let them explicate exactly how it is expressed pre- and postnatally. Let them quantify the incidence of that vector in various racial and ethnic populations.

And then, more recently, you have said that Murray/Herrnstein will be "disproved" when blacks test well. No, no, no! The statistics of Murray/Herrnstein were sound for their time. They are already obsolete, a fact which is generally acknowledged. And some of their premises have since been overturned, a fact which is also acknowledged (by everyone but yourself).

What you really mean is that your bigotry will be disproved when blacks test well. And in that case, as in the case of Cochran/Harpending, you are errantly misguided, because the burden of proof is on you. You have yet to show any of us that, because blacks do not test as well as whites, they have less intrinsic intelligence.

Okay. Now I've gone and done it again. Sorry. Stumbler, please resume the drubbing.

 

Oh, but it is too. Affluent white liberals who live in safe, which is to say, white, neighborhoods think integration is a good idea for white blue collar workers who cannot afford to leave dangerous, which is to say black neighborhoods. They avoid integration in their personal lives.

Predominately black public schools are dangerous places where little learning can take place. The shameful hypocrisy of upper middle class white liberals has been noticed by white blue collar workers.

 

Stop lying. You know full well that Charles Murray is right. So does everyone else. That is because his assertions are obviously right.

 

You've lost all semblance of an argument now, you know. You're stamping your foot.

 

I'd like to see some dynamic data. See how things are changing over time. I'd also like to see some figures overlapped which include things like location, poverty, religion etc

Not sure how much of intelligence is based on genetics and how much is environmental. I'd imagine it is somewhat a compromise of both. However that does not differentiate one race from another, until there are genes located in some races and not others that have an impact on the potential of one's intelligence, it really is not worth the discussion.

 

I'd like to see some dynamic data. See how things are changing (or not changing) over time. I'd also like to see some figures overlapped which include things like location, poverty, religion etc

Not sure how much of intelligence is based on genetics and how much is environmental. I'd imagine it is somewhat a compromise of both. However that does not differentiate one race from another, until there are genes located in some races and not others that have an impact on the potential of one's intelligence, it really is not worth the discussion.

 

Okay, granted if you use multiple different types of intelligence tests, then the outcomes will be different. But you have to admit that in The Bell Curve, only one form of intelligence test was used for all the subjects, the intelligence test being the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). Now, there are two good points that should be pointed out in using the AFQT as a basis for their intelligence test. First off, it is not bias on age, and second it is more of a general intelligence test, than a more specific test. And the AFQT is not biased in any way to any gender or any race/ethnicity. So there is a reason as to why certain race/ethnicity scored higher than others. That is a fact which has yet to be refuted, and you know this to be true.

Now I do admit, that the best intelligence test that is available is the one from Dr. David Wechsler. But granted that this is an IQ test which is designated for the younger population, between the ages of 6 and 16. And considering that IQ is highly unstable prior to 7 years of age, due to the brain only being 90% formed; yet an adult IQ can be predicted based on a children's IQ after 4 years of age. And it is the best intelligence test when it comes to correlating achievement in elementary school, high school, and college GPA.

The reason why the intelligence tests given came out with higher scores for certain race/ethnicity compared to others have yet to be explained. I am assuming that you have read The Bell Curve, and if you have, you know they never explained what caused the difference between scores between the races/ethnicities.

 

This is the reason why I think people need to make sure they check their sources. I keep seeing that the APA denounced The Bell Curve, and I have yet to see anywhere that the APA denounced The Bell Curve. I have shown the only thing that the APA ever published in relation to The Bell Curve, and it was the findings of the BSA from the APA in a paper entitled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Now, with that being said, this line that I keep seeing, was never stated by the APA.

"the scientific basis of 'The Bell Curve' is fraudulent."

Now, that came from an article that was published in The San Fransisco Chronicle, and it was not the APA who made that statement, but it was an UCLA psychologist named Halford Fairchild. He spoke at an annual convention of the APA which was devoted to the IQ controversy, but the APA itself, never made that statement. Here is the article from The San Fransisco Chronicle printed on August 11, 1995.

http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-08-...-programs-stanford-psychologist-claude-steele

So no, the APA never denounced The Bell Curve, but good try, you know who you are. Make sure to have your sources verified, before you make a statement like that. It is very misleading to everyone who is trying to understand the debate.

 

It staggers me how doggo begs people to be on his friends list then once he has them hooked he starts his condicending attitude ....


@ doggo. We get it, to you The Bell Curve is gospel....however, any fool can quote verbatim what's written in a book and agree with it. Now how about showing us some of your intelligence and tell us how you think that Hispanic and Black people could reverse their situation.

 

I am unfortunately forced to conclude that academics and reality dont often reflect one another very well. I have had the pleasure of knowing a few truly brilliant people in my life that in all honesty couldnt manage to work out a solution to getting out of a wet paper bag but could calculate the cubic volume of the inside of a hens egg to fifteen decimal places in thier heads. And one of the truly smartest men I ever met was a very simple, frankly non-itellectual man who could work out solutions to almost any practical problem with alarming elegance and simplicity while barely being able to put into words how he did it. Was he intelligent? Not really...but he was extremely smart.

 

Precisely. 'Intelligence' is a dynamic term. Intelligence in a broad sense is problem solving. But there are all sorts of problems out there that require different types of brains to overcome them.

I have a very logical thought process. I can instantly recognize patterns in numbers and shapes, and I'm naturally good at tackling puzzles. As a result I score very high on IQ tests. However some people have a command over language that leaves me in wonderment. I struggle to put sentences together in a coherent manner that still gets my point across. It takes me a while to write up a report, or even a short post like this one. Thankfully in this day and age I'm rescued by computers. I can use my skills to effectively write programs to earn an income, and I can use word processors to give me the ability to edit and restructure what I'm writing. In the past, the world may not have been so accommodating.

So what does this mean, am I intelligent? It all depends on perspective and context. There are people who have a grasp over music that defies belief. People who are street smart, these people can deal with social interactions which many in the academic world may struggle with. People like myself that are good with maths. There are people who can speak several languages. Artists and poets. A lot of these groups may not perform so well on an IQ test if it is not tailored towards their skill sets. To be truly intelligent, or be worthy of the title 'Genius' I think one should be able good in all these areas, or at the very least, very strong in one area and above average in the others.

I don't think we should all just assume that intelligence is someone's ability to do well in school, or judge it by the criteria on an IQ test alone.

 

Those are personal anecdotes that prove nothing. Mental aptitude tests accurately predict performance. That is why the U.S. military has used them since the First World War, and why employers in the private sector increasingly use them. Colleges and universities are relying on them less, but they are not jeopardized when less intelligent students are admitted. They still get the tuition money.

 

According to Charles Murray Hispanics and Blacks cannot reverse their situation, because their situation is caused biologically.

What whites can do is to put more of them in prison. That is what we are doing, and the crime rate is going down.

 

Blacks with affluent, well educated parents tend to perform less well on the SAT than whites with poor and poorly educated parents.