Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

IQ Will Put You In Your Place

  1. Dec 3, 2003 #1
    IQ Will Put You In Your Place

    By Charles Murray

    Imagine several hundred families which face few of the usual problems that plague modern society. Unemployment is zero. Illegitimacy is zero. Divorce is rare and occurs only after the children's most formative years. Poverty is absent - indeed, none of the families is anywhere near the poverty level. Many are affluent and all have enough income to live in decent neighbourhoods with good schools and a low crime rate. If you have the good fortune to come from such a background, you will expect a bright future for your children. You will certainly have provided them with all the advantages society has to offer. But suppose we follow the children of these families into adulthood. How will they actually fare?

    A few years ago the late Richard Herrnstein and I published a controversial book about IQ, The Bell Curve, in which we said that much would depend on IQ. On average, the bright children from such families will do well in life - and the dull children will do poorly. Unemployment, poverty and illegitimacy will be almost as great among the children from even these fortunate families as they are in society at large - not quite as great, because a positive family background does have some good effect, but almost, because IQ is such an important factor.

    Complete text at http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 8, 2003 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Despite the soft tone of that article, the book was written as a scientific basis for racism. It has been pretty thoroughly debunked. HERE is a pretty decent critique.

    I find it highly ironic that the author feels the need to misrepresent his own book.
     
  4. Dec 8, 2003 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The so-called debunking was actually a politically motivated smear campaign. The research in The Bell Curve was never successfully refuted, although there were many attempts, including Richard Lewontin in SciAm.

    For a better view on The Bell Curve see this measured analysis by the distinguished social theorist Thomas Sowell. Sowell, if it matters, is Black.
     
  5. Dec 8, 2003 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  6. Dec 9, 2003 #5

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I just worked it successfully from your quote. The URL is "http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sowell.html".
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2003
  7. Dec 10, 2003 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ok, it works for me now. The most ironic quote in the review is this one:
    Thats in the 4th paragraph. The remaining 32 paragraphs are about race.

    I also consider it important where that review finds its audience. From the home page:
    By their own admission, this review does not represent the views of mainstream scientists.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2003
  8. Dec 11, 2003 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Statement on the Bell Curve by 52 scientists

    BTW, don't bother to criticise the place where I found this. The original statesment, as the site says, appeared in the NYT and the WSJ. But the online resources in this controversy, like every other aspect of it, are highly polarized. I just want you to see that there is another point of view, and those who hold it are not necessarily racist knuckle draggers.
     
  9. Dec 13, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I only skimmed it, but I didn't have any problem with what I saw. It didn't say the same things as the book said - the book went much further.
     
  10. Dec 13, 2003 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Just to be fair, here is an impressive takedown of the Bell Curve by James Heckman, the Nobel Prize winning statistician. I'm still digesting it, and I don't think all his points are of equal quality, but it is certainly the most effective criticism of the book I have seen, and I thought I had seen them all.
     
  11. Dec 17, 2003 #10
    After looking at behaviors of various ethnic groups/races, I see that each race has their own strengths and weaknesses; no one race is perfect by themselves. The best thing to do would be for the best specimens of each race to carry out the founder effect: that is, these specimens would form their own sub-society and interbreed in a eugenic way. We can have the best Asians, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. come together and mix their genes up. This new population would then go on to explore the universe and advance to the Omega Point/Singularity. This project has already started at http://www.prometheism.net/

    On a second note, most people think that The Bell Curve was the last book written on racial differences. But there have been many more books on the topic since then. The following is what I have found:

    Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, by Professor Rushton, see his university campus website at http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html Here is his personal site: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/ Here is a free abridged version of his book: http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm Here is the full book at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books
    ___________________________________

    Here is Professor Kevin MacDonald's university site on racial differences: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
    _________________________________

    Here is Professor Richard Lynn's website: http://www.rlynn.247e.info/index.html He has written 3 books on racial differences since The Bell Curve.

    1.)Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    2.) Eugenics: A Reassessment: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_3/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    3.) IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which Lynn co-authored with professor Tatu Vanhanen: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books
    ___________________________________________

    The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications (1996) by Professor Christopher Brand. His book is available for free at http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm
    _____________________________________________

    Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and why we're Afraid to Talk About It, by Jon Entine: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books Here is a good review of the book: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm
    _________________________________________________

    The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, by Berkeley Professor Arthur Jensen: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books
    __________________________________________

    Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, by professor Michael Levin: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books
    _________________________________________

    And finally, the Pioneer Fund: http://www.pioneerfund.org/ and http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/pioneer.htm

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  12. Dec 17, 2003 #11
    Do you even have any idea what people mean by the Omega Point and Singularity? (And that they're very different things, assuming you mean a technological rather than physical Singularity and Tipler's version of the Omega Point rather than Teilhard's?)

    Tipler's version of the Omega Point is about transferring our minds to a different substrate and obtaining infinite computing power during the Big Crunch. (This theory is not as crazy as it sounds, but it's still crazy, and it's probably wrong too, not least because it looks like there will be no Crunch.) Do you really think having good genes will help you in surviving all the way to the final (physical) singularity as all molecules collapse? :wink:

    The (technological) Singularity (as discussed by e.g. Vinge) has to do with transhuman intelligence modifying itself beyond what humans can understand. There are excellent reasons to think the intelligence of posthuman beings can dwarf any difference in intelligence you could ever achieve by choosing who you breed with (for example, the slowness of neurons, and the inability of the human brain to directly modify itself).

    Even if your ideas about IQ and race were valid, what would tell you they're not just tiny side issues compared to the possibilities and dangers created by advanced technology? You seem to be at least somewhat aware of these, but what on Earth do they have to do with all the bizarre eugenics plans?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  13. Dec 17, 2003 #12
    I agree with you, if the Singularity can be reached any time soon, then the rest of my ideas become irrelevant. But, Transhumanism is mostly speculation and I don't believe in putting off any current selective breeding program simply based on the speculation that a Singularity MAY be created pretty soon and save all of mankind, or at least those who want to be saved.

    You seem very concerned though that I am tainting the image of Transhumanism. So I am letting everyone know that if you want a politically correct version of Transhumanism that has nothing to do with my ideas, check out the World Transhumanist Association, who consider my ideas anathema. Or check out Extropy.org or the Immortality Institute, they have nothing to do with my politically incorrect ideas. I only support Transtopia.org and Plausiblefutures.com which is a unique movement that incorporates eugenics, eccentric politics, and futurism, such as the types of technologies promoted by Transhumanism.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  14. Dec 17, 2003 #13

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Your program seems not to be racist, but I worry about some of the forums you link to in another board here. Some of the discussions on those sites didn't take very long to get down to passionate antisemitism. I personally wouldn't want to frequent a discussion like that. what is your view?
     
  15. Dec 17, 2003 #14
    Though this isn't really the place/time to argue about that, I think the possibility of many technologies predicted by (among others) transhumanists is fairly well-grounded in science, and important enough to focus on even if speculative. Whether they can be developed in the foreseeable future is something you can argue about. I recommend reading Kurzweil's writings on this (he has his flaws, but makes a good case for expecting this sort of thing somewhere in the next century).

    A few people are trying to fit it into an ideology which includes racialism and eugenics. I certainly wouldn't want to see it associated with either of those (that's as good a way to kill off a good idea as any).

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  16. Dec 17, 2003 #15
    I support research into transhuman related technologies, after all, it is in my self-interest to become immortal. All I am saying is that I don't believe in "placing all my eggs in the same basket," I think is what the proverb goes like, or "counting my chickens until they hatch."

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  17. Dec 17, 2003 #16
    I agree with you. I believe that irrational intolerance for any ethnic group, such as Jews, is unfair/unethical. There are various American racial groups, such as the National Alliance, Stormfront.org, Ku Klux Klan, Creativity Movement, European-American Unity and Rights Organization, American Renaissance, etc. that are radically intollerant, where they not just wish to stop any further immigration, but actually wish to deport all non-White citizens. Though I am for closing our borders to any further immigration, I don't wish to throw out good law-abiding productive citizens who happen to be non-White (such as myself). But, I believe that if we really want to help people, we need to understand the genetics which are behind undesirable conditions. If poverty, crime, and dygenerousy is the result of genetics, we need to improve genes, not environment.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  18. Dec 17, 2003 #17
    Have you ever seen the Identical twins experiment? Its conclusion contracts what you are saying!

    basically a pair of twins with identical DNA are seperated at birth one is brought up in a "rich" enviorment and one is brought up in a "poor" one. The end result was that the INDIVIDUALS behaved differently, and thus proved that enviorment has as much or more to do with behaviour than DNA make up!

    We should NOT build walls we should build bridges and understand other races better and through understanding one another we can build better socities without Right wing ideals and dominance. If you better someones enviroment you can better there life, and through education you can better everyones!!
     
  19. Dec 17, 2003 #18
    Who did the research?

    The American Psychological Association, as well as mainstream psychology accept IQ to be 80% heritable and personality to be 50% heritable. But, if you have any data that they are wrong, I would consider it.

    The most publicized twin study, the University of Minnesota twin study lead by professor Thomas J. Bouchard Jr showed that identical twins raised appart were more similar than non twin siblings raised in the same family. Here is a summary of his research: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/tjbouc01.html And MIT Professor Steven Pinker in his latest book "The Blank Slate: the modern denial of human nature" show how genetics plays the biggest role in intelligence and 50% of personality. Search my posts, I have posted ample research validating my argument.

    carlos hernandez
     
  20. Dec 17, 2003 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You're absolutely right about this one Carlos. Not only the Minnesota study, but many other twin studies over the years have confirmed the high heritability (over 50% in some cases) of many personality traits.

    The idea that they show the opposite must be one of those defensive myths that people on the losing side of a discussion develop. Cognitive dissonance.
     
  21. Dec 18, 2003 #20
    "If poverty, crime, and dygenerousy is the result of genetics, we need to improve genes, not environment. "

    This is what I disagree with! According to Carlos all we need to do is create a master race and all enviromental problems will be resolved!

    The twin study does disprove this as its outcome clearly implies that enviroment has as much to do with DNA on how an individual will behave!

    If you we to create the perfect genetic human and lock him up in a cell and beat him etc etc, do you think he will be a well adjusted human or not!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: IQ Will Put You In Your Place
  1. What is your IQ? (Replies: 111)

  2. What is your IQ? (Replies: 76)

  3. Whats your IQ? (Replies: 24)

Loading...