Significance of 'intelligence' - to the industrial revolution

[marcus]

marcus, you honor me.

Of course, that is what I meant to do.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

@Marcus: Sorry I just had forgotten to put the N in my Name.

@Nereid: Perhaps you questions are not so complicated to answer as we could hope for:

I would say in the communication-network of Eurasia it was simply a time and religion problem.

More time was better to develop the Civilizin, more Religion worse. The Egyptians had, to give a example, food to have free time but they spend it with religion witch had to be done to put the empire together. The Greeks (to give an other example) were the commercial competitors of the Egyptians and wanted to be different from them. But they also had less use to spend so much time in put their state together because of the barbarians, and other Greek-States which made that in state of Religion. Therefore it was more important to put the free time in new thoughts most of them were made to give the geeks a direct advantage (weapons, tactics and so on)….

 

[marcus]

The few who made the industrial revolution, Newcombe and Watt, the handful who pioneered accurate machine tools, and so on were at the one in a million level... They caused a tipping point, after which further developments could be achieved by much less extraordinary minds.
...

If you say this, then you should celebrate Columbus Day this October.

the quality that Einstein had a lot of was not intelligence but independence of mind.

what made Watt one in a million was not his IQ

there were men in China with more IQ than Watt, no doubt. And I would guess they were mandarin bureaucrats in service to the Emperor.

Forget about accidents like Climate or Geography or the Historical Need for a Steam Engine or some lucky Rabbits Foot of Westernism.

the quality that Columbus had a lot of was not intelligence but independence of mind.

the stubborn misfit originality Kepler had to beat his head against
the wall until he made the planets fit their tracks
was more than enough to cause the Industrial Revolution and
everyone in the world would celebrate Columbus Day if they knew
what was good for them.

After that one discovery, of a whole other continent, Europe did
not look back. they knew anything was possible and they got busy
imagining it. Davinci dreamed of going to the moon.
Of course everybody did that. Huygens sketched a gunpowder powered
internal combustion piston engine, long before Watt. He schemed of flying and perfected the telescope. Everyone knew the planets were inhabited and Bruno went so far as to declare that the stars had planets with people on them. That was too far as it turned out.

In such a climate why wouldn't some canny Scots build a steam engine?

If the Chinese had had someone like Columbus with enough imagination
to sail across the Pacific and come back and tell them "there's a whole other continent over there and the Kingdom you thought was in the Middle really isn't," well...probably some Chinese would have built a steam engine too.

(they had windmills and blast furnaces etc etc and bigger oceangoing ships and got to Africa circa 1350 etc etc they just didnt have anyone with the audacity that reached epidemic proportions in Europe after 1492)

the quality that Galileo had wasn't "one in a million" IQ it was audacity and determination. Guts. So celebrate Columbus Day on October 11.

We owe that guy a lot.

 

[hitssquad]

Face validity vs practical validity in the employment of scientific instruments

The problem emanated in going from the abstract to the formal education and culturally biased questions used as the conduit. The less biased question were the ones which did not use words, but rather, pictures or numbers.

Test bias and cultural loading are not directly related concepts. A test might be highly culture loaded and still be low on bias if it is applied to a population familiar with the culture corresponding to the test.

Still, If you take a bushman from Kenya who has never been formally educated about number and math, despite having a high IQ, such an individual would not recognize the mathematical patterns, because the concept is foreign to his or her environment.

In that case the test in question might be inappropriate for the population in question. Inappropriate matching of test to population would result in poor test predictiveness and, ultimately, low criterion validity and low practical validity. Either a test written (or revised, as has been done in some cases with the Wechslers and Stanford-Binets) with the local culture in mind should be used, or a culture-reduced test should be used, in order to assure high criterion validity and practical validity.

In essence, the IQ test measures one formal education, culture, environment and the ability to recognize the patterns that manifest their of.

An "ability to recognize the patterns..." would be a mental ability. As far as they measure g, IQ tests do not measure individual mental abilities at all (g being a common factor of abilities and not itself an ability).

This whole TESTING as a means of measuring aptitude and capacities is almost completely bogus.

Yet, "The g factor (and highly g-loaded test scores, such as the IQ) shows a more far-reaching and universal practical validity than any other coherent psychological construct yet discovered." (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p270. Chapter 9: The Practical Validity of g.)

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

I read the preview of capture nine: I’m sure that’s very correct what is written.

But I can tell you: If you are doing well in school and job, you aren’t coactive more intelligent then others. This I know to well because I have it to do with good students in my live. Actually the stuff witch is learned in schools is not more then an extended IQ test and facts witch can be learned with just a good memory. But that’s not a surprise: the primal-IQ-Test was invented around 1900 to do just that and not more.

 

[Mandrake]

Actually, those were addressed in another thread. If you look, you will find them.

I have used the search feature to read your past posts. I did this because of your dismissive boast. I did not find anything from you which addressed these two items. Do you understand them and have you actually addressed them as you implied?

FWIW, I will post more concerning what I found when reading your posts. Your boast suggested that you were knowledgeable and had actually taken on and discredited the entire field of psychometrics. You didn't. What I found was that you offered a lot of confrontation, to the point of badgering some people. It appears that I am your latest target. I noted that your comments were not based on deep knowledge of the subject material nor on broad knowledge of the literature. Are my observations correct, or do you think you are really an expert in psychometrics?

I was unable to find even one message from you that added constructively to the thread in which it was posted.

 

[marcus]

Everybody should shut up about intelligence and celebrate Columbus Day.

 

[Evo]

I have used the search feature to read your past posts. I did this because of your dismissive boast. I did not find anything from you which addressed these two items. Do you understand them and have you actually addressed them as you implied?

They were addressed. It started with a discussion about brain scans. Hitssquad may remember it. Hitssquad is a good example of someone that can post his information without making denigrating statements about a population. I often do not agree with him, but I admire him.

FWIW, I will post more concerning what I found when reading your posts. Your boast suggested that you were knowledgeable and had actually taken on and discredited the entire field of psychometrics. You didn't. What I found was that you offered a lot of confrontation, to the point of badgering some people. It appears that I am your latest target. I noted that your comments were not based on deep knowledge of the subject material nor on broad knowledge of the literature. Are my observations correct, or do you think you are really an expert in psychometrics?

I said that the information you had posted in this thread, I had already countered in other threads, this is true. Yes, I regret losing my temper with some people, but I have changed. I'm not targeting you, I'm letting you know that so far everything you've mentioned has all been mentioned before, repeatedly, and it's tiresome, which is why I am not reposting rebuttals. I don't have much faith in psychometrics.

You are continuing to take this thread off topic.

 

[hitssquad]

Working memory capacity as a predictor of g

These factors influence working memory which is now known (seen the most recent issue of the journal Intelligence) is predicted almost perfectly by _g_.

Are you referring to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236546%232004%23999679995%23514457%23FLA%23Volume_32,_Issue_4,_Pages_321-430_(July_-_August_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000029364&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=576687&md5=d69aa2c7d7c5d6b98acb2fe3a8355fb2 article?:

• The restriction of the models to working memory as single predictor led to an insufficient result.

Karl Schweizer and Helfried Moosbrugger. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence. Volume 32, Issue 4 , July-August 2004, Pages 329-347.

 

[Mandrake]

Are you referring to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236546%232004%23999679995%23514457%23FLA%23Volume_32,_Issue_4,_Pages_321-430_(July_-_August_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000029364&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=576687&md5=d69aa2c7d7c5d6b98acb2fe3a8355fb2 article?:

• The restriction of the models to working memory as single predictor led to an insufficient result.

Karl Schweizer and Helfried Moosbrugger. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence. Volume 32, Issue 4 , July-August 2004, Pages 329-347.

No. That issue of Intelligence has not arrived in the mail (here at least) yet. The paper in question is from the prior issue, starting on page 277: "Working Memory is (Almost) Perfectly Predicted by _g_"

BTW, I am happy to see that someone here is actually reading the literature and actually knows the subject. There is no shortage of opinions and inane beliefs when it comes to the subject of intelligence, as we found out when The Bell Curve was published. All of the liberal journalists and uninformed PC people immediately attacked it, often without reading more than a few lines from Chapter 13. In reviewing the comments from Evo, I see that she is among those who think they can dismiss the book without first understanding it. I have posted a thread of questions for her and would like to add questions pertaining to her comments about the book. It may be hoping for a lot to imagine that she has actually read it (all of it) and surely asking too much to expect that she has done the same for The _g_ Factor. I don't see how anyone could have read The _g_ Factor (assuming that they understand what they read) and then proceed to admonish the science of psychometrics.

 

[NoahAfrican]

Your reading literature and accepting it, even though you cannot prove it independently yourself by replicating the resultant, is tantamount to ones acceptance of the bible. In other words, it is based upon faith. If one is a Christian, then the have a hard time accepting the beliefs of the Koran. If one is a Buddhist, they likely have a hard time accepting the teachings of the bible.

The key to all these things is faith or a desire to believe something that we cannot prove ourselves. Mandrak’s and other acceptance of such literature as the Bell Curve is simply based upon the faith in their preconceived notions and leanings in regards to race. They cannot prove any of it any more that people can prove the bible represents the actual words of God.

It all comes down to cultural and environmental conditioning more so than science. People simply see the world separated by race and poverty and then logically figure there is a genetic reason behind this. This is especially true given the documented history of literature proclaiming the superiority of races over others. It is simply people trying to justify the current order, ignoring all the malicious and nefarious acts against humanity by the current leaders of the order, over the last several centuries.

 

[Mandrake]

I said that the information you had posted in this thread, I had already countered in other threads, this is true.

It appears that you have changed your mind. In the thread "Questions for Evo" I listed what I had written here and you said that your comments were about other issues.

Yes, I regret losing my temper with some people, but I have changed.

I am glad to hear that. This reminds me to ask you about the use of ad hominem arguments. Would you agree with me that when one tries to discredit a source by name calling (specifically when you called one source racist), that person is exercising the well known logical fallacy known as ad hominem? Do you think that calling people and sources racist invalidates their claims? Noah and others have done this as well. It appears to me that any educated adult would know that using ad hominem arguments is self-defeating. Do you agree?

I don't have much faith in psychometrics.

How throughly have you studied psychometrics? I noticed that you specifically told us that The Bell Curve was invalid. Did you read the book? If so, did you read EVERY word of the text, every footnote, and all of the appendixes? What journals do you read? What other books on psychometrics have you read? Do you honestly believe you have done the necessary homework to tell us that you don't have much faith in psychometrics? I am not trying to attack or discredit you, but I really don't see anything in your messages here that causes me to think that you understand the subject to a point beyond newspaper level. What is your honest assessment?

 

[Mandrake]

Your reading literature and accepting it, even though you cannot prove it independently yourself by replicating the resultant, is tantamount to ones acceptance of the bible.

Do you replicate everything you believe? Really? Isn't the above comment absurd?

Do you understand the merits and procedures of peer review? Have you ever participated in a peer review? FWIW, I have many times and I have had my work reviewed. Do you produce intellectual material that is peer reviewed?

Mandrak’s and other acceptance of such literature as the Bell Curve is simply based upon the faith in their preconceived notions and leanings in regards to race.

I am interested to know what you think of the Bell Curve. Do you think it is accurate, somewhat accurate, or completely inaccurate? Evo discredited the entire book. Do you do likewise? Have you read it? All of it?

It all comes down to cultural and environmental conditioning more so than science.

I disagree. Modern psychometrics is based on laboratory measurements, such as chronometrics, nerve conduction velocity, fMRI, PET, MRI, and EEG. These measurements do not depend on subjective judgements nor are they biased by culture or researchers. How well do you understand psychometrics? How th roughly have you studied it? Do you honestly think that you have an understanding of it that enables you to discredit the field, or even parts of it?

You have used the word "racist." I addressed the matter of name calling in my recent post to Evo. Do you understand that calling people names does not change the validity of their positions, but instead demonstrates that you are unable to address the issues they are discussing and have resorted to a logical fallacy? You do understand what an ad hominem argument is don't you? And you do understand why it is a classic error, don't you?

 

[Evo]

It appears that you have changed your mind. In the thread "Questions for Evo" I listed what I had written here and you said that your comments were about other issues.

I haven't changed anything, you failed to address the posts you made that I was referring to. You also jumped to incorrect conclusions about what I said. I said "Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it." Counters, as in "opposes". Please show me where in the sentence I said that I had disproved anything. I guess you feel a bit foolish right now.

This reminds me to ask you about the use of ad hominem arguments. Would you agree with me that when one tries to discredit a source by name calling (specifically when you called one source racist), that person is exercising the well known logical fallacy known as ad hominem? Do you think that calling people and sources racist invalidates their claims? Noah and others have done this as well. It appears to me that any educated adult would know that using ad hominem arguments is self-defeating. Do you agree?

Not necessarily, to say a "source" is racist when it is already known as such, is a description, it is not name calling. I would rather we not use the word on a personal basis due to the offense some people might take. What do we call someone that chooses to slur an entire population based on questionable data? How offensive is that? It appears to me that any educated adult would know better.

How throughly have you studied psychometrics? I noticed that you specifically told us that The Bell Curve was invalid. Did you read the book? If so, did you read EVERY word of the text, every footnote, and all of the appendixes? What journals do you read? What other books on psychometrics have you read? Do you honestly believe you have done the necessary homework to tell us that you don't have much faith in psychometrics? I am not trying to attack or discredit you, but I really don't see anything in your messages here that causes me to think that you understand the subject to a point beyond newspaper level. What is your honest assessment?

I have no interest in psychometrics. Data can and is skewed all the time. As I have always said, I have only a layman's knowledge. I have done quite a bit of research, and what I have learned about Lynn, Murray, Jensen, Rushton, etc... is very disturbing. It has completely changed my mind. People need to know both sides of an issue in order to make up their minds. I just make sure that both sides are presented. The articles I post are not my personal work, same as hitssquad and BV and you, we all just post someone else's work, don't we?

 

[Mandrake]

Evo: I haven't changed anything, you failed to address the posts you made that I was referring to.

Your message 37 immediately followed my message 36. Your comment clearly stated "Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it." That obviously included the 8 items in message 36. But later, you revised your statement to exclude message 36.

You also jumped to incorrect conclusions about what I said. I said "Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it." Counters, as in "opposes". Please show me where in the sentence I said that I had disproved anything. I guess you feel a bit foolish right now.

Sorry Evo, I don't feel at all foolish. You are trying to wiggle out of your prior assertions. In a prior thread, you wrote to bobf: "Don't try to play trivial games here to deflect the issues at hand, it will not place you in a favorable light." I suggest that you take your own advice.

Evo wrote: BV doesn't answer to direct questions.

I asked this simple question: "I noticed that you told us that The Bell Curve was invalid. [The Bell Curve is ancient and debunked. -- The "Bell Curve" was written by known racists, and a long time ago, and has been debunked as such."] Did you read the book? If so, did you read EVERY word of the text, every footnote, and all of the appendixes?" Evo ducked it. Isn't it interesting how a person can be critical of someone else for the very things they practice themselves?

Can you support your claim that the authors of The Bell Curve are racists? Please be objective and do not simply give us a link to some of your racist sites, as you did before. Tell us how you know Murray and Herrnstein are racists. What did they do to earn that title? Don't dodge this one the way you dodgec the question about reading that book.

This reminds me to ask you about the use of ad hominem arguments. Would you agree with me that when one tries to discredit a source by name calling (specifically when you called one source racist), that person is exercising the well known logical fallacy known as ad hominem? Do you think that calling people and sources racist invalidates their claims? Noah and others have done this as well. It appears to me that any educated adult would know that using ad hominem arguments is self-defeating. Do you agree?

Evo: Not necessarily, to say a "source" is racist when it is already known as such, is a description, it is not name calling.

Reminder... Evo also wrote: "Don't try to play trivial games here to deflect the issues at hand, it will not place you in a favorable light."

The fact is that Evo did not establish that the source in question was racist; she simply made that assertion. She did so in order to discredit the material from that source, but she did not address it either. All she did was to present an ad hominem argument. Now she wants us to believe it was not really what it obviously was.

Originally Posted by Mandrake
How thoroughly have you studied psychometrics? I noticed that you specifically told us that The Bell Curve was invalid. Did you read the book? If so, did you read EVERY word of the text, every footnote, and all of the appendixes? What journals do you read? What other books on psychometrics have you read? Do you honestly believe you have done the necessary homework to tell us that you don't have much faith in psychometrics? I am not trying to attack or discredit you, but I really don't see anything in your messages here that causes me to think that you understand the subject to a point beyond newspaper level. What is your honest assessment?

Evo: I have no interest in psychometrics.

Well dang... who would have guessed? You do have opinions about it though, don't you?

Data can and is skewed all the time.

Yes, data can be skewed or it can be correct. Your comment doesn't identify any data, any researcher, or any conclusion. Do you want us to believe that all psychometric data is invalid? If you believe there are data sets that are incorrect, why not identify them and explain their flaws? You attacked the Bell Curve and then ducked my question as to whether or not you had read it. Are you aware that the first 12 chapters of that book contained data from a single population group? Which data were skewed? Why did you duck my question about whether or not you read the book? Are there other books that you wish to discredit without first reading them? If so, please list them for us.

As I have always said, I have only a layman's knowledge.

How does a layman discredit a massive technical book without knowing what it says? The Bell Curve was subjected to extensive peer review that was open to public reading. Did you read it, or did you read opinions from people who are not psychometricians and have no way of judging the scientific merits of the book?

I have done quite a bit of research, and what I have learned about Lynn, Murray, Jensen, Rushton, etc... is very disturbing.

Please identify your sources. Have you read at least one book by each of these scientists? Have you even read at least two peer reviewed papers by these scientists? Have you read any of the peer reviews of the material published by these scientists?

Evo: "This isn't a forum to play games in."

Okay. So, did you read The Bell Curve? Which articles and books have you read from the list of Lynn, Murray, Jensen, and Rushton?

I think you presented a link to a Washington Post article about genetics. Here is the link:
http://www.racesci.org/in_media/iq_class.htm
Do you consider the Washington Post to be a primary source of scientific information? Is that where you do your research? When I clicked on "home" from that page, I got, not the Post, but a site that deals with race and racism. Is that site biased? I might easily conclude that you are selecting sources that are not interested in scientific objectivity, but rather in "skewing" information in a misleading manner and using it as a weapon. You previously wrote: "When people try to go against people using "science" as a weapon, I have a problem with it." Is this yet another example of you not practicing what you preach?

 

[Evo]

Your message 37 immediately followed my message 36. Your comment clearly stated "Mandrake, for every argument you have made I have already posted (in previous threads) an argument that counters it." That obviously included the 8 items in message 36. But later, you revised your statement to exclude message 36.

I suggest you check the times. I had not read your post. I started replying before you posted. I did not ever include message 36 in my original reply, stop lying.

Sorry Evo, I don't feel at all foolish.

You made a glaring mistake and made false accusations as a result. I would expect an apology.

I asked this simple question: "I noticed that you told us that The Bell Curve was invalid. [The Bell Curve is ancient and debunked. -- The "Bell Curve" was written by known racists, and a long time ago, and has been debunked as such."] Did you read the book? If so, did you read EVERY word of the text, every footnote, and all of the appendixes?" Evo ducked it. Isn't it interesting how a person can be critical of someone else for the very things they practice themselves?

I didn't duck it, I forgot it with all your questions. Quit making false accusations. No, as I stated, I rely on the work of experts in the field. My personal opinion doesn't mean much, now does it?

Can you support your claim that the authors of The Bell Curve are racists? Please be objective and do not simply give us a link to some of your racist sites, as you did before. Tell us how you know Murray and Herrnstein are racists. What did they do to earn that title? Don't dodge this one the way you dodgec the question about reading that book.

Stop making unfounded accusations. If you do this again, I will consider it a personal attack. A person can overlook something without "dodging" it.

Mandrake, The Bell Curve has been denounced by the both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project. "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (1)

With those words, the American Psychological Association denounced The Bell Curve, the controversial book that claims that blacks generally have IQs 15 points lower than whites." "For those unfamiliar with the American Psychological Association, it is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, and includes over 142,000 members."

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

Care to disprove both of these Associations?

The fact is that Evo did not establish that the source in question was racist; she simply made that assertion.

False, I posted the proof. Quit making false accusations.

Yes, data can be skewed or it can be correct. Your comment doesn't identify any data, any researcher, or any conclusion. Do you want us to believe that all psychometric data is invalid? If you believe there are data sets that are incorrect, why not identify them and explain their flaws? You attacked the Bell Curve and then ducked my question as to whether or not you had read it. Are you aware that the first 12 chapters of that book contained data from a single population group? Which data were skewed? Why did you duck my question about whether or not you read the book? Are there other books that you wish to discredit without first reading them? If so, please list them for us.

How does a layman discredit a massive technical book without knowing what it says? The Bell Curve was subjected to extensive peer review that was open to public reading. Did you read it, or did you read opinions from people who are not psychometricians and have no way of judging the scientific merits of the book?

Please identify your sources. Have you read at least one book by each of these scientists? Have you even read at least two peer reviewed papers by these scientists? Have you read any of the peer reviews of the material published by these scientists?

Okay. So, did you read The Bell Curve? Which articles and books have you read from the list of Lynn, Murray, Jensen, and Rushton?

Read the above link.

I think you presented a link to a Washington Post article about genetics. Here is the link:
http://www.racesci.org/in_media/iq_class.htm
Do you consider the Washington Post to be a primary source of scientific information?

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post, BV did, why don't you ask him that question, and again, get your facts straight.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

You are on a bad phat now. Please keep on a constructive base.

I want to learn something from YOU and not from articles or books you read. In order to that, make summaries and comments to what you have read. And pleas be breve.

Would be nice, dank you very much.

 

[Mandrake]

I suggest you check the times. I had not read your post. I started replying before you posted. I did not ever include message 36 in my original reply, stop lying.

Yes, you already explained that. My comment was to inform you that it came out such that your claim was inclusive of what I had written, by virtue of its position. I understand that you told us you had not read my message. I just want you to understand my earlier comment, which was based on what I saw, not what you assumed I would see. Lighten up.

You made a glaring mistake and made false accusations as a result. I would expect an apology.

Sorry, you won't get one.

I didn't duck it, I forgot it with all your questions.

Yeah, sure. Okay.

Quit making false accusations. No, as I stated, I rely on the work of experts in the field. My personal opinion doesn't mean much, now does it?

You have not presented expert opinions.

Mandrake, The Bell Curve has been denounced by the both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project. "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (1)

The quote you provided above came from this source:
Don Lattin, "'Bell Curve' Called Political, Not Scientific: Psychologists examine race-IQ controversy," The San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, August 11, 1995, A6.
A newspaper! That has been the level of information you have presented here. Have you ever read a scientific paper? The guy who wrote that article and made that claim is probably about as well informed as you. If you want to attack The Bell Curve, why not use quotes from peer reviewers?

It is obvious that you do not understand the scientific basis for The Bell Curve. The book covered many topics and recited many psychometric findings over the past 100 years. You called the authors racists. They are not. You called me a liar. I am not. What other names can you offer to substitute for facts and accurate analysis?

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

Kangaroo? Is this a joke or a court? You are entertaining.

I didn't quote anything from the Washington Post, BV did, why don't you ask him that question, and again, get your facts straight.

Thank you for the correction. I do apologize for that error.

 

[Evo]

Yes, you already explained that. My comment was to inform you that it came out such that your claim was inclusive of what I had written, by virtue of its position. I understand that you told us you had not read my message. I just want you to understand my earlier comment, which was based on what I saw, not what you assumed I would see. Lighten up.

This is odd, an entire post of mine from much earlier today has disappeared. I will try to remember it. Mandrake, I hope we can start over with a clean slate.

The quote you provided above came from this source:
Don Lattin, "'Bell Curve' Called Political, Not Scientific: Psychologists examine race-IQ controversy," The San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, August 11, 1995, A6.
A newspaper!

That link was not from a newspaper. It has information from both the American Psychological Association as well as the Human Genome Project.

It is obvious that you do not understand the scientific basis for The Bell Curve.

Actually, I do understand. When The Bell Curve first came out, I fell for the hype. As SelfAdjoint has said, there is a need to study these things, and I agree. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the data was not what it was purported to be. I don't care how good the reasons or intentions were, I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you taint the findings to strenghten your cause, you have lost your credibility.

 

[Mandrake]

O

riginally Posted by Mandrake
It is obvious that you do not understand the scientific basis for The Bell Curve.

Evo: Actually, I do understand.

Great! Let's discuss what you understand.

When The Bell Curve first came out, I fell for the hype. As SelfAdjoint has said, there is a need to study these things, and I agree. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the data was not what it was purported to be.

Okay, this is a good subject to discuss. As you certainly know, The Bell Curve contained large quantities of research findings and those findings covered at least 75 years. Is it your contention that all of the data were false? Or, do you accept some of the data and reject others? If the latter, can you simply tell us which data are correct and which are not? Thank you. Now explain your reasoning.

I don't care how good the reasons or intentions were, I don't care which side of the argument you are on, if you taint the findings to strenghten your cause, you have lost your credibility.

It is endearing of you to say so. You are such a sweetie! Do you consider yourself to be credible when discussing The Bell Curve?

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Evo you are likable as you know. Therefore I am shore you don't mid if I say to you:
Give us some facts please. I'm to lazy to read and search all your staff. Its VERY BORING to read several times: that one has not read that and the other: No you don't read this and the other: no you not that. I'm shore I'm not the only one who don't understand this discussionbehavior and who is as lazy as I' am.

 

[Evo]

Evo you are likable as you know. Therefore I am shore you don't mid if I say to you:
Give us some facts please. I'm to lazy to read and search all your staff. Its VERY BORING to read several times: that one has not read that and the other: No you don't read this and the other: no you not that. I'm shore I'm not the only one who don't understand this discussionbehavior and who is as lazy as I' am.

The facts are in the links I give. Sorry, but it would make no sense to retype everything (not to mention it clutters up the thread and I honestly don't have the time). As you will notice, it is customary to post links to material here if you are giving examples, which is what I am doing.

 

[Mandrake]

Evo you are likable as you know. Therefore I am shore you don't mid if I say to you:
Give us some facts please. I'm to lazy to read and search all your staff. Its VERY BORING to read several times: that one has not read that and the other: No you don't read this and the other: no you not that. I'm shore I'm not the only one who don't understand this discussionbehavior and who is as lazy as I' am.

I agree with the above. A discussion forum should not be a link posting service. The problem with posting links without appropriate commentary is that the poster wants to avoid having to demonstrate an understanding of the subject in question. Evo has done this repeatedly and even condemned sources, such as The Bell Curve. When asked if she read it, she pretended to have not seen the question. When pressed, we learned that she had (as was already obvious) not read the book. She has presented a number of other links without describing the conclusions that she drew from them, or otherwise indicating that she had any understanding of the material.