The Bell Curve

[Rywill]

This actually has nothing to do with politics or religion (I don't think), but it seems controversial enough that it should be separated from the nice discussions of hot router-on-router action going on in EE&H.

A friend of mine recently read the infamous book "The Bell Curve." We were discussing it, and he said he found the research, arguments, and everything in the book pretty compelling. We argued about it for a while, and I eventually agreed to read the book with an open mind and then come discuss it with him (I've read summaries of what it's about, but never actually read the book).

I finally finished the book I was already reading, so I'm going to go buy Bell Curve this weekend. What I'd like, though, is to get the best refutation of the book's hypothesis as well. Rather than searching it out myself, I figured folks like Jason McCollough probably have the links memorized--probably hotkeyed, for all I know :wink: . What I want is the best possible debunking of the survey methods or scientific conclusions of the book. What I do not want are articles that basically come down to the argument that the book's theories couldn't possibly be true because that would be awful; or arguments that even if the book's theories are true, it's morally wrong to judge people based on their race (a good and interesting argument, but not the one I want to make right now); or that intelligence tests are racially biased and not a true indicator of a person's mental ability (again, interesting argument, but not one I want to rely on ATM, especially since I'm not sure I believe it).

Thanks in advance for any help.

[antlers]

This is actually quite a timely comment.

A very good study refuting it (mainly) was just published. I read about it in the Washington Post, but I don't have a reference handy.

According to this recent result, for the rich, IQ is traceable almost entirely to genetic factors, for the poor it is influenced primarily by environment. In other words, the limiting factor on IQ is environmental until you get to a certain level of wealth/environmental enrichment, after which the only limiting factor is genetic.

This would explain a lot of the studies that show that IQ is determined primarily genetically, since the populations sampled came primarily from those with sufficient wealth that genetics is in fact the primary factor, while still allowing the differences among populations/racial groups documented in the Bell Curve to be attributable primarily to economic differences.

[bmulligan]

Where is Cleve when you need him?

That rhetorical, no need to answer it ---please!

[quatoria]

Not a sentiment I ever expected to see you express, Mulligan. Are you no longer his faithful acolyte? Abandoned that task to Hermy, have you?

[Andrew Mayer]

Alterman covers this subject pretty extensively in What Liberal Media? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1062632806/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-0477154-1848118?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

It covers exactly what you're talking about, as well as a history of how the book was repudiated by a peer-review group, and a publishing company was paid for by The Pioneer Fund (http://www.pioneerfund.org/) in order to get it onto the market.

Would you be surprised to find out that their agenda has a eugenic slant? Here's some background (http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/ipe/99/msg01621.html).

I don't often throw around the term "neo-nazi", but if the shoe fits:
The Pioneer Fund, as Lane points out in "The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve," is a New York foundation established in 1937 with the money of Wycliffe Draper, a textile magnate who admired Nazi Germany and favored sending U.S. Blacks back to Africa.

[Anders Hallin]

Here's that Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12059-2003Sep1.html).

[Lizard_King]

This is actually quite a timely comment.

A very good study refuting it (mainly) was just published. I read about it in the Washington Post, but I don't have a reference handy.


I believe this (http://www.msnbc.com/news/960160.asp?0cv=CB20) is what you are talking about. I wouldn't call that a refutation of the bell curve, it is much more a useful context in which to understand it (I know I am nitpicking).

[Brian Koontz]

I believe this (http://www.msnbc.com/news/960160.asp?0cv=CB20) is what you are talking about.

"Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford University who has studied gene-environment interactions, said the next big challenge is to find out what it is about socioeconomic status — a measure that includes not only income but also parental education and occupational status-that contributes to IQ, so social programs can more effectively boost those factors."

Nutrition and values, in that order of importance.

[Rywill]

Nutrition and values, in that order of importance.
Well, that solves that. Can you head over to the peace in the Mideast thread next?

[Lizard_King]

I believe this (http://www.msnbc.com/news/960160.asp?0cv=CB20) is what you are talking about.

"Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford University who has studied gene-environment interactions, said the next big challenge is to find out what it is about socioeconomic status — a measure that includes not only income but also parental education and occupational status-that contributes to IQ, so social programs can more effectively boost those factors."

Nutrition and values, in that order of importance.

Quite possibly true, but I think what Marcus is neglecting to ask directly is "AND what can social programs/handouts do about it". Like what (if any) sort of programs could best address those needs efficiently and cost-effectively, if in fact they are the crucial ones.

[cyborg]

Most IQ devised tests are, frankly, fairly rubbish. IQ tests often are culturally and conceptially biased - choosing a few specific areas of intellegence and often relying on good general knowledge too.

[Linoleum]

"Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford University who has studied gene-environment interactions, said the next big challenge is to find out what it is about socioeconomic status — a measure that includes not only income but also parental education and occupational status-that contributes to IQ, so social programs can more effectively boost those factors."

Maybe if we actually emphasized basic literacy and math in our public education system. Naaaaah, we just need the kids to feel good about themselves.

[Sharpe]

I've never read the Bell Curve but I did read the Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003344/qid=1062643815/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4063550-1092769?v=glance&s=books

I found the Blank Slate to be an extremely interesting read, and although I don't agree with all of it I felt that Pinker made a number of very strong points.

The specific reason I mention the Blank Slate in this thread is that Pinker is basically addressing the question of "what if the Bell Curve is (all or partially) true, then what?", without going crazy with ideology or political correctness.

Dan

[Brian Koontz]

Quite possibly true, but I think what Marcus is neglecting to ask directly is "AND what can social programs/handouts do about it". Like what (if any) sort of programs could best address those needs efficiently and cost-effectively, if in fact they are the crucial ones.

Food Stamps is a program geared toward that... in theory a good one, in practice a decent one.

I don't have any easy answers, but I can state a couple of the problems that are hindering easy answers and the hard answers to the problems...

Poor people often have low self-esteem and often don't care about their own health, and care only slightly more about the health of their children. Richer people can have milk and booze... poor people have a choice of one or the other and booze often wins out. Booze is far more comforting than milk.

Answer: Overcome "comfort value" with "health value" or eliminate the self-esteem problem of those in poverty. Good luck with either of those.

IQ is a partial set of success rules. For people who live and believe in the system they instill "IQ" values in their children. Develop abstract thought, spacial relationships, pattern matching, social relationships, etc.

Poor people do not instill IQ values in their children, or do so to a lesser extent. Poverty itself is an obstacle to this (poor people have less time to spend or money to hire someone to spend time with their child), as well as the frequent implication that poor people live "outside the system" or on the fringe of the system where they certainly don't *appreciate* the system and thus don't really care to instill "IQ values".

Answer: Make the poor richer or encourage the poor to either be or think they are "part of the system".

Its amusing in this that you see the Socialist/Capitalist argument in a nutshell with respect to the poor. American culture historically is very much about the "morality of the poor". The self-esteem movement in the United States is partially geared toward this. The movement to integrate minorities culturally if successful would help solve the "IQ values" problem. These are the Capitalist answers. The Socialist answer is just to give the poor more money ;).

Also, the entire American culture of Upward Mobility is tied to the morality of the poor. When even the poor can become rich they can think they are part of the system too.

[Brandon Clements]

Koontz giving a well reasoned, thoughtful argument? Am I fucking hallucinating? :lol:

[Qwijybo]

I haven't yet read The Bell Curve - I picked it up but it looked a little daunting. I did pick up a refutation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393314251/qid=1062645053/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/102-2745399-5833718?v=glance&s=books) of it, though. Pretty good so far, though due to time constraints, and the early release of Al Franken's new book, I've been holding at Chapter 5 for a couple of months.

[Qenan]

According to this recent result, for the rich, IQ is traceable almost entirely to genetic factors, for the poor it is influenced primarily by environment. In other words, the limiting factor on IQ is environmental until you get to a certain level of wealth/environmental enrichment, after which the only limiting factor is genetic.


It might be worth pointing out that the "heritability" of any trait is just a measure of whether the variability in that trait coincides with genetic relationships in a particular environment. It is meaningless to speak of a trait's "heritability" in general. The reason for this is that there are, in general, interactions between genes and the environment.

In any case, arguments by "heritability" are pernicious. If folks don't do well in one environment, we should try to change that environment into one where they will do better -- e.g., reading glasses work wonders in improving scholastic aptitude for near-blind students, and insulin increases life expectancy for diabetics.

Heritability does have uses (for example, in animal husbandry) but it doesn't mean what many think it does.

[Jason McCullough]

Rather than searching it out myself, I figured folks like Jason McCollough probably have the links memorized--probably hotkeyed, for all I know.



The specific reason I mention the Blank Slate in this thread is that Pinker is basically addressing the question of "what if the Bell Curve is (all or partially) true, then what?", without going crazy with ideology or political correctness.


"If the Bell Curve is true, then what" is about equivalent to "if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true, then what?" Murray completely ignored the normal publishing schedule and peer review, which is pretty much all you need to know to put it in the "do not trust" pile. It's not a shock that the math all turned out to be way wrong.

Summary of the media debate and Murray's crowd (http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html).

Summary of Murray's crimes against statistics (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2416).

The book is the definitive example of how modern crackpots on the right have hit on a combination of PR and the trappings of science to dump toxic arguments on an untrained public. There's not really any parallels to this kind of bad science on the left; this is probably the starkest difference between the parties. The left isn't free of crackpots, of course, but they get nowhere near as much mainstream support and funding.

Bonus fact: Charles Murray is a fellow at AEI (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm). This is why I hate AEI so much, and consider them the source of all evil.

Oh, I wouldn't take that new study too seriously just yet; it's a radioactive subject, and hasn't even been sent to the journals yet. Give it a year for professionals in the field to pick at.

[hermyhermit]

Not a sentiment I ever expected to see you express, Mulligan. Are you no longer his faithful acolyte? Abandoned that task to Hermy, have you?

I share some of Cleve's views, I disagree with him quite strongly on others.

bmulligan I beleive is in the same boat. If because we don't chant the party line like the majority of you sheep here means we are "Cleve's Acolytes" then I gladly take that label.

I've said it before I will say it again. It is easy to posit all manner of arguments sitting comfortably on your safe messageboards isn't it?

If you really want to enact social change why don't you go out and meet these people you care so much about and yet at the same time, are deathly afraid of, and with good reason.

It reminds me of a funny little liberal piece I watched a few days ago called Bowling for Columbine. While Mr. Moore had some compelling arguments he really went off the rails about half way through the movie into far left territory in a big way. I was particularly amused to see his fat doughy white ass wandering around Florence and Normandy in South Central LA proclaiming how safe he felt there: IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.

This is the classic liberal bullshit I'm talking about. I'd challenge Mr. Moore to go back to that same neighborhood between 10pm and 3 am for a few weeks and I bet all the noble magical dark-skinned young men he saw standing around the liquor store would be more than happy to give him a street education the hard way. I wonder if he'd be as inclined to jump to their defense after they showed him what life on the street is really like for a fat white boy in the ghetto after hours?


P.S. Though I'm still convinced he is a sex robot from the future Brian Koontz offers a very compelling argument above for why this is a problem without an easy fix. Good job, BK.

[XPav]

Micheal Moore is an idiot. He's the left's version of Rush Limbaugh. He's a political entertainer, and many people on the left realize this, ya know.

[hermyhermit]

Micheal Moore is an idiot. He's the left's version of Rush Limbaugh. He's a political entertainer, and many people on the left realize this, ya know.


I got 20 bucks that says Jason McCullough and/or quatoria crank off to Moore's picture every night....

[JeffL]

The book is the definitive example of how modern crackpots on the right have hit on a combination of PR and the trappings of science to dump toxic arguments on an untrained public. There's not really any parallels to this kind of bad science on the left; this is probably the starkest difference between the parties.

Sigh. Once again, this falls back to the tired old "right vs. left" rhetoric. I haven't read the book, but I've heard that the statistics and regression analysis has some fatal flaws. I'm pretty fluent in stats and regression analysis - do you have any non-biased sources that point out specific analytical flaws beyond those in that Slate article? Those are kind of OK, but what I'm looking for are some hard core statistical breakdowns from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind. By the way, I don't believe the basic premise of the book, but I'd like to find some good unbiased sources to use.

There are no well funded writers on the left who play fast and loose with the analyses? Heh, that sounds like a challenge. I happen to think there are a plethora of folks on the extreme of both sides that are very manipulative with the numbers (hell, they exist in the middle too - anyone who works with statistical analysis of data on a regular basis gets pretty sensitized to it.) The not so secret secret is that you can manipulate and show numbers to support any point you want, from either side of the global warming arguments (and every other environmental argument, again from both sides) to the socio-economic studies of civilizations current and past to what the budgets of states and nations really are. Numbers are really great that way. ;)

[Jason McCullough]

Well, what's the parallel to Murray's crowd of kooks on the left? It's not that he plays fast and loose; he's writing something so blatantly made up and wrong that either he's a complete moron or actively evil. They're not honest errors.

I can't give you any better sources than Google gives me. :D

[JeffL]

Well, what's the parallel to Murray's crowd of kooks on the left? It's not that he plays fast and loose; he's writing something so blatantly made up and wrong that either he's a complete moron or actively evil. They're not honest errors.

I can't give you any better sources than Google gives me. :D

heh, I've got to find a better search engine, otherwise you and I are always going to be looking at the same sources. I'll look - I want to be able to tear into this guy's work with some real data. If his work is truly that wrong, I suspect it shouldn't be difficult to find deconstructions by real statisticians.

I just don't get why this is a "right vs. left" issue? The reason that I first heard that this book was discredited was when the guy in the office next to me told me that he heard Limbaugh talk about how the author "played fast and loose with the data". Where are all of the flood of books by conservatives claiming that minorities are inherently less intelligent? I just think it's possible to attack someone with a screwed up agenda without trying to lump an entire group of people with him - conservative just isn't the blanket you seem to want it to be. There are some real wackos on the left side who have written total nonsense on the evils of chlorine, writing both deceptive "facts" and downright lies - I don't think that everyone who is a liberal is as stupid as they are. I just think you're too smart to use such mass generalizations, and I think it taints some otherwise damned good arguments you make. Just my opinion.

[Jason McCullough]

All conservatives don't support Charles Murray and I'm not saying they do. But he *is* definitely supported (I was going to say tolerated, but there's little or no public criticism of him on the right) in a way with no analogue on the left. Try here (http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/nro.cgi?db=nationalreview&account=nro&collection=NRO&s=charles+murray), for example.

If Limbaugh condemned him, I'm surprised and impressed; I can't find anything either way on Google, other than Limbaugh listening another book he co-wrote in his library (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/limbaugh/rushlimbaughandpoliticaltheory.guest.html).

Oh, here's a great link: Atrios on Delong on Sowell on Murray (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000792.html).

Sowell's as conservative as it gets, and he wrote a critical review of it in the American Spectator. Unfortunately, he was one of the few.

[Doug Erickson]

double post

[Doug Erickson]

Well, what's the parallel to Murray's crowd of kooks on the left? It's not that he plays fast and loose; he's writing something so blatantly made up and wrong that either he's a complete moron

Noam Chomsky? Admittedly, he doesn't rely on bad sicence, but a lot of what he espouses as recognized truths are complete flights of fancy mixed in with very acontextual and sometimes apparently imagined data. He really reads like a non-sequitur some days, yet he gets the Berkeley "professional activist" crowd behind him something fierce.

[Jason McCullough]

Chomsky's about as close as it gets, but even he shows the difference here. Does he get paid speaking gigs from liberal think tanks? Does anyone in power actually listen to him? Does he write lots of articles in the Nation? Praised by other liberal intellectuals? Has a permanent position at a prominent, politically-wired think tank?

[Ben]

Certain environmentalists are the left's most obvious bad science group. In fact, they are the most prominent bad science going around, they have a hell of a lot more popular support than the Bell Curve.

So Paul Ehrlich is my answer.

Also, I do enjoy that lack of public criticism is support. That's a truly remarkable argument, Jason. Truly.

We should have some sort of left vs. right grudge match with like scoring and stuff. Thankfully Cleve left, because there wasn't a left wing counterpart of his wackiness. We now have fairly even matchups, in order of fanaticism:
hermy vs. quatoria
bmulligan vs. McCullough
Morris vs. Tim E

We settle these once and for all and then we can fold P&R back into Everything Else like it should be.

[quatoria]

I don't think I'm as fanatical as McCullough, much less Hermy. Of course, I'm hardly in the best position to judge myself.

[Houngan]

Steven Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man is the de facto refutation of The Bell Curve, to get this back on topic.

H.

[Doug Erickson]

Chomsky gets paid speaking gigs at Universities, although I don't know if any American institutions really provide consistent financial backing for him these days. He's really gotten nutball as of late, and he's starting to wrap around into the dogmatic paranoia that characterizes the extreme right. I'm just waiting for him to snap and turn into David Horowitz.

[Jason McCullough]

Certain environmentalists are the left's most obvious bad science group. In fact, they are the most prominent bad science going around, they have a hell of a lot more popular support than the Bell Curve.

So Paul Ehrlich is my answer.

Also, I do enjoy that lack of public criticism is support. That's a truly remarkable argument, Jason. Truly.

Did Paul Ehrlich fill his book with made up statistics? Did I miss the bit where environmentalists claimed the earth is getting hotter (and massaged the data in one direction to make it look that way), when it's actually getting cooler?

Ehrlich coming up with a silly projection/theory is embarassing, but he didn't falsify statistical results to do it. One's science, one isn't.

As to "lack of public criticism is support" (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg090299.html):



We know from the seminal and much-maligned book by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve (and a thousand other studies), that, in the words of Dr Tsien, the wealthy class already has the intellectual advantage over poor people.


Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg022699.html):

And let's not even talk about what people have said about Charles Murray, the co-author of the sober and ultra-researched Bell Curve.

Oh, this page of Atrios's archives (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_02_16_atrios_archive.html#90359131) has a bunch of good links.

[Lizard_King]

Did Paul Ehrlich fill his book with made up statistics? Did I miss the bit where environmentalists claimed the earth is getting hotter (and massaged the data in one direction to make it look that way), when it's actually getting cooler?

Actually, what Ehrlich and most environmental extremists practice is a highly disingenuous form of statistical manipulation, using arbitrary restrictions to steer the data in the direction that provides the most latitude for hysterics. If you really want to understand it, I think you should pick up a copy of the Skeptical Environmentalist. At the very least you'd have more than just "lomborg's a hack" to say about it if you actually read it, of that I am sure.

At any rate, I'll give you a straightforward example: Michael Bellesiles. How's that?

Getting back to the topic at hand, I can't say that I've read The Bell Curve. But I am hard pressed to think of why the implications were so shocking and facially wrong to so many; so minorities do worse as a whole on IQ tests. Big deal. That has as much to do with actual intelligence as a SAT score, and I certainly don't recall Murray claiming his study proved minorities dumber. In fact, it seems pretty self explanatory that a testing system designed by educated whites would favour them.

While if true the criticism about the failure to practice peer review in an open manner is certainly problematic, it is hardly a straightforward condemnation. You can preach about pure science all you want, but if you think that is what is being practiced at any level you are nuts. There are consensus issues in the scientific community that cannot be touched; the absolutely groundless attacks on the Skeptical Environmentalist, not at all addressing the substance of the work, are a good example. Race-related studies are likely in a similar vein.

[Doug Erickson]

I am hard pressed to think of why the implications were so shocking and facially wrong to so many

[The implications] were shocking because they suggested that discrimination could be a very practical and reasonable act -- after all, why hire people from the dumb race (to use an extreme example)?

There's also the resulting idea that blacks were poor and ghetto-bound because they were genetically inferior and incapable of succeeding in modern academia, rather than scoring low because they had poor access to early schooling, terrible nutrition, and no sense of security. The former idea absolves smarty white boys from guilt -- hey, we can't help 'em, they're just born that way -- rather than increasing guilt by demonstrating that the stratification of society mixed with racial discrimination has led to the genetically- and environmentally-assisted cycle of poverty and degradation.

[Jason McCullough]

Did Paul Ehrlich fill his book with made up statistics? Did I miss the bit where environmentalists claimed the earth is getting hotter (and massaged the data in one direction to make it look that way), when it's actually getting cooler?

Actually, what Ehrlich and most environmental extremists practice is a highly disingenuous form of statistical manipulation, using arbitrary restrictions to steer the data in the direction that provides the most latitude for hysterics. If you really want to understand it, I think you should pick up a copy of the Skeptical Environmentalist. At the very least you'd have more than just "lomborg's a hack" to say about it if you actually read it, of that I am sure.

At any rate, I'll give you a straightforward example: Michael Bellesiles. How's that?

Getting back to the topic at hand, I can't say that I've read The Bell Curve. But I am hard pressed to think of why the implications were so shocking and facially wrong to so many; so minorities do worse as a whole on IQ tests. Big deal. That has as much to do with actual intelligence as a SAT score, and I certainly don't recall Murray claiming his study proved minorities dumber. In fact, it seems pretty self explanatory that a testing system designed by educated whites would favour them.

While if true the criticism about the failure to practice peer review in an open manner is certainly problematic, it is hardly a straightforward condemnation. You can preach about pure science all you want, but if you think that is what is being practiced at any level you are nuts. There are consensus issues in the scientific community that cannot be touched; the absolutely groundless attacks on the Skeptical Environmentalist, not at all addressing the substance of the work, are a good example. Race-related studies are likely in a similar vein.

Bellesiles is a good example: liberals stopped citing him and defending him. (Although the allegations were nowhere near as serious, but I'm not going to get into that.) Sure, it took a while, but it *did* happen, and he actually submitted the stuff for friggin' peer review, which is more than I can say for Murray. I actually got halfway through Bellesiles's book before I read up on the controversy; ended up throwing it away. I'm not going to bother wading in on Lomberg; people I trust say he's full of it, so I'm not going to spend the time.

Anyway, the outrageous bit in Murray's book is that he immediately takes his ginned-up result that "IQ is highly heritable and no environment changes (education, etc.) have any effect on it" to start wild speculations about immigration and minority child-bearing driving out all the smart people - get the guns, Ma! The reproducing Negro hordes are at the door!

It's dressed up in fancy talk and pretend statistics, but that's the basic point. It's not a case of bad science, it's a case of warmed-over Shockley thinking about genetic racial hysteria with a thin veneer of "science" to make it palatable.

[Lizard_King]

[The implications] were shocking because they suggested that discrimination could be a very practical and reasonable act -- after all, why hire people from the dumb race (to use an extreme example)?

There's also the resulting idea that blacks were poor and ghetto-bound because they were genetically inferior and incapable of succeeding in modern academia, rather than scoring low because they had poor access to early schooling, terrible nutrition, and no sense of security. The former idea absolves smarty white boys from guilt -- hey, we can't help 'em, they're just born that way -- rather than increasing guilt by demonstrating that the stratification of society mixed with racial discrimination has led to the genetically- and environmentally-assisted cycle of poverty and degradation.

Of course that's a possibility, but no one who wasn't already a racist would infer that from minorities doing more poorly on IQ tests. And no one who wasn't already a racist would use that as a reason to deny minorities employment, or anything of the sort.

In any case, such implications don't so much refute the Bell Curve as present it as potentially dangerous information. If you find that equivalent to "false" (which I doubt), well...


Anyway, the outrageous bit in Murray's book is that he immediately takes his ginned-up result that "IQ is highly heritable and no environment changes (education, etc.) have any effect on it" to start wild speculations about immigration and minority child-bearing driving out all the smart people - get the guns, Ma! The reproducing Negro hordes are at the door!

Really? I'm assuming you must have read the book to opine so authoritatively on it. I would love to see a direct quote from your dog-eared copy that suggests any of that.


It's dressed up in fancy talk and pretend statistics, but that's the basic point. It's not a case of bad science, it's a case of warmed-over Shockley thinking about genetic racial hysteria with a thin veneer of "science" to make it palatable.

Again, I get that you don't like his conclusions. I get the numerous implications a racist asshole could draw from them. But I still don't see much substantial criticism of his "made up" numbers...could you provide me with an example?


Bellesiles is a good example: liberals stopped citing him and defending him. (Although the allegations were nowhere near as serious, but I'm not going to get into that.) Sure, it took a while, but it *did* happen, and he actually submitted the stuff for friggin' peer review, which is more than I can say for Murray.
Yeah, and he got a free pass until those ideologically driven to oppose his views started digging up dirt. The objectivity of your fabled peer review is seriously in question when it fails to turn up obvious problems in reasoning and method. Murray's book is available to the public; his peers are free to bash it as they please, but I just haven't been witness to any substantive criticisms (again, not saying there aren't any, just that I have yet to see them). I don't see the absence of peer review in a popularly released and analyzed book as the problem it would be in a more academia/scholar-centric work.



I actually got halfway through Bellesiles's book before I read up on the controversy; ended up throwing it away.
I know at my typical East Coast university many defended the book tooth and claw even after the Bancroft Prize was retracted. Good move on your part.


I'm not going to bother wading in on Lomberg; people I trust say he's full of it, so I'm not going to spend the time.

I trust they have used more than ad hominems to attack his work; I would love to hear them. Because all I read in (usually sober) Science mag and the like was trash talk.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the conclusions he draws from the data. But I am pretty sure that if you look at his presentation of numbers (which are from a variety of sources, from the WHO to the UN) you will find it interesting, especially when he contrasts it with the use those same numbers are put to by others.

[Doug Erickson]

In any case, such implications don't so much refute the Bell Curve as present it as potentially dangerous information. If you find that equivalent to "false" (which I doubt), well...


You asked why it was "shocking" to folks in the line I was answering.

Plenty of sources refuting it have been hyperlinked above.

[Jason McCullough]

Whatever, LK.

[Brian Koontz]

hermy vs. quatoria
bmulligan vs. McCullough
Morris vs. Tim E

My ranking list of liberals has Jason McCullough at #1, XPav at #2, and quatoria at #3.

Conservatives has bmulligan at #1, Daniel Morris at #2, and Brad Grenz at #3.

Hermyhermit doesn't qualify since he doesn't post frequently enough, and I haven't seen a clear picture of him emerge in any case. He's best known for siding with Cleve.

[quatoria]

I'm not half as liberal as I used to be, on some issues. I'm settling down into being mainly a pragmatist, though I suspect I will always remain incredibly liberal on social issues.

[Ben]

I don't read PolyReg enough, but I had the impression that quatoria was an extreme liberal while McCullough was more of an ardent supporter of all things left of center. That may have been mistaken.

Erickson deserves more consideration for highest liberal though(his treatises on rights and society in the gun thread are so far left of center they almost wrap around into fascism), and Lizard_King for conservative.

[XPav]

Geez, I've only had one person put me on the "nutball liberal" scale so far. What could I be doing wrong?

[quatoria]

I don't read PolyReg enough, but I had the impression that quatoria was an extreme liberal while McCullough was more of an ardent supporter of all things left of center. That may have been mistaken.

Erickson deserves more consideration for highest liberal though(his treatises on rights and society in the gun thread are so far left of center they almost wrap around into fascism), and Lizard_King for conservative.

Well, let's see. I'm for legalization of drugs - all drugs, every drug, all day fucking long. I'm for socialized health care, strict oversight of corporate behavior to pry their cocks out of our asses, an equal standard of justice for all people in the nation, rich or poor, a cessation to wholesale destruction of our environment by virtually unregulated hard metal mining, stem cell research, equal pay for both genders, a concerted effort to root out systemic prejudice in governmental institutions like education, WELL FUNDED education, an incredibly deep cutback in our ridiculously superflous defense budget, an eradication of the psychotic and worthless "missile shield", money to actually start keeping track of real terrorist threats, programs like the recently defunded monitoring of russian uranium supplies, a fully transparent election process and governmental system, a taxation system wherein the rich don't end up paying a smaller percentage of their income than the poor, laws to immediatly illegalize off-shore tax shelters, oh, and criminal charges for the administration members who, through their disinterest in terrorism and willful neglect of clear and repeatedly shouted warnings about incoming terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in specific, allowed three thousand people to die. Up to and including George Bush himself.

So, you decide where that places me on the spectrum. :)

[Midnight Son]

Quatoria, you have my vote! Let me just light something up to celebrate your candidacy!....*koff* *koff* :lol:

[Lizard_King]

So, you decide where that places me on the spectrum. :)

I dunno, comrade, that's a real head-scratcher. I'll give it some thought while I'm cleaning my guns.

[Rywill]

[extreme-left diatribe snipped]



I'm not half as liberal as I used to be, on some issues.
Whoo dogger. Which issues would those be? Because I don't think it's possible to get any further left on anything you wrote about above, unless you actually become a communist. Are you an ex-communist?

[quatoria]

Ex-Marxist, actually. Used to be entirely opposed to the concept of capitalism, from the abuses and excesses I observed - the way I've seen companies use up and kill people, market products that they know make consumers sick or dead, and then avoid any legal consequence. I've since come to the conclusion that the problem isn't with capitalism itself - the profit incentive is a good one - but there has to be a strong government in existence to make damned sure that companies aren't trading the lives of their workers and their customers for percentage points in their stock. I used to be against private gun ownership - no longer am, for one. Been rethinking my stance on the right way to implement affirmative action, though I still think some form is needed, as the playing field isn't level. In any case, I'm sure it was a rhetorical question. Lizard, Rywill, and whoever else - mock away. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've arrived at my beliefs after long examination of the society I live in, and the way I think it should treat its citizens. I've feel no shame for the way I think. Why should I?

[voltaic]

quatoria, mind if I ask what society you live in? As in what country did you grow up in, where do you live now, etc? Just to give us perspective on how you arrived at your conclusions.

[quatoria]

I grew up in the same country I live in now - America. I've been all over it and outside it, and my thoughts and philosophies, political and otherwise, have been built upon what I've seen all over the world. Mexico, England, Scotland, Wales, Texas, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Brooklyn, Long Island, the Bronx, Manhattan, Miami, Orlando (where I love now) and NYC (where I hope to end up).

I've been up and down most coasts, and spent time everywhere except the midwest, really. (Something I hope to rectify, as time goes on)

[quatoria]

Forgot to mention - I grew up in deep, deep south Florida. Place called Loxahatchee, right next to the everglades. Wasn't much to do but slog through swamps and chop down trees. That's not a joke. Drove down a dirt road every day to get to my all portable school, where I had teachers who enlightened me with comments like "YEW PLAYIN' DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS? ARE YUR PARENTS SATANISTS, BOY?" Also not a joke. So, you know, maybe that had an impact.

[Rywill]

In any case, I'm sure it was a rhetorical question.
Not actually. It was a real question.

(Edited to remove sweeping statement of disagreement. Upon re-reading, quatoria and I are actually in agreement on roughly half the stuff he talked about.)

[quatoria]

In any case, I'm sure it was a rhetorical question.
Not actually. It was a real question.

(Edited to remove sweeping statement of disagreement. Upon re-reading, quatoria and I are actually in agreement on roughly half the stuff he talked about.)

Would you be offended if I said that didn't come as much of a shock to me? ;) Most of my ideals, in the end, basically boil down to this - the powerful should not be allowed to abuse the weak, and an enlightened society will do whatever it can to let people start at something approaching an even field. Not by smashing down the successful, but by helping the less so. I don't want to devalue success, or remove the incentive to work hard - I just don't want to see people die because they failed, or see their children consigned to similar lives of failure because their parents couldn't afford the things needed to give them a decent chance at life. I've met very few people in my life why disagree with those core ideas, even if we may radically disagree on what constitutes a level field, or what methods are required to attain it.

(edited to fix some typos)

[voltaic]

Growing up in certain environments can lead to a Marxist outlook quite easily. Anyone interested should read about Che Guavara's childhood up through his early adult years. Anyways I think many people like some of the basic ideas of Marxism even if they are too ignorant to know it. Labor unions and other things you see Americans praising were basically instituted in the same era as complete philosophies based on a workers' revolution.

[Lizard_King]

Lizard, Rywill, and whoever else - mock away. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've arrived at my beliefs after long examination of the society I live in, and the way I think it should treat its citizens. I've feel no shame for the way I think. Why should I?

I wasn't even mocking you. I thought that was a pretty straight answer to your question. The only part that amused me was how it came about.

[Forum]: Boy there sure are some clear political dichotomies around here.
[quatoria]: THIS IS MY MANIFESTO. CAN I KISS YOUR BABY? GO AHEAD, LABEL ME YEAH YEAH.
[Me, Rywill, others]: Huh. Well. Um, yeah. I guess you're kind of a commie.
[quatoria]: Yes. I mean, No, my ideas actually represent the moderate mainstream. And anyway, UH UH, girlfriend (fingers snapping) you are NOT going to trample on my self esteem.
[voltaic]:Actually, Marxism isn't genetic. Also, commies are everywhere.

I really think we need a Hitler comparison to get things fired up.

EDIT FOR GRAMMAR

[quatoria]

Oh, believe me, man. I have no illusions that my ideas are mainstream. I have no need to feel mainstream. I placed myself at "1" on that political spectrum poll last week. I'm fully aware of where my ideas sit me in relation to the rest of the country, and am fine with it.

[Anders Hallin]

Oh, believe me, man. I have no illusions that my ideas are mainstream. I have no need to feel mainstream. I placed myself at "1" on that political spectrum poll last week. I'm fully aware of where my ideas sit me in relation to the rest of the country, and am fine with it.
I agreed with your opinions almost 100%, and I placed myself at 4. Says something about political climates in different countries.

[quatoria]

Frankly, Anders, in this country, just thinking that there should be regulation in place to keep companies from fucking us all - AFTER THEY GET CAUGHT FUCKING US - is an idea exiled to the "wacko liberal fringe." You're right - it does say a lot.

[voltaic]

[voltaic]:Actually, Marxism isn't genetic. Also, commies are everywhere.

Hahaha! Nice. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lizard_King]

Frankly, Anders, in this country, just thinking that there should be regulation in place to keep companies from fucking us all - AFTER THEY GET CAUGHT FUCKING US - is an idea exiled to the "wacko liberal fringe." You're right - it does say a lot.
Martyrs come in all faiths and sizes, I guess. Maybe you can get a nice hammer-n-sickle set instead of a cross.

[quatoria]

Well, gee, Lizard, it's certainly not an idea popular in the halls of government, since they've been deregulating since the 80's and plan to continue to do so. Does the recent FCC scandal ring a bell? How much jail time do you think Kenneth Lay will end up serving? So where is this idea popular, exactly?

[Lizard_King]

Well, gee, Lizard, it's certainly not an idea popular in the halls of government, since they've been deregulating since the 80's and plan to continue to do so.
Just because the opposition is ineffectual and often comical does not mean it isn't there, or that it's being silenced by anything other than a lack of credibility in their ideas. And just because one supports *most* deregulation does not make him an advocate of corporate corruption. A much better start would lie in simplification of tax codes and legal structures rather than more rules, for instance. Since the federal government as a whole has been setting the pace for accounting fraud in as long as I can remember, I think it is clear where the reckoning needs to begin before I consider more government oversight a positive thing.


Does the recent FCC scandal ring a bell? How much jail time do you think Kenneth Lay will end up serving?
Well, how much do you think most people that commit fraud of that sort end up serving? Or should he be punished above and beyond that because you need a target for anticorporate wrath?
Personally, I think the Enron debacle was a relatively inexpensive lesson, and even then people refuse to take responsibility for their own dumbass decisions. If you don't like risk and you can't be bothered to think too hard about just what kind of cockamamie companies you are investing in, you should be buying federal bonds, not stocks in edgy new business models engaged in hyperexpansion.


So where is this idea popular, exactly?
Forgive me, as I have not been gone long enough from the university environment to forget what it's like being surrounded by self-flagellating leftists that protest loudly even while they claim their dissent is being squelched and ignored. Someday, perhaps therapy can help me forget. Or at least drinking.

[quatoria]

Does the recent FCC scandal ring a bell? How much jail time do you think Kenneth Lay will end up serving?
Well, how much do you think most people that commit fraud of that sort end up serving? Or should he be punished above and beyond that because you need a target for anticorporate wrath?
Personally, I think the Enron debacle was a relatively inexpensive lesson, and even then people refuse to take responsibility for their own dumbass decisions. If you don't like risk and you can't be bothered to think too hard about just what kind of cockamamie companies you are investing in, you should be buying federal bonds, not stocks in edgy new business models engaged in hyperexpansion.

Jesus. If this is really your perspective - that people deserved to lose their life savings and that people who worked for the company deserved to lose their pensions, because they should have known that Lay and Enron were crooks - that being a close assosciate and confederate of the Presdident should mean nothing - then this is a pointless and futile discussion.



So where is this idea popular, exactly?
Forgive me, as I have not been gone long enough from the university environment to forget what it's like being surrounded by self-flagellating leftists that protest loudly even while they claim their dissent is being squelched and ignored. Someday, perhaps therapy can help me forget. Or at least drinking.

And that comment just seals the deal. What's the point in us talking to each other, Lizard? You can't read anything I write without filtering it through your perception and coming up with something radically off the mark, and beyond that, there's no mutual respect. You think I have no basis upon which to ground my ideas, and are contemptous of anyone holding a perspective even similar to mine, or any idea coming from them. I'm sure you see similar problems in me. What's the point of us even discussing these issues anymore?

And if two intelligent people, albeit with different perspectives, can't even fucking TALK TO EACH OTHER, how in the hell is anything ever going to get fixed in this country? Look at this thread. It's been one long string of misconceptions and overreactions. What's the fucking point?

[Lizard_King]

Jesus. If this is really your perspective - that people deserved to lose their life savings and that people who worked for the company deserved to lose their pensions, because they should have known that Lay and Enron were crooks - that being a close assosciate and confederate of the Presdident should mean nothing - then this is a pointless and futile discussion.
It's not the same as saying they deserved it, and I certainly hope that the guilty parties are dealt with. But to pretend the problem is purely on the company's side, rather than every Tom, Dick, and Harry deciding he's Gordon Gecko, then I shall have to disagree.


And that comment just seals the deal. What's the point in us talking to each other, Lizard? You can't read anything I write without filtering it through your perception and coming up with something radically off the mark, and beyond that, there's no mutual respect. You think I have no basis upon which to ground my ideas, and are contemptous of anyone holding a perspective even similar to mine, or any idea coming from them. I'm sure you see similar problems in me.
I really, really think you are overreacting, or possibly projecting. Do I have to include a Care Bear hug at the end of every post for you to not be offended by my attempts at levity? I was just trying to add some context ti my earlier crack, that's all.


What's the point of us even discussing these issues anymore?
I guess none, if you really feel that way.


And if two intelligent people, albeit with different perspectives, can't even fucking TALK TO EACH OTHER, how in the hell is anything ever going to get fixed in this country? Look at this thread. It's been one long string of misconceptions and overreactions. What's the fucking point?

Me, I learned a couple of things even if I didn't agree with them. Plus my ideas and preconceived notions were challenged and probably affected in the long run. So that's the fucking point of internet forums for me.

[quatoria]

Maybe I did overreact, then - I can't tell when you, specifically, are being sarcastic and joking, and when you're honesty being sincere in your dismissals. I'm glad to find out that you learned a couple things. My perception has certainly be altered about a couple points on these issues. Maybe it's just too late (early?) to be discussing issues like these. :D

[Lizard_King]

Maybe I did overreact, then - I can't tell when you, specifically, are being sarcastic and joking, and when you're honesty being sincere in your dismissals.
Odds are I am not dismissing someone, for whatever it's worth. I rarely do, and there's rarely a need around here.

And it's definitely too late.

[Gav]

Personally, I think the Enron debacle was a relatively inexpensive lesson, and even then people refuse to take responsibility for their own dumbass decisions.


You mean, like working for Enron? (You know, don't you, that Enron barred its employees from selling their stock when the price started falling?) If only they'd been smart enough to be the CEO of Enron! Then they'd have been just fine! (Umm, did I miss the part where Ken Lay et al took responsibility for their actions?)

Gav

[Lizard_King]

You mean, like working for Enron?
Yes. Especially like working for Enron.

(You know, don't you, that Enron barred its employees from selling their stock when the price started falling?)
Yes. And that's when I would have said "fuck you" and quit, if all the other things prior to that had not prompted me to. Look, I'm sorry they got mixed up in that big pyramid scheme. But it does not eliminate their responsibility for where they chose to place their funds, especially when they had first hand knowledge of the firm.



If only they'd been smart enough to be the CEO of Enron! Then they'd have been just fine! (Umm, did I miss the part where Ken Lay et al took responsibility for their actions?)


If only!

[Jason McCullough]

Personally, I think the Enron debacle was a relatively inexpensive lesson, and even then people refuse to take responsibility for their own dumbass decisions.

Do companies have any responsbility to tell the truth to their shareholders? Christ, are they supposed to subpeona the CEO to find out if he's making up numbers?

There's free markets, and then there's a free market religion.

[bmulligan]

There's free markets, and then there's a free market religion.

Way to group all free market advocates as supporters of corrupt CEO's.

Since some people can abuse their personal freedom, perhaps we should abandon the entire concept of letting people be free at all. Free markets doesn't necessarily mean we get rid of laws Jason.

[quatoria]

There's free markets, and then there's a free market religion.

Way to group all free market advocates as supporters of corrupt CEO's.

Since some people can abuse their personal freedom, perhaps we should abandon the entire concept of letting people be free at all. Free markets doesn't necessarily mean we get rid of laws Jason.

He wasn't. In fact, it seemed clear that he was differentiating between people who support the free market, and the freaks who believe that a free market is the perfect, self regulating entity, existing in a blessed homeostatis, incapable of error or malfunction - the solution to all problems. You don't plan to argue that those people don't exist, do you?