Conference back40::soapbox

 re:.72
> Did you read the book, Brandon, or is that your knee I see jerking?

You're ambulance-chasing Doc. No I have not read the book. I've read
a review and an op-ed article (some months ago now). But, you're flexible
enough not to require chapter and verse for everything so let's discuss
this on a non-condescending level.

True or False: One central theme of the book "The Bell Curve" (with a 
long sub-title) is that it posits a genetic reason for the ability to garner
and amass wealth.

That's bush.

    .True or False: One central theme of the book "The Bell Curve" (with a
    .long sub-title) is that it posits a genetic reason for the ability to
    .garner and amass wealth.
    
     The book posits two things: people who are more intelligent, on
    average, tend to amass more wealth. Furthermore, intelligence has a
    genetic component. 
    
    .That's bush.
    
     Meaning you don't like the conclusions. I'll tell you what. You pick
    100 people at random with an IQ of 85, and I'll pick 100 people at
    random with an IQ of 115, and we'll add up their net worths. What do
    you think the chances are of finding that your groups aggregate net
    worth is greater than mine?
    
     The conclusions make us uncomfortable. That, however, is not grounds
    for dismissing them out of hand (which is what the mainstream press has
    fallen over itself to do.)  Now maybe Occam's razor doesn't give us the
    right answer in this instance, but maybe it does. Dismissing this as
    bunk merely because does not want it to be so is not very rigorous.

          <<< Note 252.122 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Meaning you don't like the conclusions. I'll tell you what. You pick
>    100 people at random with an IQ of 85, and I'll pick 100 people at
>    random with an IQ of 115, and we'll add up their net worths. What do

Now that's stacking the deck, Doctah. You take 100 retarded folks and I'll 
take 100 folks with above average intelligence, and we'll compare income. 
How 'bout we each take 100 folks of, say, 100 and 105, or 110 and 115, 
which is prolly the disparity we're talking about.

But I have to admit, I haven't read or even perused the book. I plan to, 
though. 

    .Now that's stacking the deck, Doctah.
    
     Waitaminute! If IQ is unrelated to the accumulation of wealth, then it
    shouldn't matter. It's only "stacking the deck" is you believe that IQ
    is a factor, in which case you are halfway convinced about the book's
    conclusions.
    
     The problem with using a 5 point differential is that IQ is difficult
    to measure in the first place, and any differences in IQ could be
    attributed to measurement error. 85 and 115 are well within the fat
    part of the bell curve, but if it makes you happier we could use 90 and
    110. I still think I'd do better. :-)

    Re: 259.2:
    
    >The conclusions make us uncomfortable. That, however, is not grounds
    >for dismissing them out of hand (which is what the mainstream press has
    >fallen over itself to do.)  Now maybe Occam's razor doesn't give us the
    >right answer in this instance, but maybe it does. Dismissing this as
    >bunk merely because does not want it to be so is not very rigorous.
    
    I can't speak for the mainstream press, or anyone else, but what I 
    have heard regarding this publication begs the question "What are we
    supposed to *do* with this information?"  I think people are suspicious
    of `The Bell Curve' because the conclusions, even if true, don't seem to
    have any practical application outside of eugenics.
    

Re: <<< Note 259.5 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Joy Of Socks" >>>
    
>>    I can't speak for the mainstream press, or anyone else, but what I 
>>    have heard regarding this publication begs the question "What are we
>>    supposed to *do* with this information?"  I think people are suspicious
>>    of `The Bell Curve' because the conclusions, even if true, don't seem to
>>    have any practical application outside of eugenics.

If (everyone, please note the "if") true it might (everyone, please note the
"might") be a good argument for the dismantling of some parts of AA to increase
innovation in the American workforce, for one thing.

                              Roak

    Does every insight into the human condition require us to DO something?

    
    >Does every insight into the human condition require us to DO something?
    
    No, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that there are those who *will*
    DO something with this information, and I think it's a rocky road to
    turn down.  Too many people use this type of information to justify
    opinions or actions that do nothing to help the situation.  I can't see 
    *any* good coming from this, but I *can* see a whole lotta hurt, so I 
    just wonder what the point is.
    

    Implications of The Bell Curve?
    
    - should we be rethinking the role and scope of vocational education?
    
    - should we do much more to truly discourage out of wedlock births?
    
    - what should we be doing in terms of early childhood education?
    
    - can we really expect payback from all the Great Society $$$-outlay?
    
    and so on.

    
    If, (a very BIG if), we accept the conclusions of The Bell Curve, 
    Kansas City school system should have the Federal Order for school
    integration lifted instantly. Kansas City  has produced one of the 
    most expense school systems in the nation even attracting students 
    from suburbs. Yet, they are forced to appeal to US Supereme Court as 
    opponents claim that true integration is not complete simply because 
    the school board has created "equal opportunity" for quality education
    for all but must also be evident thru parity of SAT/Achievement scores 
    among students of all backgrounds. 
    If (another BIG if) intelligence has a genatic component, how can any
    school system fix it and what value the forced integration programs
    have.

re:.2

First of all, who gave you permission to move my note? Must be part of this
elitist power trip you're on. 

Second, this:

<<That's bush.
    >Meaning you don't like the conclusions.

is bush. Because it's bush. I'm not saying that people of a higher intelligence
level don't achieve higher earnings as a matter of course - I'm saying that
it is not intrinsically related and does not confer a quality of "superiority".
And the money::intelligence correlation is not indicative of any group's
potential.
It is a given fact that women have been paid less for the same job for years,
sometimes having greater credentials. So has it been with other ethnic
groups.
Using wealth alone as the barometer is bogus because there are so many
external factors involved:

	   o  How much does the societal infrastructure allow/maintain
	       opportunity to create/obtain wealth?

	   o  Does everyone in fact conform to the same standards,
	       obligations, liabilities in obtaining/maintaining wealth?

	   o  How much is an individual motivated by other goals and
	       do any directly or indirectly relate to the accrual of
	       wealth? How much does this motivation (let's call it...risk
	       for example -- haha I bet you thought I was going to say
	       greed didn't you?) account for their wealth?

	   o  What is the criteria for judging intelligence<-->wealth?
	       Is it 50K /year? 100K /year? Does intelligence fluctuate
	       when the value of the money does? 

I plan to investigate more along these lines:

1. Who are the richest men/families in the U.S?
2. How many of those inherited wealth?
3. How many started from poor backgrounds?
4. How did they acquire their wealth?
5. Did they engage in any activity which was/became illegal (i.e.
   monopolies, cheap/exploited labor, exploited resources) or was unethical?
  note: be sure to include bio John D. Rockefeller Sr: what did he do
	that made his son devote his life to cleaning up his image?)

You'll be hearing from me.

    	I'll take that challenge.  I'll select my 85-IQ pool from the
    	National Football League!
    
    	:^)

    
    You know, I recently saw a study at Univ of North Carolina was done
    to correlate college major subject with subsequent income.  The people
    doing the study were amazed that sociology came out WAY ahead of
    engineering, pre-law, even pre-med.  Then they figured it out.
    
    Michael Jordan, and the other UNC pro athletes mostly, were
    sociology majors.
    
      bb

re:-1 that's another factor.

The Market.

(I'd love to know the I.Q. of the person who marketed Pet Rocks.)

RE<<< Note 259.11 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

>I'm not saying that people of a higher intelligence
>level don't achieve higher earnings as a matter of course - I'm saying that
>it is not intrinsically related and does not confer a quality of "superiority".

  When Patty was going to law school the story went that those students who
got A's became law school professors, those who got B's became judges, and
those who got C's became millionaires.

  George

    
    One of the "genuine" issues raised by the book is this whole notion
    of a cognitive elite vs. a (presumed) underclass of cognitively feeble
    persons who cannot and never will be able to function sufficiently well
    to earn their own keep in a technological society.
    
    Is the H&M analysis really so off the wall? 
    
    

I read just the other day that Merrill Lynch is laying off a load of investment
bankers, analysts and such due to the poor performance of the bond market 
over the years. They must "cut costs". (Sound familiar?)

Now, maybe, if these people in the spare time (haha) developed another skill
(presuming they _had_ an interest  in another skill) that is hot in today's
market (lessee...where else can they pull down anywhere from 100,000-
500,000+ /year? Medicine? Too much specialized training needed...not to
mention a high vocational aptitude...what else, what else...POLITICS! Nah...
at the very least the soapbox crowd would despise your guts....hmmm...
SPORTS! ...nah...too old for that...) 

...it will be very interesting to see what directions these people go in. One
thing's for sure...if they have no savings to carry them through they certainly
won't be able to point to a intelligence<--->wealth correlation. By "Bell
Curve"' slights...they'll be on the downside. Dummies!


What about when the space program nose-dived? Physics experts and other
scientists were out there driving cabs. Guess their inherited intelligence wasn't
for S#!+ after that , eh?

     I'll ignore your whining opening.
    
    .is bush. Because it's bush. 
    
     Wow- that's a powerful argument. Insightful, cogent, well presented,
    brilliantly articulated and an impeccable delivery. What can I possibly
    say that will compare? Oh, I've got it. "Nuh uh."
    
    .I'm not saying that people of a higher intelligence
    .level don't achieve higher earnings as a matter of course
    
     And now you agree with half the proffered argument. Wow. I'm schizo
    and so am I. Hello? Is there anybody home?
    
    .it is not intrinsically related and does not confer a quality of
    ."superiority".
    
     No kidding. Nobody argued that it did. You are the first person to
    bring up the superiority gig. But judging from your limp accusations of
    "elitist power trips", you're having one helluva inferiority complex.
    Ok- I think this is where you offer to beat me up to assert your
    "superiority." GROW UP, BRANDON.
    
     

>  Wow- that's a powerful argument. Insightful, cogent, well presented,
> brilliantly articulated and an impeccable delivery. What can I possibly
>say that will compare? Oh, I've got it. "Nuh uh."

You condescendingly try to relegate my argument to an emotional level
then when I refute that you reject it as being without content.

You're a piece of work.

>And now you agree with half the proffered argument. Wow. I'm schizo
>and so am I. Hello? Is there anybody home?

From the review and op-ed I read I knew what the ultimate conclusion was 
leading and that is what I'm attacking. And you know it. You've gone from
trying to deny me legitimate criticism (which from your responses I presume
you've retracted) to taking my statements out of context. Fine. It's not like
it's never been done to me before. 

Ok. let me put an addendum: people of lower intelligence levels also make
higher earnings, for different reasons.

>  No kidding. Nobody argued that it did. You are the first person to
 >   bring up the superiority gig. 
>Ok- I think this is where you offer to beat me up to assert your
 > "superiority." GROW UP, BRANDON.

These arguments have a historical significance, from days of slavery,
from Hitlers assertion of the Aryan man...I'm very grown up. But I
wouldn't dream of offering to beat you up Doc, I'm a defender not an
offender (unless you're so hyper-sensitive about being called an elitist --
but honestly that's what a lot of your opinions remind me of. Let them
eat cake.

There was supposed to be a fight to prove superiority at the turn of the 
century, Jack Johnson against the "Great White Hope". It didn't prove it
then and it won't prove it today.
    

    

And if I called you, Doc, some of the things I've seen you call other peole
in this conference...I wouldn't be so quick to cast myself as a balanced
psychologist.

    If people with higher intelligence tend to amass more wealth, that
    implies that people with higher intelligence tend to rise to positions
    of corporate authority.  Somehow, that doesn't seem plausible....
    
    As I understand it, the book overlooks two factors.  First, there is a
    strong correlation between success and appearance; good-looking people
    just have an easier time of it.  So you have to consider how most
    minorities rank on the "standard" scale of attractiveness.  Second, we
    have self-fulfilling prophecies, the fact that people will live down to
    your expectations.  This could easily be a factor in why minority
    students don't perform as well, but they don't address it.

    .You condescendingly try to relegate my argument to an emotional level
    
     No relegation is necessary; you offer nothing beyond argument by
    assertion.
    
    .You've gone from trying to deny me legitimate criticism
    
     Nope. I did not make any mention whatsoever of your legitimate
    criticisms.
    
    .Ok. let me put an addendum: people of lower intelligence levels also
    .make higher earnings, for different reasons.
    
     And what might those be?
    
    .These arguments have a historical significance, from days of slavery,
    .from Hitlers assertion of the Aryan man...
    
     And this is who you're fighting, not the scholars who investigated
    this area and had the gall to publish their findings. How elitist of
    them to not keep their research to themselves!
    
     You sling labels around and then put on the innocent act. Nobody who
    is paying any attention at all is fooled.
    
     And STILL nobody is talking about superiority but you. I wonder why
    that is.

    
    I picked this one up in my hands at the store, skimmed, put it back.
    
    Any book with a bunch of appendices in statistician's jargon at the
    back, must be full of baloney.
    
      bb

And another thing. How dare you call my comment on moving my note whining.

It was a direct response to you're 252.72 which remains intact and looks as
though I never responded to it. You didn't even have the decency to append
your original statement to mine so that (talk about taking things out of
context) it looks like I never responded to you in the MLK string.

I resent that and I'm going to let you know about it.

Hey you know what Doc? I've already given my points of view and anyone
can dissect them any way they see fit. You've chosen to dismiss them -- 
without substantive counter-argument. So be it.

I'll still do the research I planned.

    
    In debate, all Napoleon wannabes do that.  Call it flaunting.
    
      bb

	.24 and .26

	what a coupla idjits

So that everybody knows where I stand with Mark Levesque alias "The Doctah"
(whom I will always refer to as "Doc" since I think the moniker is bogus) I
wish to state that originally in 259.11 I was half-kidding in the vein of his
points of view on this and other subjects. And I meant nothing personal
in calling him "elitist". 

I still don't think I was whining and won't bore the rest of you with that
offline discussion.

I still stand by everything else I've posted.

    
    re, .27 - But, Di.  The Doc was citing some book full of numbers
    to prove that them's as got, oughts to.  Then he pulls rank, to
    show he's a mod by blood.  Sorry, into each Bonaparte's day, a
    little Waterloo must fall...
    
      bb

	.29 what utter nonsense.  starting a new note because a rathole
	is forming is pulling rank to prove something?  get real, dear man.
	sheesh.

    .The Doc was citing some book full of numbers to prove that them's 
    .as got, oughts to.
    
     No, that's not what was going on. Brandon attacked a book he hasn't
    read based on an op-ed piece, and I asked him a couple of pointed
    questions about the postulates advanced by the book. My opinion of the
    conclusions reached is nowhere to be found here.
    
    .Then he pulls rank
    
     Pulls rank? What, for moving the string to a separate note (special
    prosecutor! special prosecutor!), or for getting pissed off for the
    unfair and unwarranted accusation of being on an elitist power trip?
    
     Prolly the latter, given your willingness to sling the same mud.

Give it a rest Doc. We both know where we're coming from now. And I'm
sure you'll E-mail me special delivery before you move one of my notes.

>>>>>>>>>> Smiley face alert! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<


	:-)

|   I'll tell you what. You pick 100 people at random with an IQ of 85, and
|   I'll pick 100 people at random with an IQ of 115, and we'll add up
|   their net worths. What do you think the chances are of finding that
|   your groups aggregate net worth is greater than mine?              
    
    I'll tell you what.  You pick 100 people at random with an age of 6,
    and I'll pick 100 people at random with an age of 60, and we'll add
    up their net worths.  What do you think the chances are of finding that
    your group's aggregate net worth is greater than mine?
    
    								-mr. bill

>The Doc was citing some book full of numbers to prove that them's as got,
>oughts to. 

Most concise evaluation of this particular "genuine" issue I've seen. Notice,
though we haven't read the book cover to cover no proponent has disputed
this on any substantive grounds. They just say "You're wrong! They did
research that's all!"

RE: 259.2 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> The book posits two things: people who are more intelligent, on average, 
> tend to amass more wealth. Furthermore, intelligence has a genetic component.

Notice that both of these statements can be true and the book's conclusions
can be wrong.  People with more wealth have children that get better
upbringing,  and better upbringing will cause better scores,  and having
wealthy parents is the easiest way to be wealthy.  In other words,  wealth
has a "genetic" component.

But that's not my real problem with the book.  Intelligence can NOT be 
meaningfully measured by any single number.  As an example,  let us define 
intelligence as the ability to solve a problem,  with higher intelligence 
being the ability to solve problems faster,  and to solve more problems.  
The problem of gaining wealth and holding wealth is a problem,  just like 
any other class of problem,  and we could rank the population on 
"intelligence" based solely on the percentage gain /loss of wealth.  If we do 
this,  we find that the richest group are more likely to lose wealth than 
to gain more,  and the poorest group are more likely to gain wealth than 
to lose it.  This leads to the conclusion that the poor are smarter than
the rich.

Of course,  the example is bogus,  as the problem of doubling your wealth
is a lot easier when you own only the shirt on your back than when you own
Microsoft.

My suggestion is that society should NOT try to decide in advance who the 
"most intelligent" are.


Phil

    -1 that's absolutely correct. hell, everyone know that the only true
       measure of intelligence is how often an individual notes in the
       'box!!! :-)
    
       Chip

    
    I believe a lot of one person's CHARACTER is genetic. And charcter,
    in my book, contibutes far more to 'success' than intelligence. 
    
    I don't doubt that intelligence is partly genetic. But how much does
    your parents' intelligence contribute to your own ? I'm talking of the
    genetic code. 
    The beneficial effect of good nutrition and an encouraging environment
    to grow up in should never be neglected.
    
    Heiko

    Re .21:
    
    > As I understand it, the book overlooks two factors.
    
    Did you read it?
    
    > First, there is a strong correlation between success and appearance;
    > good-looking people just have an easier time of it.
    
    The authors state that many factors affect success.  In what way do you
    posit a correlation between success and appearance counters the
    correlation between intelligence and success?
    
    > Second, we have self-fulfilling prophecies, the fact that people will
    > live down to your expectations.  This could easily be a factor in why
    > minority students don't perform as well, but they don't address it.
    
    Again, the authors explore many things that affect success,
    intelligence, education, and so forth.  Why do you believe they don't
    address this?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .35:
    
    > People with more wealth have children that get better upbringing, 
    > and better upbringing will cause better scores,  and having wealthy
    > parents is the easiest way to be wealthy.  In other words,  wealth has
    > a "genetic" component.
    
    Did you read the book?  Controlling for socio-economic status is the
    most regular factor the authors examine; nearly every relationship is
    examined to determine what that relationship is for people of equal
    socio-economic status.  E.g., they don't compare "success" of 100-IQ
    people to success of 115-IQ people -- they compare "success" of 100-IQ
    people from average parents to 115-IQ people from average parents, et
    cetera.
    
    > Intelligence can NOT be  meaningfully measured by any single number. 
    > . . . . The problem of gaining wealth and holding wealth is a
    > problem,  just like  any other class of problem,  and we could rank the
    > population on  "intelligence" based solely on the percentage gain /loss
    > of wealth.  If we do  this,  we find that the richest group are more
    > likely to lose wealth than  to gain more,  and the poorest group are
    > more likely to gain wealth than  to lose it.  This leads to the
    > conclusion that the poor are smarter than the rich.
    
    a) Your example is flawed because it defines "gaining and holding" as
    a problem, but then rates people only on the "gaining" part.
    
    b) If something like this were to be used as a measure of intelligence,
    testers would obviously compensate for external factors affecting test
    score, such as wealth at the beginning of the test period.
    
    c) Even if we grant that your example were some sort of measure of
    intelligence, it wouldn't support the conclusion that no single number
    meaningfully measures intelligence; you haven't shown how this
    hypothetical measure would conflict with other measures.
    
    In fact, there is no single number that describes all of intelligence,
    but there is a strong common factor on all intelligence tests,
    including those that are steeped in culture and those that are
    culture-fair, those that are visual, those that are numeric, those that
    are verbal, and so on.  There just isn't any explanation for the
    correlation seen over and over again between all different types of
    intelligence tests except that there is some common component to
    much of intelligence.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re: .38
    
    >Did you read it?
    
    No.  If I had, I wouldn't have used the qualifier "as I understand it." 
    I have read a couple of in-depth analyses of the book.
    
    >In what way do you posit a correlation between success and appearance 
    >counters the correlation between intelligence and success?
    
    "Counters"?  I haven't made such a claim.  But if they don't account
    for all the factors, we can't be certain that they have given the
    proper weight to the factors they have examined.
    
    >Why do you believe they don't address this?
    
    Because its absence was discussed in the analyses I've read.

    Re .40:
    
    > But if they don't account for all the factors, we can't be certain
    > that they have given the proper weight to the factors they have
    > examined.
    
    That's like saying if we haven't checked for hooks and wires holding
    all the planets up, we can't be certain we have given the proper weight
    to the law of gravitation.  Just once I'd like to see a critic of
    Herrnstein and Murray actually report an experiment that measured a
    critic's hypothesis or even just suggest an experiment that could be
    performed to test a hypothesis.  Instead, critic after critic just
    creates hypotheses with all the substances of ghosts and other
    apparititions and dangles them for the public to see as if the
    existence of fabricated explanations in themselves constituted
    rebuttal.
    
    > Because its absence was discussed in the analyses I've read.
    
    Well, having read the book and seen some such analyses, I can pretty
    much tell you they are wrong.  The book exhaustively considers all
    sorts of factors, and what is printed about it is often just flat
    wrong.  E.g., _Scientific American_ printed a "debunking" article which
    said, in essence, "According to Herrnstein and Murray, factor X CANNOT
    explain event Y", but I located the corresponding section of _The Bell
    Curve_, and what it actually said was "... the main point is that the
    hypothesis about the special circumstances of American blacks
    depressing their test scores IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED by the African data".
    These are very different; Herrnstein and Murray don't say there isn't
    another explanation; they say the other explanation isn't supported by
    the data -- which is proper science:  create hypothesis, test it.  And
    this was after _Scientific American_ spent more words trashing the
    quality of the data than Herrnstein and Murray spent examining it --
    even if _Scientific American_ is completely correct that the data is
    worthless, Herrnstein and Murray's statement that it does not
    substantiate the hypothesis is still true.
    
    Worse than that, not a single report I've seen even properly states the
    principal theme of the book.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re: .41
    
    >That's like saying if we haven't checked for hooks and wires holding
    >all the planets up, we can't be certain we have given the proper weight
    >to the law of gravitation.
    
    Not really.  Physics is far more deterministic than social behavior.
    
    >hypothesis about the special circumstances of American blacks
    >depressing their test scores IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED by the African data".
    
    My understanding is that "special circumstances" dealt with issues of
    language and culture, not with the issue of lowered expectations.

    Re .42:
    
    > Not really.  Physics is far more deterministic than social behavior.
    
    Not really.  We just know more about physics at the moment.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I'll be entering some excerpts from _The Bell Curve_ here.  The first
    is for the benefit of people who haven't even seen the book.  While the
    media would have you think the book is about intelligence and race,
    race actually plays very little role in the book; it isn't even
    addressed until chapter 13.  The actual theme of the book is given by
    its subtitle:
    
              Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
    
    And here's some text from the jacket:

         The major purpose of The Bell Curve is to reveal the dramatic
         transformation that is currently in process in American
         society--a process that has created a  new kind of class
         structure led by a "cognitive elite," itself a result of
         concentration and self-selection in those social pools well
         endowed with cognitive abilities. This transformation, sadly,
         has its opposite: the perpetuation of a class of people
         deficient in these endowments and abilities, and increasingly
         doomed to labor, if they find work at all, outside the
         information economy.
    
         Our public policy refuses to acknowledge the proofs of human
         difference, or to deal with its consequences. With relentless
         and unassailable thoroughness, Herrnstein and Murray for the
         first time show that a wide range of intractable social
         problems, the decisive correlation is between a high
         incidence of the problem and the low intelligence of those
         who suffer from it: this holds for school dropouts,
         unemployment, work-related injury, out of wedlock births, and
         many other social problems. Though we stubbornly deny it,
         these social problems correlate to a significant degree with
         intelligence.
    
         Only by facing up to this undeniable news can we begin to
         accurately assess the nation's problems and make realistic
         plans for addressing them. That means in the first instance
         accepting that there are great differences in intelligence
         between groups of people, as well as among individuals in any
         group. Just as important, it also means learning that these
         group differences do not justify prejudicial assumptions
         about any member of a given group whose intelligence and
         potential may, in fact, be anywhere under the bell curve of
         intelligence from the dullest to the most brilliant. But it
         does mean we must have the courage to revise what we can talk
         about in public. This book is the first important step toward
         that difficult but necessary goal.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                      

    I just sprang for this book and have waded in.  Forget the race
    issue and look at the really disturbing news around topics such as low birth
    weight, children and poverty, unwed motherhood, etc.
    
    
    

    re: -1
    
     Heretic! Hasn't that book been duly discredited by all the usual
    suspects?

    Well poisonally, I would *never* trust anyfing written even partially
    by the late Prof. Dr. Richard J. Herrnstein.  The guy was my first
    Psychology professor back in his & my youth, at Harvard, 1961.  A more
    arrogant & pompous & logic-rules-all,-other-cognitive-styles-be-damned
    personality cannot be imagined.  I may be intellectually lazy but I
    discounted the book's thesis as soon as I saw the authors.  I know zip
    about Charles Murray -- at least I did when the flap began; since
    hearing him on NPR I know little more save that he too seems to have
    signed up in the clueless club.  Prolly was a prerequisite of
    DickyBoy's giving him the time of day.
    
    

    A case in point.

    Re .47:
    
    > A more arrogant & pompous & logic-rules-all,-other-cognitive-
    > styles-be-damned personality cannot be imagined.  I may be
    > intellectually lazy but I discounted the book's thesis as soon as I saw
    > the authors.
    
    Geez, talk about other-cognitive-styles-be-damned, wow.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    From pages xxi-xxii:
    
                            Here is our story:
    
    A great nation, founded on principles of individual liberty and
    self-government that constitute the crowning achievement of statecraft
    approaches the end of the twentieth century. Equality of rights--
    another central principle--has been implanted more deeply and more
    successfully than in any other society in history. Yet even as the
    principle of equal rights triumphs, strange things begin to happen to
    two small segments of the population.
    
    In one segment, life gets better in many ways. The people in this group
    are welcomed at the best colleges, then at the best graduate and
    professional schools, regardless of their parents' wealth. After they
    complete their education, they enter fulfilling and prestigious
    careers. Their incomes continue to rise even when income growth
    stagnates for everyone else. By their maturity, these fortunate ones
    commonly have six-figure incomes. Technology works in their behalf,
    expanding their options and their freedom, putting unprecedented
    resources at their command, enhancing their ability to do what they
    enjoy doing. And as these good things happen to them, they gravitate to
    one another, increasingly enabled by their affluence and technology to
    work together and live in one another's company--and in isolation from
    everybody else.
    
    In the other group, life gets worse and its members collect at the
    bottom of society. Poverty is severe, drugs and crime are rampant, and
    the traditional family all but disappears. Economic growth passes them
    by. Technology is not a partner in their lives but an electronic
    opiate. They live together in urban centers or scattered in rural
    backwaters, but their presence hovers over the other parts of town and
    countryside as well, creating fear and resentment in the rest of
    society that is seldom openly expressed but festers nonetheless.

    Re: .50
    
    >After they complete their education, they enter fulfilling and
    >prestigious careers. 
    
    "Prestigious"?  Let's see, my sister is an assistant in the ship plans
    department at Mystic Seaport.  I had no idea the job was so highly
    regarded.  Me, I'm just an engineer.  I suppose it's a prestigious
    field, but mine is not exactly a prestigious job.
    
    I guess intelligent people are smart enough to have natural aptitudes
    in fields which society considers prestigious.  Or else they're sharp
    enough to discard their natural inclinations for areas in which they'll
    reap the big bucks, not to mention fame.
    
    I really wonder how the book's description will hold up ten years from
    now, given the differences between the yuppie 80s and the slacker 90s.
    
    >Their incomes continue to rise even when income growth stagnates for 
    >everyone else.
    
    No, I went through the wage freeze like everyone else.

    re .48/.49
    
    O, but I yam slain.
    
    :-)
    

    Re .51:
    
    > "Prestigious"?  Let's see, my sister is an assistant in the ship plans
    > department at Mystic Seaport.
    
    Page 68:
    
         For virtually every topic we will be discussing throughout
         the rest of the book, a plot of the raw data would reveal as
         many or more exceptions to the general statistical
         relationship, and this must always be remembered in trying to
         translate the general rule to individuals.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    The next two quotes from _The Bell Curve_ pertain to an interesting
    effect of trying to equalize things for everybody.  If intelligence (or
    anything for that matter) is some percentage environment and some
    percentage genetic, and then you successfully make the environment
    identical for everybody, then there won't be any differences in
    intelligence due to environment.  The remaining differences in
    intelligence will be totally genetic.
    
    Page 91:
         
         Cognitive ability is a function of both genes and
         environment, with implications for egalitarian social
         policies. The more we succeed in giving every youngster a
         chance to develop his or her latent cognitive ability, the
         more we equalize the environmental sources of differences in
         intelligence. The irony is that as America equalizes the
         circumstances of people's lives, the remaining differences in
         intelligence are increasingly determined by differences in
         genes. Meanwhile, high cognitive ability means, more than
         ever before, that the chances of success in life are good and
         getting better all the time. Putting it all together, success
         and failure in the American economy, and all that goes with
         it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people
         inherit.
         
    Page 106:
         
         As a general rule, as environments become more uniform,
         heritability rises. When heritability rises, children
         resemble their parents more, and siblings increasingly
         resemble each other; in general, family members become more
         similar to each other and more different from people in other
         families. It is the central irony of egalitarianism:
         Uniformity in society makes the members of families more
         similar to each other and members of different families more
         different.
    
    Think about the consequences this has.  If environment shuffles people
    around somewhat, there's a mixture of people throughout society.  Even
    if fewer intelligent people are poor, there are still at least some
    intelligent people among the poor and other groups -- every social
    group has diverse resources in its people, people with various skills
    that contribute to the group and take part in it.  But when society
    equalizes everything to the point where almost any intelligent person
    can get the scholarship funds to get an education, then intelligent
    people can leave the groups they are born in.  That's great for them,
    but what does it do for the groups?  What effect does it have on
    society?
         
         
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
            

    Re: .53
    
    I'm not done with "prestigious."  Are there any "prestigious" careers
    that _don't_ require a college degree?  Athletics and the creative arts
    are the only things that come to mind, and one could easily argue that
    the prime requisite for success is not cognitive ability.  One could
    also point out that successful people in those fields acquire more
    money and prestige that people in fields which do require significant
    cognitive ability.

    Re: .54
    
    >as environments become more uniform,
    
    Presumably they then go on to explain how environments are becoming
    more uniform.  I would be very interested to see if they argue that
    environments are largely uniform, and if so, how they justify such
    a claim.

    .54
    
    >As a general rule, as environments become more uniform,
    >heritability rises. When heritability rises, children
    >resemble their parents more, and siblings increasingly
    >resemble each other; in general, family members become more
    >similar to each other and more different from people in other
    >families.
    
    this troubles me, but i'm not fully clear how the term "heritability"
    is being used. care to post an explanation from the book ?
    
    ric

    Re .55:
    
    Read the book.
    
    
    Re .56:
    
    > Presumably they then go on to explain how environments are becoming
    > more uniform.
    
    Among other things, they show how more people are going to college than
    ever before and, among the people highest in intelligence, almost all
    of them go to college regardless of their socioeconomic status, a
    tremendous change from earlier this century.
    
    > I would be very interested . . .
    
    Since you're interested, read the book.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >Since you're interested read the book
    
    i haven't seen it over here (UK)
    
    in the interim, if you would be so kind ....
    
    ric

    >Are there any "prestigious" careers that _don't_ require a college degree? 
    
    some of the best computer people I know are not college grads; they
    trained on the job and have made it despite the degree prejudice that
    often shows up in the field.
    
    DougO

Members of the harem work with UNIX.

    at least you can be fairly certain that members of the harem don't work
    *under* UNIX...

>    at least you can be fairly certain that members of the harem don't work
>    *under* UNIX...

And, judging from several porting efforts, little else does, either . . . 


:^)

Oh! Sorry! Wrong topic!

    Re: .58
    
    >Read the book.
    
    There seems to me to be a contradiction in attitudes, here.  First you
    type in selected passages, so we don't have to read them in the book,
    and then you say to read the book.
    
    You volunteered to be their champion, not their bookseller....

    Re .65:
    
    > First you type in selected passages, so we don't have to read them in
    > the book, and then you say to read the book.
    
    Reading selected passages from the book is not the same as reading the
    book.  Why would you think there is any contradiction?  Do you think
    you can get everything in the book, or even a significant portion of
    it, just from a few passages?
    
    Selected passages balance what the media has misreported about the
    book, and they present suggestions about what you can find by reading
    the rest of the book.  They don't replace it.
    
    Read the book before you comment on it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                           

    Page 127:
    
    How does each of these causes of poverty [being born poor or having low
    intelligence] look when the other is held constant? Or to put it
    another way: If you have to choose, is it better to be born smart or
    rich? The answer is unequivocally "smart." A white youth reared in a
    home in which the parent or parents were chronically unemployed, worked
    at only the most menial of jobs, and had not gotten past ninth grade,
    but of just average intelligence--an IQ of 100--has nearly a 90 percent
    chance of being out of poverty by his or her early 30s. Conversely, a
    white youth born to a solid middle-class family but with an IQ
    equivalently below average faces a much higher risk of poverty, despite
    his more fortunate background.

    Re: .67
    
    >is it better to be born smart or rich?
    >...
    >Conversely, a white youth born to a solid middle-class family
    
    "Solid middle-class" is rich?  Well, I guess that explains what people
    have been saying about the Clinton tax plan....

Moderators!  .67 is a forgery.  There's no PGP cybercrud.

|        For virtually every topic we will be discussing throughout
|        the rest of the book, a plot of the raw data would reveal as
|        many or more exceptions to the general statistical
|        relationship, and this must always be remembered in trying to
|        translate the general rule to individuals.
    
|   Or to put it another way: If you have to choose, is it better to be
|   born smart or rich? The answer is unequivocally "smart."
    
    I guess the authors forgot to always remember.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .68:
    
    You missed that the "smart" alternative was a 100 IQ, also average. 
    Regardless, these two possibilities were presented as examples; data
    covering more of the spectrum is presented in a graph, and the
    conclusive statistical data is presented in an appendix.  You'd know
    that if you read the book instead of taking potshots at excerpts.
    
    
    Re. 70:
    
    No, the example given does not contradict the rule.  The example did
    not present a choice between selecting one of two specific people do
    be; it presented a hypothetical compelled choice between two
    attributes.  The only way to judge between such attributes is to use
    the statistical data.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .57:
    
    From Merriam-Webster's:  "heritable adj 1 : capable of being inherited
    or of passing by inheritance 2 : HERIDTARY -- heritability n".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 166:
    
    Condescension toward these men [chronically unemployed in the bottom 5
    percent of the IQ distribution] is not in order, nor are glib
    assumptions that those who are cognitively disadvantaged cannot be
    productive citizens. The world is statistically tougher for them than
    for others who are more fortunate, but most of them are overcoming the
    odds.

    >>You'd know
    >>that if you read the book instead of taking potshots at excerpts.

	This is ridiculous, edp.  Chelsea's right - if you're going to
	post excerpts, expect some discussion about them - don't just
	tell everybody to go read the book.

    
    RE: .74
    
    Agreed.....
    
    
    Why doesn't it surprise me though?
    

    Pages 187-188:
    
    To put the question in operational terms: Among NLSY [National
    Longitudinal Survey of Youth] white mothers who were below the poverty
    line in the year prior to giving birth, what proportion of the babies
    were born out of wedlock? The answer is 44 percent. Among NLSY white
    mothers who were anywhere above the poverty line in the year before
    giving birth, what proportion of the babies were born out of wedlock?
    The answer is only 6 percent. It is a huge difference and makes a prima
    facie case for those who argue that poverty itself, presumably via the
    welfare system, is an important cause of illegitimacy.
    
    Page 191:
    
    The link is confirmed in the NLSY. Over three-quarters of the white
    women who were on welfare within a year of the birth of their first
    child came from the bottom quartile of IQ, compared to 5 percent from
    the top quartile.

    
    
    Poverty is NOT a cause of illegitemacy, except maybe in prostitution
    rings....Get a grip here!
    

    Re .74:
    
    > Chelsea's right - if you're going to post excerpts, expect some
    > discussion about them - don't just tell everybody to go read the book.
    
    I didn't criticize Chelsea for discussion; I criticized Chelsea for
    taking potshots.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .77:
    
    And your data in support of that contention is what?  How do you
    explained the observed phenomena?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Re: .79
    
    Personal experience......
    
    
    Terrie
    

    	re .79

    	Ask George Maewski about umbrellas and rain...  :^)

    	Personally I believe that poverty has an effect on illegitimacy,
    	but not in and of itself.  Were a middle-class family to be
    	thrust into poverty, I suspect that the kids of that family
    	would not be any more apt to sire/birth illegitimate offspring
    	than had they not been thrust into poverty.  But had that family
    	been 2nd, 3rd, 4th-generation poverty family, then I expect that
    	those children would be mor apt to have illegitimate kids.
    
    	I see a "poverty culture" that can contribute to this.  A decreased
    	sense of "family name" to protect.  Nothing to lose.  Hopelessness.

      <<< Note 259.81 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

You're exactly right, Joe. That's why your preaching "family values" as an 
alternative to abortion will always fall on deaf ears.

Care for the lives already born, and the unborn problem will take care of 
itself (mostly). Your whole thesis about pregnancies out of wedlock 
CAUSING poverty is out the window, by your own statement. 

re .82

How come you waste network bandwidth and compute resources by routing
through node "HUMANE"?

/john

             <<< Note 259.83 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


>How come you waste network bandwidth and compute resources by routing
>through node "HUMANE"?

Because my node doesn't recognize the 'box node directly. I have to force 
it through another, known node. I've asked our sysman to fix this, but he 
hasn't yet. 

If you have another, more efficient solution, I'd welcome it, John.

TOm

19621::soapbox

    Re: .71
    
    >these two possibilities were presented as examples
    
    Examples which didn't do the best job of supporting the theory.
    
    >instead of taking potshots at excerpts
    
    If you don't want people commenting on excerpts, don't post them.  Or
    post more complete ones, that don't leave the authors looking like they
    don't know how to support an argument.

    Re .86:
    
    > Examples which didn't do the best job of supporting the theory.
    
    They aren't intended to support the theory; they aren't examples of
    data from which the theory or correlations are derived.  They are
    examples given to illustrate the theory -- they demonstrate its
    implications.  Thus, those particular examples come from the theory,
    not the other way around.
    
    >> instead of taking potshots at excerpts
    > 
    > If you don't want people commenting on excerpts, don't post them.
    
    As I wrote already, I criticized you for taking potshots, not for
    commenting.                                        
    
    > Or post more complete ones, . . .
    
    Hey, here's an idea.  If you want more complete text, you could, hmm,
    gee, I don't know, how about, maybe, read the book?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 197:

    But among never-married mothers (all races) who had their babies in
    their teens, the average time on welfare is eight or more years,
    depending on the sample being investigated.

    Re: .87
    
    >They are examples given to illustrate the theory
    
    Same deal.  It's poor writing, at the very least.
    
    >I criticized you for taking potshots
    
    I prefer to think of it as quality control.
    
    >If you want more complete text, you could, hmm, gee, I don't know, how 
    >about, maybe, read the book?
    
    Oh, stop already.  If you wanted to have a real discussion, you would
    enter a point of view, instead of just putting in quotes.  But this
    way, if anyone says anything, you can just say "Read the book."  You
    don't have to defend a position.  You don't have to do any real work.
    
    Since you're not prepared to discuss anything about what you enter, the
    only reason to enter the quotes is to get people to read the book --
    which borders on solicitation.  That's not what Soapbox is for.

	.82
    
>You're exactly right, Joe. That's why your preaching "family values" as an 
>alternative to abortion will always fall on deaf ears.
    
    	Family Values is more than just abortion issues, and you should
    	be well aware of that by now.
    
    	In fact, Family Values is also an alternative to the povery
    	culture that I suggested in .81.
    
>Your whole thesis about pregnancies out of wedlock 
>CAUSING poverty is out the window, by your own statement. 

	I disagree.  First of all I never argued that out-of-wedlock
    	pregnancies CAUSE poverty in and of itself.  Yes, it is a part
    	of it, but not THE cause.  Just as your treatment of "family
    	values" is way too simplistic, so too is your understanding
    	of any cause-and-effect position I have made.
    
    	Secondly, out-of-wedlock pregnancies has become a part of the
    	poverty culture.  It contributes to a vicious cycle, and therefore
    	cannot simply be tossed out the window (nor so simply separated
    	and considered in isolation) as you seem to want to do.

    Re .89:
    
    > If you wanted to have a real discussion, you would enter a point of
    > view, instead of just putting in quotes.
    
    Who says I want to have a discussion?  There are other purposes to
    entering notes.  Maybe I think it's a good idea people got a view of
    what's really in the book, versus what the press has reported.  Maybe
    I've even written that before.  And I don't have to engage in a
    conversation about the book to do that.  Maybe if I have more time
    later, I'll do that.  Maybe I won't.
    
    > But this way, if anyone says anything, you can just say "Read the
    > book."
    
    There's an idea.  Since you seem to want to have some sort of
    discussion, maybe you could read the book and then actually discuss
    something you have the slightest clue about.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 200:

    As social scientists often do, we have spent much effort burrowing
    through analyses that ultimately point to simple conclusions. Here is
    how a great many parents around America have put it to their daughters:
    Having a baby without a husband is a dumb thing to do. Going on welfare
    is an even dumber thing to do, if you can possibly avoid it. And so it
    would seem to be among white women in the NLSY. White women who
    remained childless or had babies within marriage had a mean IQ of 105.
    Those who had an illegitimate baby but never went on welfare had a mean
    IQ of 98. Those who went on welfare but did not become chronic
    recipients had a mean IQ of 92. Altogether, almost a standard deviation
    separated the IQs of white women who became chronic welfare recipients
    from those who remained childless or had children within marriage.

    Prez. of Rutgers U. has stated that minorities are unable to do well on
    entrance exams due to genetically and socially inferior qualities which
    has an adverse effect on intelligence.  Students are protesting, no
    school at Rutgers possibly today and the U MASS/Rutgers game was
    disrupted by 100 or so protesters sitting down at center court.  Should
    be interesting to see if The Bell Curve comes up in the ensuing
    discussion and hoo hah over this.  
    
    Brian

    Page 203:

    Taking these data together, the NLSY results say clearly that high IQ
    is by no means a prerequisite for being a good mother. The disquieting
    finding is that the worst environments for raising children, of the
    kind that not even the most resilient children can easily overcome, are
    concentrated in the homes in which the mothers are at the low end of
    the intelligence distribution.

    Re: .91
    
    >Who says I want to have a discussion?
    
    That _is_ the purpose of Soapbox, after all.

    You can't tell by reading the notes here.

    Re .95:
    
    >> Who says I want to have a discussion?
    > 
    > That _is_ the purpose of Soapbox, after all.

    That doesn't answer the question.  Who says I want to have a
    discussion?  Who says Soapbox's purpose is my purpose?
    
    I've told you why I'm entering the excerpts.  If you don't like it,
    that's tough.
    
    On the other hand, who says I don't want to have a discussion?  Maybe
    I'm just looking for intelligent discussion.  Taking potshots is not
    intelligent discussion.
    
    If you're afraid of being solicited, try finding _The Bell Curve_ in a
    library instead of a bookstore.  You won't have to pay a penny.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re: .97
    
    >Taking potshots is not intelligent discussion.
    
    "Taking potshots" again.  If someone argues their point poorly, it's a
    "potshot" to criticize that, then?  I disagree.
    
    But, I should point out that brief excerpts lend themselves to brief
    comments -- what you seem inclined to call potshots.  It's difficult to
    have a sustained debate over the literary equivalent of sound bites. 
    Context frequently becomes relevant right away, and sound bites don't
    have much of it.
    
    As for discussion, why don't you put forth a coherent point of view?  
    The only stake you've put in the ground is that the book has been
    misunderstood by those who have criticized it.  However, you haven't
    gone to the trouble of putting together a fully synthesized defense of
    your point of view.  You sprinkle quotes around, but you don't bother
    tying them to any improper criticisms.
    
    So, where things stand are:  you might not want a discussion (in which
    case, you're just posturing), you might want a discussion (in which
    case, you've done a poor job of inviting and developing one), but until
    such time as you're prepared to let us know which it is, you're just
    wanking around.
    
    Gosh, what a needed contribution.

    Can we say "wanking around"?

    Snarf!

    Re .98:
    
    > "Taking potshots" again.  If someone argues their point poorly, it's a
    > "potshot" to criticize that, then?  I disagree.

    Who are you disagreeing with?  I never maintained that it is a potshot
    to criticize poor arguments.  So you are not disagreeing with anything
    I said.  However, it is a potshot to take comments out of context and
    misrepresent them.
    
    > But, I should point out that brief excerpts lend themselves to brief
    > comments -- what you seem inclined to call potshots.
    
    To a lazy person, perhaps that is true.  Other people, upon reading an
    excerpt which apparently interests them so, might be inclined to read
    the book.
    
    > As for discussion, why don't you put forth a coherent point of view?  
    
    Why "as for discussion"?  I've already told you I don't necessarily
    care for discussion.  Did you not understand that?
    
    > The only stake you've put in the ground is that the book has been
    > misunderstood by those who have criticized it.
    
    I have not said that.  I said the book has been misrepresented.  That
    does not mean the misrepresenters misunderstood it.
    
    > You sprinkle quotes around, but you don't bother tying them to any
    > improper criticisms.
    
    Why is there any need to tie a correct representation of the book to
    incorrect representations?  I have no interest in proving that any
    particular party did in fact misrepresent the book.  It serves my
    purpose that some people will be exposed to accurate excerpts from the
    book.  It is beneficial that this knowledge be made available.  What
    purpose would be served in proving that somebody else did something
    bad?  Perhaps somebody might want to harm the media responsible for
    such mistakes, but I do not have that purpose.
    
    You keep incorrectly ascribing motives to me.  I'm simply showing
    people what is actually in the book.  Why is that so troublesome to
    you?
    
    > . . . but until such time as you're prepared to let us know which . .
    > .
    
    "Which"?  Why must it be either?  It is incorrect for you to assume so. 
    There are alternatives, such as the one I have explicitly given
    repeatedly, that you continue to ignore:  My purpose is not related at
    all to wanting or not wanting a discussion.  My purpose is simply to
    exhibit what is actually in the book.  Can you not comprehend that?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
         

    Re: .101
    
    >it is a potshot to take comments out of context
    
    Nope.  I didn't take them out of the context in which they were
    presented.  If they were taken out of context of the whole, you have
    only yourself to blame.
    
    >misrepresent them.
    
    Nope.
    
    >To a lazy person
    
    This from someone who can't be bothered to construct a coherent
    statement of position.
    
    >I've already told you I don't necessarily care for discussion.
    
    I'm covering all the bases -- which include the possibility that you
    might care for discussion (something you've stated yourself).
    
    >I said the book has been misrepresented.
    
    So, you're attributing malice instead of stupidity.  Fine.  That
    doesn't change the rest of my point.
    
    >Why is there any need to tie a correct representation of the book to
    >incorrect representations?
    
    It's a requirement for a coherent argument for your position.  You
    haven't even bothered to defend the only position you've put forth.
    
    >It is beneficial that this knowledge be made available.
    
    Beneficial?  To what end?  If you're entering information because it's
    beneficial to some end, you have _some_ purpose for doing it.
    
    >I'm simply showing people what is actually in the book.  Why is that
    >so troublesome to you?
    
    As I stated above, it's the information is beneficial, then you're not
    "simply" showing people.  And if all you're doing is "simply" showing
    people, with no other purpose, then you are, in fact, "simply" wanking
    around.  Which is fine, but there's no point in watching you do it.
    
    >Why must it be either?
    
    It's the old boolean thing:  you want a discussion or you do not want a
    discussion.  One or the other.

    Page 235:

    Among the most firmly established facts about criminal offenders is
    that their distribution of IQ scores differs from that of the
    population at large. Taking the scientific literature as a whole,
    criminal offenders have average IQs of about 92, eight points below the
    mean. More serious or chronic offenders generally have lower scores
    than more casual offenders. The relationship of IQ to criminality is
    especially pronounced in the small fraction of the population,
    primarily young men, who constitute the chronic criminals that account
    for a disproportionate amount of crime. Offenders who have been caught
    do not score much lower, if at all, than those who are getting away
    with their crimes. Holding socioeconomic status constant does little to
    explain away the relationship between crime and cognitive ability.

    Re .102:

    > I'm covering all the bases . . .

    Except actually reading the book.

    > Beneficial?  To what end?  If you're entering information because it's
    > beneficial to some end, you have _some_ purpose for doing it.

    I have already stated the purpose:  To let people know what the book is
    actually about.  I have evidence this purpose has already been partly
    accomplished:  One person sent mail stating the excerpts revealed to
    them a different view of the book than the media represented.

    > It's the old boolean thing:  you want a discussion or you do not want a
    > discussion.

    "Want" is not a Boolean object.  It does not always exist as something
    that is definitely present or not present.  One simply might not care. 
    Even if it were Boolean, it might change over time.  For example, your
    scintillating dialog could easily affect one's propensity for
    discussion.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .102:
    
    > I didn't take them out of the context . . .
    
    You are intelligent enough to recognize the comments are out of
    context, yet you interpret them as contradictory instead of supposing
    that the most rational interpretation would be one in which they do
    make sense?  That's a potshot.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

	Chelsea's comment was _not_ a potshot.  The text in .67 clearly
	implies that solid middle class is "rich"; that it can be
	considered the converse of poor.  It is not and cannot.

    Re .106:
    
    > 	Chelsea's comment was _not_ a potshot.  The text in .67 clearly
    >	implies that solid middle class is "rich"; that it can be
    >	considered the converse of poor.  It is not and cannot.

    a) Chelsea has claimed the problem was a lack of context.  That
       indicates that with the proper context, the statements are correct.
    
    b) An example showing that a person's potential improves more by
       moving from poor and cognitively challenged to poor and of average
       intelligence (US average) than by moving to middle-class and still
       cognitively challenged is entirely consistent with the statement
       that it is better to be smart than rich.  The authors were pointing
       the way, and the effects extrapolate, as is demonstrated in much
       more detail in the book than I am able to type in.
    
    c) The United State's so-called middle class is in fact rich by
       historic standards and is rich by world-wide standards.
    
    d) Even if none of the above were true, Chelsea's criticism would
       remain a nit and would not substantively address the authors'
       theories.  It is a potshot.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re: .104
    
    >Except actually reading the book.
    
    When the question is why you're doing what you're doing, reading the
    book is not one of the bases.
    
    >To let people know what the book is actually about.
    
    Ah, so you _are_ attempting to contradict media misrepresentations. 
    That's a purpose above "simply" entering excerpts.
    
    >One simply might not care. 
    
    That falls into the category of "not want."

    Re: .105
    
    >yet you interpret them as contradictory instead of supposing that the 
    >most rational interpretation would be one in which they do make sense?
    
    You'll have to provide a specific example to support your argument.

    Re: .107
    
    >Chelsea has claimed the problem was a lack of context.
    
    Nope.  Lack of context applies to the general situation of discussing
    excerpts.  Lack of context also applies to the idea of accepting your
    premises for the purpose of argument and working forward from there.
    
    I claimed the problem was that they used the wrong case to demonstrate
    their claim.  You claimed that the case was used to show a trend toward
    the final result, rather than the final result.  I then claimed that
    the excerpt, as entered, demonstrated poor writing skills.  If you
    wanted to claim that the authors did not write poorly, you could claim
    the problem was lack of context.
    
    >Chelsea's criticism would remain a nit and would not substantively 
    >address the authors' theories.
    
    If someone offers evidence which does not substantiate a claim, that's
    a failure of proof -- which is substantive.

    Page 240:

    What is the logic that might lead us to expect low intelligence to be
    more frequently linked with criminal tendencies than high intelligence
    is?

    One chain of reasoning starts from the observation that low
    intelligence often translates into failure and frustration in school
    and in the job market. If, for example, people of low intelligence have
    a hard time finding a job, they might have more reason to commit crimes
    as a way of making a living. If people of low intelligence have a hard
    time acquiring status through the ordinary ways, crime might seem like
    a good alternative route. At the least, their failures in school and at
    work may foster resentment toward society and its laws.

    Perhaps the link between crime and low IQ is even more direct. A lack
    of foresight, which is often associated with low IQ, raises the
    attractions of the immediate gains from crime and lowers the strength
    of the deterrents, which come later (if they come at all). To a person
    of low intelligence, the threats of apprehension and prison may fade to
    meaninglessness. They are too abstract, too far in the future, too
    uncertain.

    Low IQ may be part of a broader complex of factors. An appetite for
    danger, a stronger-than-average hunger for the things that you can get
    only by stealing if you cannot buy them, an antipathy toward
    conventionality, an insensitivity to pain or to social ostracism, and a
    host of derangements of various sorts, combined with low IQ, may set
    the stage for a criminal career.

    Finally, there are moral considerations. Perhaps the ethical principles
    for not committing crimes are less accessible (or less persuasive) to
    people of low intelligence. They find it harder to understand why
    robbing someone is wrong, find it harder to appreciate the values of
    civil and cooperative social life, and are accordingly less inhibited
    from acting in ways that are hurtful to other people and to the
    community at large.

RE: 259.39 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Did you read the book?  

Did you read the Scientific American review of the book?


> Your example is flawed ...

Did you read my reply?  


> c) Even if we grant that your example were some sort of measure of
> intelligence, it wouldn't support the conclusion that no single number
> meaningfully measures intelligence; you haven't shown how this
> hypothetical measure would conflict with other measures.

Have you ever talked to an author of a book you enjoyed,  and find out he 
can't hold a reasonable discussion?  "Verbal IQ" aka language ability isn't 
a simple thing.  Or the reverse,  for that matter,  an author you can't 
stand turns out to be a charming,  witty,  and enlightening speaker?  I
have a strong ability with math.  I failed differential equations (math
3xx) not once,  but twice.


> In fact, there is no single number that describes all of intelligence,
> but there is a strong common factor on all intelligence tests,
> including those that are steeped in culture and those that are
> culture-fair, those that are visual, those that are numeric, those that
> are verbal, and so on.  

First,  I would love to see a "culture-fair IQ" test.  I can't think of
what such a test could be like.    Visual?  Hardly.  Numeric?  Take any
person from a culture without a word for numbers larger than six and
without a word for multiplication,  and the result will be "moron", 
regardless of how intelligent.  Verbal?  No way.  And so on.

Second,  I'd like to see how well you can deal with an "IQ" test with the
instructions written in Mandarin.  


Phil

    Re .112:
    
    > Did you read the Scientific American review of the book?
    
    Yes, in full.  It misrepresented the book, as illustrated in .41.  Now
    that I have answered your question, please answer mine:  Did you read
    the book?
    
    > Have you ever talked to an author of a book you enjoyed,  and find
    > out he  can't hold a reasonable discussion?  "Verbal IQ" aka language
    > ability isn't  a simple thing.  Or the reverse,  for that matter,  an
    > author you can't  stand turns out to be a charming,  witty,  and
    > enlightening speaker?
    
    None of these have any apparent relevance to the paragraph you present
    them in response to.  That paragraph dealt with the acquisition of
    wealth as a hypothetical measure of intelligence; no connection to the
    above paragraph is visible.
    
    Those examples certainly demonstrate that people have different
    combinations of skills, a concept which is not in contention.  But
    failure to hold a discussion cannot be considered to preclude
    intelligence.  Nobody contends that intelligent people necessarily are
    terrific conversationalists or pass differential equations.  By
    analogy, nobody would maintain that there is no meaningful measure of
    distance simply because some objects are six feet wide and one foot
    high while others are one foot high and six feet wide.  Distance can
    manifest itself in different dimensions, and this does not prevent the
    concept from being useful.  Intelligence also manifests itself in
    different ways.
    
    There is much room to argue about what intelligence actually is, but
    not that it does exist.  _Something_ gets measured by IQ tests; that
    much is proven by the fact that different tests are strongly
    correlated; if the tests measured nothing, there would be no
    correlation.  Then there is the argument that whatever the tests
    measure, it has no relevance to the world.  But again, there are
    correlations with job performance, crime, marriage, and much more, as
    Herrnstein and Geller demonstrate.  From those correlations, the
    present hypotheses that might explain the correlations as something
    other than test-score causing the events.  In some cases, they find
    other explanations.  In many cases, they do not.  They also suggest
    further research to determine how much of what they discuss is and is
    not caused by whatever it is that tests are measuring.  But that the
    tests measure something relevant cannot be reasonably disputed, even if
    the measurement is not perfect and does not capture all the facets of
    intelligence in a single number.
    
    > First,  I would love to see a "culture-fair IQ" test.
    
    Since IQ tests take some effort to create and calibrate, they are
    generally protected as proprietary documents.  A psychometrician should
    be able to find a culture-fair test easily enough, but you may have to
    negotiate with the publisher and explain your motivations to see the
    test.  (It may be simpler just to pay to take it, but then you won't
    get to keep a copy.)  One simple way to take a culture-fair test is to
    call 1-800-66MENSA and ask to be put in touch with the testing
    coordinator of the Mensa group in your area.  Tell them you'd like to
    take the culture-fair test.
                                    
    > Visual?  Hardly.
    
    You dismiss visual for what reason?
    
    > Second,  I'd like to see how well you can deal with an "IQ" test with
    > the instructions written in Mandarin.
    
    If only the instructions were in Mandarin but the test contained visual
    problems such as finding similar things, different things, next in
    pattern, et cetera, I would probably do quite well.  From my knowledge
    of culture-fair tests, there are some instructions that need to be
    given in a language the subject understands, but those instructions are
    quite simple.  You don't think culture-fair tests are given only with
    instructions in English, do you?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    	Given enough time and enough excerpts posted here, we will
    	all be able to say that we have read the book.
    
    	Are we violating copyright laws here?

    	>>Are we violating copyright laws here?

	hoho - I doubt it.  But then, edp has powers beyond
	our wildest imaginations.  The normal laws of the universe
	don't apply.  ;>


	

    > _Something_ gets measured by IQ tests; that much is proven by 
    > the fact that different tests are strongly correlated; if the 
    > tests measured nothing, there would be no correlation. 
    
    The correlation could result from a common bias; that bias could 
    be the belief that intelligence is measurable by testing.  The mere
    existence of a correlation does not prove that intelligence is being
    measured.
    
    DougO

    One could easily play semantic and philosophical games such that one
    could claim that all people are equally intelligent. "He's just
    intelligent in a different way."
    

    Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  I was speaking of a possible bias
    *inherent in the tests* that could account for the correlation.
    All those who developed such tests would have a biased belief that 
    what they were looking for was measurable; thus, what they put into the
    tests were things they could measure.  These things are not necessarily
    "intelligence", just measurable attributes of people taking tests.
    
    The mere existence of 'correlation' in the tests results does not prove
    that the tests measured 'intelligence'.
    
    DougO

    No, Doug, you were quite clear.

RE: 259.113 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

>> Did you read the Scientific American review of the book?
> Yes, in full.  

Good.  Then add "The Mis-measure of Man",  by Gould.


> There is much room to argue about what intelligence actually is, but
> not that it does exist.  _Something_ gets measured by IQ tests; 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Intelligence" is a fancy way of saying problem solving ability.

Training helps people to learn to solve problems:  that's why we spend so
much time and money teaching children.  This is one of many things that IQ 
tests measure:  how educated the person is.  Note: this doesn't mean only
formal education.


> One simple way to take a culture-fair test 

Calling a test culture-fair does not mean that it _is_ culture-fair.


>> Visual?  Hardly.
    
> You dismiss visual for what reason?

Are blind people not intelligent?  

    
Phil

    Re .116:
    
    > The correlation could result from a common bias; that bias could 
    > be the belief that intelligence is measurable by testing.
    
    You missed the subsequent point that whatever is being measured has
    relevance to other events.  Fine, so intelligence tests actually
    measure a belief rather than intelligence.  They still have significant
    relationships with job performance, crime, et cetera.  If the tests
    don't measure intelligence, what do you think explains why high-scoring
    people perform better on all types of jobs than low-scoring people? 
    Does their belief in intelligence testing somehow enable them to work
    better?  If so, let's teach everybody to believe in intelligence
    testing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
            
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .120:
    
    I answered your question.  Please answer mine.
    
    > Are blind people not intelligent?  
    
    I wasn't aware that blindness was a cultural problem.  Silly me, I
    thought it was physical.  I guess the inability of blind people to see
    is caused by patriachical white oppression.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 247:
    
 The Odds of Getting Involved with the Police and Courts for Young White Males

    	Percentage Who in 1980 Reported Ever Having Been:
    
Cognitive Class  Stopped by 	Booked for	Convicted of	Sentenced to
                 by the Police  an Offense      an Offense	Incarceration
I.   Very bright 18    		5    		3     		0 
II.  Bright 	 27    		12     		7      		1 
III. Normal 	 37    		20     		15     		3 
IV.  Dull 	 46    		27     		21     		7 
V.   Very dull 	 33    		17     		14     		7 
     Overall 	 34 		18     		9      		3
     
[The classes are 5, 20, 50, 20, and 5 percent of the population, respectively.]

    > You missed the subsequent point that whatever is being measured has
    > relevance to other events.
    
    What lead you to such an erroneous conclusion?
    
    >                                Fine, so intelligence tests actually
    > measure a belief rather than intelligence.  
    
    Not quite what I said; the belief I referred to is that of those who
    develop the tests, believing intelligence to be measurable, and hence
    testing for things that can be measured.  I haven't specified that
    those things are beliefs; I might speculate that what such tests
    measure are prior specific knowledge and experience, such as certain
    mathematical skills, spatial orientation skills, pattern
    recognition skills, reading skills...one could go on.
    
    > They still have significant relationships with job performance, crime, 
    > et cetera.  
    
    granted.
    
    > If the tests don't measure intelligence, what do you think explains why 
    > high-scoring people perform better on all types of jobs than low-scoring 
    > people? 
    
    self-esteem?  demonstrably higher levels of acquired skills?  a
    psychological profile that demands certain levels of performance?
    and/or, perhaps, intelligence.  
    
    > Does their belief in intelligence testing somehow enable them to work
    > better?
    
    One wishes you hadn't so misread my correction of your overhasty
    characterization of so-called intelligence tests and the meaning of
    observed correlations.  
    
    DougO

    Page 305:

    Furthermore, [Mercer] points out, strong correlations between home or
    community life and IQ scores are readily found. In a study of 180
    Latino and 180 non-Latino white elementary school children in
    Riverside, California, Mercer examined eight sociocultural variables:
    (1) mother's participation in formal organizations, (2) living in a
    segregated neighborhood, (3) home language level, (4) socioeconomic
    status based on occupation and education of head of household, (5)
    urbanization, (6) mother's achievement values, (7) home ownership, and
    (8) intact biological family. She then showed that once these
    sociocultural variables were taken into account, the remaining
    correlation between ethnic group and IQ among the children fell to near
    zero.

    Page 309:

    Even so, the instability of test scores across generations should
    caution against taking the current ethnic differences as etched in
    stone. There are things we do not yet understand about the relation
    between IQ and intelligence, which may be relevant for comparisons not
    just across times but also across cultures and races.

	I saw where the guy who wrote the book was speaking, and many people
got up and left in the middle of it. 

RE; 259.122 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> I guess the inability of blind people to see is caused by patriachical 
> white oppression.

I guess you don't care to discuss issues rationally.


Phil

    >I saw where the guy who wrote the book was speaking, and many people
    >got up and left in the middle of it.
    
     Actually, it was right at the beginning, before he had a chance to say
    much. But like the idjits protesting a book they've never read,
    intellectual integrity isn't their strong suit.

    kinda like men protesting abortions, eh?
    
    DougO

    Not really, but I don't have time to play your silly game.

    oh! shallowly thrust, sir!
    
    DougO

    
>>     Actually, it was right at the beginning, before he had a chance to say
>>    much. But like the idjits protesting a book they've never read,
>>    intellectual integrity isn't their strong suit.

	Some people have the strong suit of not having to listen to
	someone's entire spiel before deciding they don't want to
	buy what's being sold.  Hardly what I'd call lacking in
	"intellectual integrity".

    Re .128:
    
    I answered your question.  Please answer mine.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >Some people have the strong suit of not having to listen to
    >someone's entire spiel before deciding they don't want to
    >buy what's being sold.
    
     Especially if it contradicts their own biases. The fact is that the
    people in question didn't listen to any of the "spiel" before engaging
    in protest.
    
     I was especially impressed by the "scholars" who asserted (via
    placards) that the author and his deceased coauthor were "pendejas." A
    most rigorous refutation, that.
    
     It's really too bad that so many have a closed mind about this. Why
    are so many afraid to confront the issue? Why the rush to denounce
    without the benefit of having examined the work? I thought the author
    made an excellent point, that there is a difference between the
    arithmetic mean of IQ in a particular group and the conclusions one may
    draw wrt the intelligence of any particular member of the group. He
    also asserted that the mean is just the mean, that there is huge
    overlap of the respective curves. And finally, the conclusion that an
    individual is "better" than another using IQ as the sole determinant is
    dangerous and foolish.

    
>>  Especially if it contradicts their own biases.

	Some people can do it without having any bias though.

>>  The fact is that the
>>    people in question didn't listen to any of the "spiel" before engaging
>>    in protest.

        So it has gone from partway through to before he had said much to
	before he said anything.  Well, it's hard, having that kind of
	a moving target.  ;>

    >Some people can do it without having any bias though.
    
     Right. Of course they can.
    
    >So it has gone from partway through to before he had said much to
    >before he said anything.
    
     Please, Di. This wasn't a matter of hearing part of a presentation,
    deciding they didn't like it, and leaving. It was a preplanned act,
    devised to demonstrate disrespect and register protest. It was not in
    any way related to the remarks made last night. Nor were the placards
    and protestors outside a result of anything said last night. I'd bet my
    cellar that not even 10% of the protestors read the book or were in any
    way in a position to refute any assertions made therein from an
    academic standpoint. This was the herd mentality in action.

	>>This was the herd mentality in action.

	Okay, that's a different story then.  Thanks for the explanation.

    Re .133:
    
    > 	Some people have the strong suit of not having to listen to
    >	someone's entire spiel before deciding they don't want to
    >	buy what's being sold.
    
    It's also quite possible they went expecting to hear talk about race
    and IQ but found the speaker's subjects had little to do with that.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
>>    It's also quite possible they went expecting to hear talk about race
>>    and IQ but found the speaker's subjects had little to do with that.

	Yes.  I'm sure the possibilities are many.  How any of them
	relates to "intellectual integrity" would still be a question
	in my mind.

    Page 310:

    One of the intriguing studies arguing against a large genetic component
    to IQ differences came about thanks to the Allied occupation of Germany
    following World War II, when about 4,000 illegitimate children of mixed
    racial origin were born to German women. A German researcher tracked
    down 264 children of black servicemen and constructed a comparison
    group of 83 illegitimate offspring of white occupation troops. The
    results showed no overall difference in average IQ. The actual IQs of
    the fathers were unknown, and therefore a variety of selection factors
    cannot be ruled out. The study is inconclusive but certainly consistent
    with the suggestion that the B/W difference is largely environmental.
                                                                         

    Page 311:

    If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental
    explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done
    a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems
    highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something
    to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely
    agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does
    not yet justify an estimate.

    
    Ah yes, the infamous weasle words.
    
    Look at them again people.  The authors are hitting you upside the
    head with a too-bye-for.  Here we find the "scientests" [mispeeling
    dilibirite] do not even have the courage to stand by what they have
    written.
    
    -----
    
    In other news.  The most important factor in hiring a new
    non-supervisory worker?  [That's most of us.]
    
    Test scores?  Accomplishments in school?  Quality of school?
    Even current or past performance on the job?  Work experience?
    
    No.  The easy to measure and quantify attribute "attitude."
    Followed by "communication skills" (as in, I suppose, "the
    applicant convinced me through their communication skills that
    they had the right attitude.")
    
    								-mr. bill

    Page 443:                                               

    Most gifted students are going to grow up segregated from the rest of
    society no matter what. They will then go to the elite colleges no
    matter what, move into successful careers no matter what, and
    eventually lead the institutions of this country no matter what.
    Therefore, the nation had better do its damnedest to make them as wise
    as it can. If they cannot grow up knowing how the rest of the world
    lives, they can at least grow up with a proper humility about their
    capacity to reinvent the world do novo and thoughtfully aware of their
    intellectual, cultural, and ethical heritage. They should be taught
    their responsibilities as citizens of a broader society.

    Page 505:

    Preferential affirmative action has been a favorite cause of
    intellectuals, journalists, and liberal politicians, but it has never
    been rooted in broad public support. Instead, according to polls taken
    in the 1970s and 1980s, most Americans favor hiring by ability test
    scores over preferential hiring for protected groups. At the same time,
    they approve of having the government offer a helping hand--for example,
    by offering free courses to people to help them do better on ability
    tests used for employment. A clear majority of blacks favor ability
    test scores over preferential hiring. A return to policies based on
    evenhandedness for individuals (not for groups) seems sure to attract
    enthusiastic and broad public support.

    I keep on bringing this up and some of my fellow noters refer to me as
    the whining victim of Affirmative Action...which isn't the case at all!
    
    -Jack

YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  
YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  
YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  
YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  
YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  
YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  YES IT IS!!!!  

    
    Taking after Meowski.... I see...
    

    Glen:
    
    Please provide pointer as to where I was whining.  As stated hundreds
    of times...AA supporters are well meaninged hypocrites...and racists I
    might add.  If I'm whining, it is a whine of justice from liberal free
    thinkers who happen to feel that minorities in this country are raving
    idiots!

	Jack, the old box is gone, so I can't show you that. But I believe you
will find some in CP.

    Page 540:

    Thus arises our first general policy prescription: A wide range of
    social functions should be restored to the neighborhood when possible
    and otherwise to the municipality. The reason for doing so, in the
    context of this book, is not to save money, not even because such
    services will be provided more humanely and efficiently by
    neighborhoods (though we believe that generally to be the case), but
    because this is one of the best ways to multiply the valued places that
    people can fill.

    Glen:
    
    Majority of minorities want AA abolished.  Think about it!

| <<< Note 259.152 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Majority of minorities want AA abolished.  Think about it!


	I'd be able to think about it if ya could offer me some proof for it.
BTW, are ya ever gonna address the claims you made against me in the abortion
topic (20.1284)?


Glen

    There is an article in National Review, March 6, 1995.  The article
    called, AIM HIGHER...Recent History Shows that Black Students Test
    Scores can be Raised-If We Set Mandatory Standards.  Written by Barbara
    Lerner, a Psychologist, an Attorney and a Freelance Writer. 
    Ironically, the article touches quite a bit on Charles Murrays, The
    Bell Curve.
    
    Says that Affirmative Action programs are condescending and cause
    ethnic riffs in society.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, how does that prove your assertion that most minoroties see AA as
bad? Oh, have you addressed 20.1284 yet?


Glen

    Stated in the article my friend, backed up by Mr. Gallup ole buddy!!!!
    
    Now, whats this about abortion...let me check it out!!

    
    "ethnic riffs"
    
    ...ala B.B.King?

    The remaining excerpts are from chapter 22, in which the authors give
    their recommendations for social policy.  I will enter an excerpt for
    each recommendation they make, in addition to .151 (which contains a
    recommendation preceding chapter 22).
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 541:

    We have in mind two ways in which the rules generated by the cognitive
    elite are making life more difficult for everyone else. Each requires
    somewhat more detailed explanation.

    
    Page 541-542, Making It Easier to Make a Living:

    First come all the rules that make life more difficult for people who
    are trying to navigate everyday life. In looking for examples, the 1040
    income tax form is such an easy target that it need only be mentioned
    to make the point. But the same complications and confusions apply to a
    single woman with children seeking government assistance or a person
    who is trying to open a dry-cleaning shop. As the cognitive elite
    busily goes about making the world a better place, it is not so
    important to them that they are complicating ordinary lives. It's not
    so complicated to them.

    The same burden of complications that are only a nuisance to people who
    are smart are much more of a barrier to people who are not. In many
    cases, such barriers effectively block off avenues for people who are
    not cognitively equipped to struggle through the bureaucracy. In other
    cases, they reduce the margin of success so much that they make the
    difference between success and failure. "Sweat equity," though the
    phrase itself has been recently coined, is as distinctively an American
    concept as "equality before the law" and "liberty." You could get ahead
    by plain hard work. No one would stand in your way. Today that is no
    longer true. American society has erected barriers to individual sweat
    equity by saying, in effect, "Only people who are good at navigating
    complex rules need apply." Anyone who has tried to open or run a small
    business in recent years can supply evidence of how formidable those
    barriers have become.                                           

                   Making It Easier to Live a Virtuous Life

    Pages 543-544, Crime:

    Imagine living in a society where the rules about crime are simple and
    the consequences are equally simple. "Crime" consists of a few
    obviously wrong acts: assault, rape, murder, robbery, theft, trespass,
    destruction of another's property, fraud. Someone who commits a crime
    is probably caught--and almost certainly punished. The punishment almost
    certainly hurts (it is meaningful). Punishment follows arrest quickly,
    within a matter of days or weeks. . . .

    Now imagine that all the rules are made more complicated. The number of
    acts defined as crimes has multiplied, so that many things that are
    crimes are not nearly as obviously "wrong" as something like robbery or
    assault. The link between moral transgression and committing crime is
    made harder to understand. Fewer crimes lead to an arrest. Fewer
    arrests lead to prosecution. Many times, the prosecutions are not for
    something the accused person did but for an offense that the defense
    lawyer and the prosecutor agreed upon. Many times, people who are
    prosecuted are let off, though everyone (including the accused)
    acknowledges that the person was guilty. . . . At every level, it
    becomes fashionable to point out the complexities of moral decisions,
    and all the ways in which things that might seem "wrong" at first
    glance are really "right" when properly analyzed.

    The policy prescription is that the criminal justice system should be
    made simpler. The meaning of criminal offenses used to be clear and
    objective, and so were the consequences. It is worth trying to make
    them so again.

    Sounds like the first scenario you described would be Singapore and the
    second would be the United States.
    
    -Jack

    
    Derrick Z. Jackson wrote a scathing column in yesterday's Globe and
    referenced The Bell Curve.  Hmmm, if _he_ doesn't like it, I _know_ 
    it's something I need to read.
         

    Re .161:
    
    Singapore is known for the extent of its laws and harshness of its
    punishment.  Herrnstein and Murray propose neither of those.  Their
    proposal is for simplicity.  If the first scenario is to be compared to
    any actual place, the United States of years ago is a likely candidate.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Pages 544-545, Marriage:

    It has become much more difficult for a person of low cognitive ability
    to figure out why marriage is a good thing, and, once in a marriage,
    more difficult to figure out why one should stick with it through bad
    times. . . .

    The sexual revolution is the most obvious culprit. The old bargain from
    the man's point of view--get married, because that's the only way you're
    going to be able to sleep with the lady--was the kind of incentive that
    did not require a lot of intellect to process and had an all-powerful
    effective on behavior. Restoring it is not feasible by any (reasonable)
    policy we can think of.

    For most people, there are still answers to that question. Even given
    the diminished legal stature of marriage, marriage continues to have
    unique value. But to see those values takes forethought about the
    long-term differences between living together and being married,
    sensitivity to many intangibles, and an appreciation of second-hand and
    third-hand consequences. As Chapter 8's evidence about marriage rates
    implies, people low on the intelligence distribution are less likely to
    think through those issues than others.

    Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage to its
    formerly unique legal status. If you are married, you take on
    obligations. If you are not married, you don't. In particular, we urge
    that marriage once again become the sole legal institution through
    which rights and responsibilities regarding children are exercised. If
    you are an unmarried mother, you have no legal basis for demanding that
    the father of the child provide support. If you are an unmarried
    father, you have no legal standing regarding the child--not even a right
    to see the child, let alone any basis honored by society for claiming
    he or she is "yours" or that you are a "father."

    
    Or, to summarize for those of us not in Murray's and edp's
    "Cognitive Elite"....
    
    "Hi, I'm a big brain.  I am here to help you little brained people."
    
    								-mr. bill

    reminds me of libs:
    
    "Hi, I'm a big brain.  I am here to screw you little brained people,
    but I'll do it in a way that makes you think I'm helping you."

 ZZ   "Hi, I'm a big brain.  I am here to screw you little brained
 ZZ   people, but I'll do it in a way that makes you think I'm helping you."
    
    Exactly the platform the democrat party has been running on the last
    thirty or so years.  If the republicans really are facists, at least
    their open about it.
    
    Democrat leaders think your idiots people.
    
    -Jack

    
    I still haven't read it.  The problem is that its basic contention
    is un-American.  "All men are created equal."  Right or wrong, this
    is our credo.  If this isn't true, I'm not sure I want to know.
    
      bb

    
    RE: .167
    
    Mz_Deb???? Oh mz_deb????

    >I still haven't read it.  The problem is that its basic contention
    >is un-American.  "All men are created equal." 
    
     You aren't being serious, are you?

    
    Well, of course, I know the Declaration contains this mystical,
    unscientific fiction of equality.  In truth, the logic was with
    King George III, as many lampoonings of our basic justifying
    document would convince you.
    
    In one of his books, Stephen Jay Gould considers this scenario :
    suppose that one of the OTHER species of hominids had survived,
    perhaps in Australia or something.  Suppose that later we had to
    produce morality in a world with TWO intelligent species, incapable
    of interbreeding, one clearly less intelligent than the other.
    
    What sort of ethics would we need ?   How would we form a society ?
    
      bb

    >Well, of course, I know the Declaration contains this mystical,
    >unscientific fiction of equality. 
    
     Wrong. The Declaration doesn't say that all people are given equal
    talents and riches and love interests, etc. The Declaration says that
    the rights under the law of all are the same. This is not a subtle
    difference.

    
    Well, what it SAYS is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident :
    that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain
    unalienable rights"
    
    I know this DOESN'T say the odds on a jump ball between you and
    Shaquille are 50-50.  But I think it means rather more than "equal
    rights under the law".  America abolished nobility.  Now we see the
    subversive authors of this book arguing some sort of aristocracy is
    inevitable in modern complexity.
    
     I am suspicious.
    
     bb

| <<< Note 259.173 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

| Well, what it SAYS is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men
| are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"

	But all men aren't created and equal endowed

    >Now we see the
    >subversive authors of this book arguing some sort of aristocracy is
    >inevitable in modern complexity.
    
     There's a definite comprehension problem taking place here. You
    obviously aren't reading what they wrote, at least, not without making
    unsubstantiated inferences.

    .172
    
    > Wrong. The Declaration doesn't say that all people are given equal
    > talents and riches and love interests, etc. The Declaration says that
    > the rights under the law of all are the same. This is not a subtle
    > difference.
    
    apparently it is too subtle for you to understand.  the declaration
    says, and i quote:
    
        we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
        equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
        unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
        pursuit of happiness.
    
    the first truth, separated from the others by a comma, says in
    unequivocal language that all men [sic] are created equal.  it does not
    say "equal under the law," it does not say "equal in terms of the
    rights they have," it says "equal."  period.  i'm surprised that you
    are having so much trouble parsing your native language.  the writers'
    intent was almost certainly to indicate that all people are equal under
    the law, but that is not what they wrote.  jefferson's original draft
    suggests as much but still does not nail the point down semantically.
    
        we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are
        created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they
        derive certain rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the
        preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

     Yeah, Dick, they really meant that equal to be interpreted as meaning
    equal in height, weight, cognitive ability, cleverness, artistic
    talent, etc. Right.

    .178
    
    doc, it is not what they meant that is at issue in the words they
    wrote.  it is what they wrote, and the fact is that they were unclear.
    
    a better phrasing was written by frank herbert in his novel "the dosadi
    experiment":
    
    	all beings are created unequal.  the best society gives each the
    	opportunity to float at his own level.
    
    					- gowachin aphorism
    
    this phrasing can be interpreted clearly, in light of the known fact
    that we are NOT AT ALL equal in creation, to mean that we should have
    equal opportunity - from which follows the obvious conclusion that in
    order to have equal opportunity we must have equal rights.

    Yes Dick, providing the parameters remain constant...which they
    haven't.  Your last posting assumes that a particular will will always
    be incapable of doing a job or will always be victims of racism.  This
    is a fallable way of thinking.
    
    -Jack

    .180
    
    huh?
    
    > Your last posting assumes that a particular [being] will always
    > be incapable of doing a job or will always be victims of racism.
    
    not at all.  it assumes that the gummint keeps its mitts out of
    sanctioned discrimination, that's ALL it assumes.
    
    if a particular person's status changes, as under training or from,
    say, moving to a different place where the person has more
    opportunities, it were better that the gummint not be in a position to
    say, "you're a white male, it doesn't matter how much you've learned or
    that the population where you live now is 99.9 percent white.  the law
    says the workforce can't be all white, and since there's only one slot
    open you can't have it until after they hire a black."  this is what
    floating at one's own level is all about.  and this is what affirmative
    action prevents.

    
    .169
    
    Sorry, Andy, I was working 8^p.
    
    
    .167
    
    Jack:  they're
    	   you're
    
    

    Uhhhhh...thanks

    Page 546, More General Implications for Policy:

    The time has come to make simplification a top priority in reforming
    policy--not for a handful of regulations but across the board.

    More broadly, we urge that it is possible once again to make a core of
    common law, combined with the original concepts of negligence and
    liability in tort law, the mechanism for running society--easily
    understood by all and a basis for the straightforward lessons that
    parents at all levels of cognitive ability above the lowest can teach
    their children about how to behave as they grow up. We readily
    acknowledge that modernity requires some amplifications of this simple
    mechanism, but the nation needs to think through those amplifications
    from the legal equivalent of zero-based budgeting. As matters stand,
    the legal edifice has become a labyrinth that only the rich and the
    smart can navigate.                            

    Re .173:
    
    > Now we see the subversive authors of this book arguing some sort of
    > aristocracy is inevitable in modern complexity.
    
    Herrnstein and Murray do not argue aristocracy is inevitable.  More to
    the point, they do not argue that meritocracy is inevitable.  They do
    argue that a sort of meritocracy IS developing in the United States and
    they warn AGAINST allowing it to develop and to divide people into
    classes.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .165:
    
    How lovely; Herrnstein and Murray argue against the rules that make
    life difficult for some people, and you chastise them for it.  Had they
    argued in favor of complicating rules, you would undoubtedly criticize
    them for that.  Earlier, you criticized them for saying intelligence
    was not totally heritable or totally environmental -- and you clearly
    would have criticized had they said it was totally either.  You're not
    making any sensible points; obviously no admission that intelligence
    even exists would fit in your view of world order.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
                                                      
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

                               Blanks Unfilled

    Pages 547-548, Dealing with Income:

    Our prescription, borrowing from the case made by political scientist
    David Ellwood, is that people who work full time should not be too poor
    to have a decent standard of living, even if the kinds of work they do
    are not highly valued in the marketplace. We do not put this as a
    principle of government for all countries--getting everybody out of
    poverty is not an option in most of the world--but it is appropriate for
    rich countries to try to do.

    How? There is no economically perfect alternative. Any government
    supplement of wages produces negative effects of many kinds. Such
    defects are not the results of bad policy design but inherent. The
    least damaging strategies are the simplest ones, which do not try to
    oversee or manipulate the labor market behavior of low-income people,
    but rather augment their earned income up to a floor. The earned income
    tax credit, already in place, seems to be a generally good strategy,
    albeit with the unavoidable drawbacks of any income supplement.

    
    A simple test for the "big brains" out there.
    
    Is the earned income tax credit something the "little brains" find easy?
    
    It's not a tough question.  Look at number of people claiming EITC
    vrs. number of people eligible.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .188:
    
    Do you believe the mass of programs in place today is simpler?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Better yet, count the percentage of EITC's which are outright fraud.
    
    The IRS says the EITC is easily the most abused tax provision.
    
      bb

    
|   Re .188:
|    
|   Do you believe the mass of programs in place today is simpler?
    
    What difference does it make if *I* believe something.  I'm talking
    facts here.
    
    There are working poor who *qualify* for the EITC who don't get it.
    Murry says that 1040 is too tough for the little brains, but he
    probably can't even tell you what form is required to file for the
    EITC.
    
    There are working poor dropping out of the workforce and going on AFDC
    who would have been better off working and getting an EITC.  But
    the "big brains" such as Murry have made this too damn hard to figure
    out.
    
    
    What does Murry say about health care?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .191:
    
    > What difference does it make if *I* believe something.  I'm talking
    > facts here.

    What facts do you have to show the mass of programs in place today is
    simpler?
    
    > What does Murry say about health care?
    
    Read the book.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >    Murry says that 1040 is too tough for the little brains, but he
    >    probably can't even tell you what form is required to file for the
    >    EITC.
    
     Objection. Argumentative. Assuming facts not in evidence.
    
    >But the "big brains" such as Murry have made this too damn hard to
    >figure out.
    
     More like the "big brain" bleeding hearts that instituted all these
    programs instead of a single, simple one.
    
    >What does Murry say about health care?
    
     Who knows? Who the hell is Murry? 
    
     It's Murray, Mister Accuracy.

                                                               
|   What facts do you have to show the mass of programs in place today is
|   simpler?
    
    When you examine the actions of some real people (not a series of
    ideologically biased thought experiments) you will find there are
    many people who are not taking the EITC because *they* find it
    so damn complex to take the EITC.  They end up going on AFDC etc
    because *they* find it *LESS* complex than taking the EITC.
    
    Got it?
    
    Good.
    
    In other words.  A hint for you and your big brained authors.  Talk to
    little brains once in a while.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .194:
    
    Nonresponsive.  Rant all you want about how many people aren't using
    the EITC, but that proves nothing about whether it is simpler than the
    whole mass of other programs or whether more people would use it if it
    were used to replace other programs or whether EITC couldn't be made
    simple in spite of its current administration.  You said we were
    discussing facts; where are yours?
    
    > In other words.  A hint for you and your big brained authors.  Talk to
    > little brains once in a while.

    So we can get more useless responses like your contributions?  No
    thanks.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    It appears some people value free speech - as long as it is their own.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .196:
    
    > It appears some people value free speech - as long as it is their own.
    
    Please, present all the _facts_ you care to.  Leave the insults out.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|   Please....
    
    No thank you.
    
    								-mr. bill

	I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend you're right to say it.

ME

your

    re: .198
    
     Yeah, it's much less fun to be required to stick with the issues than
    to be allowed to merely castigate your opponents for being.

I may disagree with how you spell, but I'll defend your right to misspell.

    Pages 548-549, Dealing with Demography:

    We are silent partly because we are as apprehensive as most other
    people about what might happen when a government decides to
    social-engineer who has babies and who doesn't. We can imagine no
    recommendation for using government to manipulate fertility that does
    not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States
    already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies
    and it is encouraging the wrong women. If the United States did as much
    to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage
    low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive
    manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of
    America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor
    women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the
    intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies,
    represented by the extensive network of cash and services for
    low-income women who have babies, be ended.

    The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone, rich or poor.
    The other generic recommendation, as close to harmless as any
    government program we can imagine, is to make it easy for women to make
    good on their prior decision not to get pregnant by making available
    birth control mechanisms that are increasingly flexible, foolproof,
    inexpensive, and safe.
            
    It should be among the goals of public policy to shift the flow of
    immigrants away from those admitted under the nepotistic rules (which
    broadly encourage the reunification of relatives) and toward those
    admitted under competency rules, already established in immigration
    law--not to the total exclusion of nepotistic and humanitarian criteria
    but a shift.

    Re .120:
    
    I've read Gould, cover to cover.  Have you cracked open _The Bell
    Curve_ yet?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Page 551, Conclusion:

    Cognitive partitioning will continue. It cannot be stopped, because the
    forces driving it cannot be stopped. But America can choose to preserve
    a society in which every citizen has access to the central
    satisfactions of life. Its people can, through an interweaving of
    choice and responsibility, create valued places for themselves in their
    worlds. They can live in communities--urban or rural--where being a good
    parent, a good neighbor, and a good friend will give their lives
    purpose and meaning. They can weave the most crucial safety nets
    together, so that their mistakes and misfortunes are mitigated and
    withstood with a little help from their friends.

    All of these good things are available now to those who are smart
    enough or rich enough--if they can exploit the complex rules to their
    advantage, buy their way out of the social institutions that no longer
    function, and have access to the rich human interconnections that are
    growing, not diminishing, for the cognitively fortunate. We are calling
    upon our readers, so heavily concentrated among those who fit that
    description, to recognize the ways in which public policy has come to
    deny those good things to those who are not smart enough and not rich
    enough.              

Extracted from the March (Vol. 2, Issue 2) issue of Medio Magazine on CD-ROM.
I haven't even read this, but thought it might fuel the discussion some.


BELL CURVE: Controversial Book Described As 'Bad Science'

By PAUL RECERAP Science Writer

WASHINGTON, 12/12/94 (AP) - ``The Bell Curve,'' a book that claims 
intelligence 
is a genetically linked characteristic of race, is scientifically flawed, a 
panel of scholars and testing experts said Monday.
In a symposium at Howard University, scholars said the book fails to present a 
scientifically balanced view and then uses faulty conclusions to justify 
suggested changes in the way that society deals with the poor.
``The book uses data selectively and then ignores any data that contradicts 
its 
point of view,'' said Nancy Cole, president of the Educational Testing 
Service. 
``It attempts to absolve us from dealing with the serious issues of poverty 
and 
race by suggesting that the effects are immutable and unchangeable.''

Written by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein, ``The Bell Curve'' 
was published in October and created instant controversy. The book analyzes IQ 
scores and socioeconomic status and concludes that economic success is 
directly 
linked to measurable intelligence.
It also concludes that intelligence is largely controlled by inheritance, that 
blacks score about 15 points below whites on IQ tests, and that this 
difference 
controls destiny and is unchangeable through life. Accordingly, the book 
suggests that efforts through social programs to improve lives are doomed to 
fail because the poor are too dumb to climb out of poverty.

All of these points are wrong, according to Stephen Jay Gould, professor of 
zoology at Harvard University.
``This is a one-dimensional study based on a single data set,'' said Gould. 
``They have bamboozled everybody.''
He said even the statistical analysis in the book used a technique that failed 
to take into account individual differences within a group and, thus, could 
contort the conclusions. Gould said the book also was wrong in assuming that 
intelligence could be accurately represented by tests, that people can be 
accurately rated by such tests, and that measured IQ is unchanged through life 
or through circumstances of culture, training or experience.

``The whole logic is faulty,'' Gould said of the book.
Edmond W. Gordon, a professor of psychology at City College of New York, said 
the climate of American society was ripe for a book such as ``The Bell Curve'' 
because people of wealth are concerned about protecting their status.
``What I see in this book is a justification for selfishness,'' said Gordon. 
``They say their science justifies excluding a segment of society that we can 
declare as undeserving of inclusion.''

It was in such a social climate, he said, that fascism was able to rise and 
dominate Germany prior to World War II.
Cole said the book provides ``justification for the `haves' by saying the 
`have 
nots' deserve to have not.''
Murray did not answer phone calls for comment.



Copyright 1995, Medio Multimedia, Inc. Portions Copyright The Associated 
Press, 
All Rights Reserved. Portions Copyright The Los Angles Times Syndicate.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09743; Wed, 29 Mar 95 19:59:05 -050
% Received: from mv.MV.COM by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA30254; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:52:44 -080
% Received: from 199.125.92.73 by mv.mv.com (8.6.10/mv(b)/mem-940616) id TAA06877 for <delbalso@molar.enet.dec.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 19:49:56 -050
% Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 19:49:56 -0500
% Message-Id: <199503300049.TAA06877@mv.mv.com>
% From: Jack@delbalso.MV.COM
% Subject: Bellcurve complaints
% To: molar::delbalso
% X-Mailer: AIR Mail 3.X (SPRY, Inc.)

    As I am not allowed to participate in this discussion, I will
    just point people to an excellent article written by Stephen J. Gould
    in a November 1994 issue of "The New Yorker".
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	I find it very hard to believe Mr. Bill has been excluded from a
    discussion and I find it even harder to believe that he would honor
    that exclusion.
    
    
    

    
    Believe it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	As much as Mr. Bill and I don't agree, I can't see excluding
    someone from a discussion. Or is this a self-imposed exile??
    
    
    jim

    
    Well, Mr. Bill, did you read the effin' book or didn't you? :-) :-)
    
    -b

    Re: .207
    
    Now, I can see how someone might not be able to discuss a topic with a
    particular person, but I cannot see how someone could be barred from
    discussing a topic at all.

    
    RE: .208
    
    jim!!!!!!!!
    
    
     Sssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

    
    	oops! sorry...lost my head....%*}

|   Now, I can see how someone might not be able to discuss a topic with a
|   particular person, but I cannot see how someone could be barred from
|   discussing a topic at all.
    
    I can't see it either.  Somebody else can.  That's all that matters in
    this case.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: .215
    
    
    Please see .207
    

    Re .206:
    
    > All of these points are wrong, according to Stephen Jay Gould,
    > professor of zoology at Harvard University.
    
    Geez, couldn't they find any psychologists or sociologists to pan the
    book?  Aside from that, most of the representations of the book are
    just plain wrong:  _The Bell Curve_ doesn't say that intelligence
    "controls" destiny or that economic success is "directly linked" to
    intelligence, et cetera.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.