That happened when he was in high school. He’s 74 now. If you have to go back over half a century to find something damning, that speaks to the weakness of your evidence. In any case, I agree with you its time to lock the thread(too many detours from intelligent design to pogroms to what it really means to be Catholic to the Crusades and Inquisition to who voted for Trump in the last election).
@collegedad13 is trying to understand the issue (I think). He(?) is best off sticking to academic journals.
Here are some additional points which will hopefully assist with that:
1). Can’t remember the exact percentage But Murray uses the lower bound of the range indicated from the various heritability studies in his own work. In other words, he begins by giving the biggest leeway to factors OTHER than heritability.
-
One might take a good look at some of the articles that are coming out in the wake of advances in genetic engineering. Articles like this one, which implies strongly that SCIENTISTS who work on this stuff believe strongly in the heritability factor: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151211-genetics-intelligence-racism-science/
-
In fact, I just googled “Is IQ genetically determined” and I got a LOT of interesting articles! Most seem to indicate that heritability’s impact on IQ differences ranges from in the 40’s in childhood to 60-70% by late teens. There are various arguments for the merits of things like Family or Twin Studies (very easy way to trick out differences) as well as their drawbacks (establish correlations, not causations). More is being done at the DNA level (see previous comment).
-
Here’s a good summary (decent citations, etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
That is pathetic about the Middleburry faculty. Fortunately they seem to have shaped up a bit with the statement on freedom of speech . . .
America used to be a melting pot; but sadly, it has become a Walmart with lines of shelves and everyone has a distinct label on it. Identity politics divided people and society, of course campuses.
Who claims Stephen Gould was guilty of academic fraud? Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, or Scott Pruitt? BTW Stephen Gould is deceased Stephen Gould had 479 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books, 300 essays, and 101 “major” book reviews. @hebegebe HOW many peer reviewed papers does Charles Murray Have??? Does he even have one??
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html
Here is some more info for you
Melvin Konner, professor of anthropology and associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at Emory University, called Bell Curve a “deliberate assault on efforts to improve the school performance of African-Americans”:
This book presented strong evidence that genes play a role in intelligence but linked it to the unsupported claim that genes explain the small but consistent black-white difference in IQ. The juxtaposition of good argument with a bad one seemed politically motivated, and persuasive refutations soon appeared. Actually, African-Americans have excelled in virtually every enriched environment they have been placed in, most of which they were previously barred from, and this in only the first decade or two of improved but still not equal opportunity. It is likely that the real curves for the two races will one day be superimposable on each other, but this may require decades of change and different environments for different people. Claims about genetic potential are meaningless except in light of this requirement.[38]
In 1995, Noam Chomsky criticized the book’s accusations about race, saying that there is little evidence that IQ is genetic but that it is influenced by the environment. He goes on to criticize the notion that Blacks and people with lower IQs having more children is even a problem and criticized solutions the authors propose to stop it:
There’s an easy solution to the problem: simply bring here millions of peasants driven from the countryside in China…and radically reduce Browne’s income…while Black mothers are placed in Manhattan high rises and granted every advantage. Then the Asian influx will raise the IQ level; and as serious inquiry demonstrates, the fertility rate of Blacks is very likely to drop while that of the children of the journalistic elite, Harvard psychology professors, and associates of the American Enterprise Institute will rapidly rise. The problem is solved.[28]
Last time I checked, Noam Chomsky wasn’t doing any breakthrough research in this area. But hey, maybe I missed something. What’s interesting is that the studies have persisted well past 1995 and NOW the race is on at the DNA level. I have real problems with a lot of that, BTW (full disclosure).
@dadofd - interestingly, a lot of this can be explained by the emergence of the “cognitive elite” which Murray immediately addresses in his book. This has increasingly contributed to the “haves” and “have nots”. The “haves” tend to marry each other, reproduce, raise their children in an increasingly sheltered environments. Same with the have-nots. The melting pot of opportunity gives way to disparate groups - classes, if you will - which have little to do with each other, share very little in common, and even think differently!
This is why I fail to understand the rage against Murray. He says very clearly that this trend is a PROBLEM. The only difference between him and those who are raging is that he believes he has found a significant cause of said problem and they believe he hasn’t (and he’s a racist etc.). Regardless of who is correct, we do need to find the cause in order to have a hope and prayer of determining the proper policy solution so that ALL can contribute to, and benefit from, the American Dream. Something to think about.
“There’s an easy solution to the problem: simply bring here millions of peasants driven from the countryside in China…and radically reduce Browne’s income…while Black mothers are placed in Manhattan high rises and granted every advantage. Then the Asian influx will raise the IQ level; and as serious inquiry demonstrates, the fertility rate of Blacks is very likely to drop while that of the children of the journalistic elite, Harvard psychology professors, and associates of the American Enterprise Institute will rapidly rise. The problem is solved.[28]”
Nah. As Murray showed in his book, throwing money at a problem when there is a cognitive disadvantage won’t solve the problem. He has a chapter on offspring of wealth who themselves had low IQ’s and what tended to be the outcomes. Not good.
New York Times. Psychology Today. Wired. PLOS Biology (a peer-reviewed academic journal). A Columbia professor calls him a charlatan. Should I keep going?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-folly-fools/201210/fraud-in-the-imputation-fraud
https://www.wired.com/2011/06/gould-morton-revisited/
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
So you have found some people that disagree with Charles Murray. I do too on many points.
But the fact that there were dozens who agreed with him while Gould, his best known critic, had to make stuff up to refute him says to me that The Bell Curve was an academic work worthy of discussion. In other words, the opposite of “scientific racism”.
Murray is discredited. The only thing he shows is that if your family has money you are more likely to have a higher IQ.I think we all need to work on a system of income redistribution so that minorities can have a better chance.
Actually, Murray addresses the income question in his book.
However, what I’ve really found interesting is that our school district just had a conference for the educators on learning disparities. A good friend of mine was very perturbed that they covered studies showing the disparate outcomes for AA vs. white, HOLDING INCOME CONSTANT. They attributed the gap to “white privilege”. As I said a few posts up, call it what you will . . .if you are holding income constant, then it’s just a matter of education differences (but that’s the Y variable . . . ) or something more inherent that has yet to be identified (or acknowledged).
Well this is fun, @collegedad13.
You first tried to discredit the research used in his book, and I showed you that the Minnesota Twins research is a highly respected study. You then gave me a SPLC quote, and I showed you how the quote is taken out of context. You give me an article promoting the work of Stephen Jay Gould, and I give you proof that Gould committed fraud.
So after all this, the best you got is “Murray is discredited”?
Peter W. Wood, the president of the National Association of Scholars, has a long commentary on the Middlebury issue.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/07/middlebury-college-enabled-student-riot-charles-murrays-visit/
You can see that reframing at UCBerkeley were a few days ago a student casually destroyed property owned by the College Republicans while being recorded.
YOU DID not give me proof Gould committed fraud. Tell me again how many peer review articles Murray has??? Their are multiple sources that discredit Murray which have been given repeatedly. Try not to personally attack me if you can. The problem is income redistribution is desperately needed. Yesterday a higher up from Kansas said “the poor just don’t want health care” Do you think “the poor just don’t want education also” Maybe the poor need to make a choice iphones or education?
So the Psychology Today article titled “Fraud in the Imputation of Fraud. The Mis-measure of Stephen Jay Gould” didn’t do it for you?
@collegedad13: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Murray-Charles-updated-CV-March-2016-1.pdf
Go to the “technical articles” section for the peer-reviewed stuff.
Really Hebegebe. The author you quoted to Robert Trivers was suspended from Rutgers.
Here is how HE describes himself
"Unlike other renowned scientists, Robert Trivers has spent time behind bars, drove a getaway car for Huey P. Newton, and founded an armed group in Jamaica "
The article you referenced was not a peer reviewed article. There has to be one peer reviewed article from Murray??
Do you think Trivers wrote the article about Gould while in prison. This whole thing makes me laugh hysterically.
@collegedad13: see #453.
@JBStillFlying the Public Interest is not a peer review journal. It is a defunct conservative magazine. The Cato institute is not a peer review journal either . The Wall Street Journal is a not a peer review journal nor is the AEI. Sorry
@collegedad13 Is Journal of Labor Economics a defunct conservative Magazine? How about Political Science Quarterly?
For that matter how about the NYT, which also reported on the Gould goof. Once again, for your benefit:
@collegedad13 just some advice: if everything is debunked because it’s fraudulent, and fraudulent because it’s debunked, you will find yourself chasing your tail.
Edit to add: . . . for a L-O-N-G time.
@colllegedad13,
You haven’t heard of Trivers? Perhaps you have heard of Science, or Nature, two of the foremost journals out there, where Trivers is often published, in addition to his numerous publications in specialty biological journals.
Ready for your next attempted line of attack?