<p>You exacerbate the problem IrishMo2, by conflating to very different definitions of race. I would normally find this as a bit sloppy, and do here. I do not see racism, not by any stretch in the article posted. </p>
<p>If there is proof of racism elsewhere, then I suppose one would be obligated to present it or save it. The underlying assumption here is that the editorial board of the WSJ publishes the serialized rants of racist…for what purpose, I don’t know. Somehow, I suspect this is not the case.</p>
<p>I realize I’m skating on very thin ice here as a newbie, to be sparring with intellectual heavyweights such as IrishMom and Citygirlsmom—but I still must ask: am I the only person commenting on Charles Murray who has actually read “The Bell Curve” in its entirety and is prepared to comment on it? Please be gentle.</p>
<p>Dorothy, I’m actually referring to Murray’s book, The Bell Curve, not this article. The WSJ editorial board is notoriously right-wing and often contains opinions that lie in direct contradiction with the newspapers own reporting, sometimes even in the same issue. </p>
<p>Murray would prefer to change the dialogue which has been correctly identified as racist to a dialogue about intelligence, which is why his research, shoddy as it is, links intelligence with race. IOW, when Murray says “those with superior intelligence”, he is saying “white people and Jewish people”.</p>
<p>And I read The Bell Curve when it came out, it’s been quite a few years. When I read it, I was not skeptical, but when I started reading the reviews of his work by his peers, I discovered how disingenous and unscientific his research was. </p>
<p>Also: this may be the first time I’ve been called an intellectual heavyweight. I’m just an interested party, that’s all.</p>
<p>Your dictionary leaves out an important phrase: “A doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences…” (Websters New World)</p>
<p>If we were unwilling to explore racial differences, we would never address the enormous problems of diabetes & high blood pressure among blacks. Or alcohol abuse among Irish or American Indians. And on and on and on. </p>
<p>Murray was attacked because of his conclusions, not because of the process. It is cowardly to squelch exploration & research because we are afraid of what we may or may not find. As a white woman, I am in no way diminished because sub groups of Asians or Ashkenazian Jews have a different bell curve IQ distribution than my fellow freckled race members. Nor am I diminished because blacks of West African descent have a different aptitude than euoropeans for remarkable sprinting speed.</p>
<p>As PaleRider suggests, I have not read the book, The Bell Curve; but neither do I find it necessary to have read it if all that is at stake are the points presented in the article. I believe this to be the case. </p>
<p>I’m not even sure that I agree with him; I haven’t been able to get past all the slinging around of the expletive “racist” in this thread, without anything to substantiate it other than the personal determination that this article and its contents are crypto-racist.</p>
<p>I had never thought of the WSJ as “notoriously right-wing.”</p>
<p>If this be the case, which Newspaper is simply conservative (NYT, LATimes, Baltimore Sun…), without being “notoriously right-wing,” or worse, racist?</p>
<p>StickerShock, I’m sorry, your statement that he was attacked for his conclusions and not his process is simply incorrect. Well, I’ll grant, he was attacked for his conclusions, but his also attacked - and correctly attacked - process is why he reached controversial and erroneous conclusions. </p>
<p>Of course it is worthwhile to study health differences between different populations, and I support all kinds of research, provided the researcher is not misusing the research, as Murray did, to support his predetermined conclusion.</p>
<p>Dorothy - the WSJ <em>Editorial</em> board is notoriously right-wing. The newspaper itself is a fine journalistic organ reporting primarily on the business world.</p>
<p>ETA: Also, StickerShock - if a poorly researched book is used to support policies that may say “there is no point in educating those freckled people’s, as they are clearly only capable of reaching an IQ of 100 at best - we should begin training these people as cashiers once they’ve finished their elementary education” than you would be diminished. Murray’s work has been used to provide supposedly scientific support that certain populations, due entirely to their race, are not capable of achieving what other populations can achieve, and then used by pundits and politicians to wonder if therefore, we should be doing some sort of cost benefit analysis to determine whether it is worthwhile to fund X program to subsidize education.</p>
<p>If the research is dishonest, as Murray’s was, it has no use except misuse.</p>
<p>PaleRider, I read TBC twice. When it first was published, and again after having taken some statistics courses in an MBA program. The first go-round was tough. While Murray’s narrative flows easily, I needed to read every foot-note to fully understand his process. The book is HEAVILY foot-noted, and much of that was technical. On the second read, I found the book much more accessible. </p>
<p>Don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to post specific problems with Murray’s facts or methods. If someone calls Murray a racist, well, he just is! Sit down & shut up.</p>
<p>“The WSJ editorial board is notoriously right-wing and often contains opinions that lie in direct contradiction with the newspapers own reporting, sometimes even in the same issue.”</p>
<p>I’ve seen similar contradictions in the NYT! So, following your logic, should I discount all of their op-eds? btw, what’s “notorious” about being right-wing? Not that this has any bearing on the subject, just your ability to be merely “an interested party.”</p>
<p>I read parts of this book when it came out. What I took from it (perhaps wrongly) is that there was, is, and always will be a ruling elite in this country. I seem to remember him making the point that the students who went to our elite universities used to be the sons and daughters of the ruling elite, not necessarily the brightest bunch. I remember charts in which he compared the SAT scores of kids admitted to these schools (whenever the book came out) to past years and his conclusion was that we presently have a meritocracy in this country based not on family wealth and the good old boy system, but on actual merit (using SAT scores).</p>
<p>I thought his point was that certain groups are shut out of this meritocratic elite because they do not have the SAT scores, grades, etc.</p>
<p>I do believe he concludes that this is because of a combination of genetics and environment, which is pretty much the same conclusion every other study of intelligence has reached.</p>
<p>Does this mean that the present stratification of our society can’t be changed? No. Is it probable it will be? No.</p>
<p>It’s been a long time since I looked at the book though.</p>
Ridiculous statement, sorry, have to call you on that. Where? When Who? Murray clearly states that people from every racial group fall into every spectrum of the IQ bell curve. Show some evidence of your claim, please.</p>
<p>As a parent who is interested in issues related to intelligence, I read “The Bell Curve” a few years ago. I found it to be quite scholarly and analytical, and most of the book dealt with social issues relating to varying levels of intelligence, regardless of race or gender. There was an appendix, I believe, in the back of the book which addressed differences in intelligence between populations of different ethnicities. I also believe that it talked about issues relating to the differing performance subtests for Asians and Jews, but the part that dealt with African-Americans is what was publicized and attacked. I’ve never read anything to refute the data regarding Asians or Jews.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that Murray and Herrnstein made up their data. They used data from various longitudinal studies. I do find the data disturbing, and I’m not clear on whether the causes have been carefully examined. I will add, though, that the message I got from the book is that you can’t make assumptions about any individual about his intelligence based on race and that there should be a place in society for everyone. I didn’t see it as a racist book – reporting data cannot be racist, if the data is accurate.</p>
<p>I posted a specific problem with Murray’s assumptions, so you can let that breath out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That assumption has been shown to be false in several peer-reviewed studies. I will help you guys out later this weekend and find some links to peer-reviews of The Bell Curve. </p>
<p>I did reveal my own political bias by using the word notorious. It is well known that the WSJ’s editorial board is right-wing. Whether that is notorious depends entirely on your own political outlook. And yes, PaleRider, you will find that same kind of disconnect between the editorial pages and the news pages of any newspaper, because the Editorial page is where people write their opinions, which may or may not have anything to do with facts of any kind. However, Dorothy asked me if she was supposed to believe that the editorial page of the WSJ would post the rants of a racist, and yes, yes they would, particularly when that racist couches his discrimination in terms of intelligence. I suppose we could divert into a discussion of whether the right-wing is racist or not, but that’s a whole other discussion (and my short answer would be - most conservatives I know are not racists, and I don’t believe most right-wing politicians are racist, but they are willing to use race as a way to encourage racists who may be members of their party to vote for them.)</p>
<p>I will have to revisit this topic later this weekend. Quickly, though - if the first place you hear about a so-called scientific study is in a newspaper, you should be skeptical. If a supposedly academic work of research is published without peer-review, you should be skeptical. If an author doesn’t want his peers to criticise his work before it’s published, there may be a reason he doesn’t want his peers looking at it. I’m NOT suggestion that Murray falsified his data, I’m suggesting that he only used data that supported his theory and ignored data that make his theory look incorrect.</p>
<p>Murray’s original book, like the recent article, had many important insights that one would expect to be more carefully analyzed at a website frequented by such a collection of intellectual heavyweights. It’s way beyond race, or even class, per se. Certainly way beyond a conspiracy to crank out a middle class of Willy Lomans who spend their free time grousing on chatboards instead of improving their own circumstances in this, the most fertile of all possible countries.</p>
<p>“am I the only person commenting on Charles Murray who has actually read “The Bell Curve” in its entirety and is prepared to comment on it?”</p>
<p>No, I have, and I guess I’m prepared to comment on it, but I’m pretty unenthusiastic about doing so. We hashed this out pretty thoroughly in Hyde Park back when it came out.</p>
<p>I have read it carefully, but it was moons ago, and I feel no need to explain why I think Murray is a racist and why I think his writing is hogwash</p>
<p>But, thanks for insulting people here, and so soon too.</p>
<p>Ciao palerider, when you can bring yourself to stop calling names, being rude, and such, which is soooo farmiliar when compared to some posters who have disappeared for awhile…the style is so similar, but whatever, perhaps you are indeed a newbie…</p>
<p>and btw, if we don’t want to rehash things we talked about when they first came out, go do some reading yourself. Have you read anything that disagrees with your love of Murray’s analysis…well, why don’t you go do that if you want to be enlightened.</p>
<p>THe American Psychological Association formed a special task force to addres the controversy. Their findings supported the book’s claims.</p>
<p>Irishmom, where did you give specifics? You claim the book was not peer reviewed, but it was a book written for the public. Plenty of peers loudly and enthusiastically supported its conclusions after publication. They just didn’t get the press of Gould & others.</p>
<p>I DID read the Fair article that Tarhunt linked. It was sad. In the second paragraph, the author claims that The New Republic promoted the idea that “racism is a respectable intellectual position” simply by debating The Bell Curve’s premise with the authors!!! Talk about having one’s mind made up before finding the facts, engaging in discussion, unearthing the truth. No need, I guess. Just slap on the racist label & shut down the dialogue.</p>
<p>Well, this thread has certainly deteriorated.</p>
<p>Stickershock, the measurement of intelligence is not my thing, so I will have no opinion on this until I read the book and some peer reviews. I can say, however, that I read the names of the signatories on the link you provided and some of those people … well.</p>
<p>Like you, I believe that facts are facts. Unlike you, I know the history of eugenics at least in a passing sort of way, and it’s a very ugly history, indeed. I also know just enough about this field to know that measurement is the bugbear. IQ tests on me as an adult have varied by 1.5 standard deviations. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in the accuracy of said tests. I’m also aware of experiments giving minorities tests in which they are told the tests are important and when they are told the tests are not, and the difference in the results was significant, as I recall.</p>
<p>So, I’ll read it. I’ve meant to for some time. And then I’ll read scholarly refutations.</p>
<p>In the meantime, may I recommend “Guns, Germs, and Steel” to you?</p>
<p>Replying to post 38.
Anti-intellectual? moi? C’est une blague.</p>
<p>Originally, I wrote that post to include a disclaimer, stating that what I wrote would be what one would conclude from Murray’s premise that the highly gifted should be highly educated because they will be world leaders, and Buckley’s anti-intellectual jibe (or is it merely an anti-Harvard jibe by a Yalie? what about using the New Haven phone directory?) </p>
<p>My own S is gifted (highly? moderately? profoundly? Never had him tested, and we don’t care). We strove to provide him with an appropriate education which, in his case, did not mean putting him with other “highly gifted” (there not being any such program in our state) but usually with students several years older. I am thankful, though, that he did not cut contact with academically less able friends. Some of them exhibited far more common sense than he. One friend with a mild learning disability is my idea of a truly good person. He also has people skills that my impatient S lacks. LD or not, he will go far in life. </p>
Do you want to name names? Darwin, Bell, Sanger…but the “history” of eugenics as some sought to apply it (intelligent design, in their own opinions?) isn’t necessarily the same thing as the theory.</p>