Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise.

Parent Cafe
81

<p>hereshoping:</p>

<p>I implied that it was simple? I don’t recall doing that. BTW, I believe in g. I’ll have to be convinced that g is higher in the master races than in others.</p>

<p>marite: </p>

<p>I’ve lost the thread of that conversation. Sorry. I’ll go back and read it again and answer a bit more in-depth when I have time.</p>

<p>PaleRider (or whoever you realy are): Every field has certain names that raise eyebrows. I suspect that physicists would raise their eyebrows at the names of those poor guys who came up with cold fusion. It’s not a matter of open-mindedness but a matter of credibility.</p>

82

<p>Um, yes, you did, proven above by your statement implying that The Bell Curve had anything to say about “the master races.” :)</p>

<p>But I’m out of this–as usual, your assumptions scare me.</p>

<p>Have a good evening!</p>

83

<p>I did? I don’t understand why you think so, ubermensch. ;-)</p>

84

<p>marite:</p>

<p>I had to look up “blague.” The first translator told me it was a tobacco pouch. The second that it mean “joke.” I assume it’s the second ;-).</p>

<p>I guess the point I was trying to make is that most of the great advances have been driven by extremely intelligent people. I don’t believe that being highly intelligent means you’ll end up as a back office nerd. Obviously, that happens sometimes. But I don’t think that somehow being moderately intelligent makes you a better person or necessarily leads to greater success.</p>

<p>As for being governed by the first 2000 people in the phone book, that means being governed by average people. I’d prefer smart people, personally.</p>

85

<p><a href=“http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml[/url]”>Historical Influences, Current Controversies, Teaching Resources;

<p>IQ tests are the way these two “men” “rate” people:</p>

<p>“Blacks have been overrepresented in white collar and professional occupations relative to the number of candidates in the IQ range from which these jobs are usually filled”</p>

<p>"The authors recommend that children born to single mothers with low cognitive ability be voluntarily given up for adoption. "</p>

<p>The criticisms at the end of the piece are very interesting</p>

<p>The Pioneer Fund and the Mankind Journal are kind of scary to say the least, and they the authors of the bell curve are connected and were partly funded by them…learning even more tonight…scary scary stuff</p>

86

<p>One, Darwin did not support eugenics…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/DonEug.html[/url]”>http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/DonEug.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Didn’t like Sangers views on eugenics…her views in that regard where horrendous, same with Bell</p>

<p>Is palerider a fan of eugenics…I can not tell…seems he/she likes the theory behind it, but not sure of the implentation…I could be wrong, hard to interpret that last post…if I am wrong, my apologize</p>

<p>However, the Pioneer Fund:</p>

<p><a href=“http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/pioneer.htm[/url]”>http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/pioneer.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/[/url]”>http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html[/url]”>http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And just learned that the Bradley Foundation also funded much of the research for the bell curve book and gee they have no agenda</p>

<p>THe more you look into the background of the people connected to this book and its authors, one of whom’s writings are the purpose of this thread, the odder the world gets</p>

<p>You see, when a study is done, you must look at the funding…simple…but then as you delve deeper, both deny giving to Murray, while claiming the other did…hmmmm…tsk tsk</p>

<p>I have learned alot tonight…when you look at the weight the Bradley Foundation has…</p>

87

<p>Oh yes, and where did I find the WSJ letter in support of the book, signed by 50 professors…on the David Duke website, and a white supremacy website…yeah!!! They LOVE the Bell Curve book…</p>

<p>As for the professors, interesting lot to say the least…some eugenics supporters, some recipients of Bradley Grants, I could go on</p>

<p>I look at the company people keep, and if David Duke loves this book and white supremists do as well, it just reaffirms my contention that Murray is a racist disguised as an academia</p>

88

<p>Tarhunt, we seem to be talking past each other. Sorry to have sent you the dictionary; I somehow thought you knew French.</p>

<p>I was only using Murray and Buckley against themselves athough think there is somethng to be said for drawing leaders from among the moderatly IQ of 130-145) gifted as there are more likely to speak the same language as the rest of the electorate and be less impatient with the intellectualshortcomings of mere mortal. A lot of what passes for arrogance among the highly gifted stems from their inability to apprehend why others cannot get it–something which to them is crystal clear and quite simple, really–as fast as they.</p>

<p>But politcal leadership takes different qualities from intellectual leadership.</p>

89

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>I don’t know if you actually read the links you posted, I only read the first one. In these quotes Darwin is specifically linked to the Eugenic theories of his cousin, Sir Francis Dalton, the founder of eugenics:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would advise you to actually read these quotes before linking them, it will otherwise make reasonable people question your other “information.”</p>

90

<p>marite:</p>

<p>I know a little French. Very little. Apparently, I do have a very good Parisian accent though. That’s what the flight attendants on Air France tell me, anyway. They’re always a bit shocked when they find that my vocabulary, grammar, and every other aspect of the language I “possess” are abominable.</p>

<p>I’m not proud of it, but there it is.</p>

<p>Mon adversaire. C’est moi!</p>

<p>I did get the wrong impression, I think. But I’m not entirely sure you’re right about the IQ thing. Some of the best leaders in history have probably had very high IQs, and I would put anything above 140 in the " very high" category. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Pericles, maybe Henry VIII, Abraham Lincoln, and Ethelred the Unready (j/k about Ethelred. I love the name.).</p>

<p>As for those who have advanced humanity in some way, I’d venture a guess that just about all of them had very high IQs.</p>

<p>In my experience, high IQ people are quirky but rarely “absent minded” in the stereotypical way. They can be impatient, yes, and often for the reasons you stated. Another reason they can be impatient, or even arrogant, is as a defense mechanism. It is difficult to be that different from others. It is socially isolating and that isolation can cause them to lash out.</p>

<p>As for leadership qualities, I’ve always wondered if the main reasons high IQ people fail in making decisions is that they can run up against two major problems: they are processing too much data to build up the necessary certainty to act (Hamlet) or they are building beautiful logic structures on sands of false assumptons.</p>

91

<p>citygirlsmom:</p>

<p>I think what you are presenting to us is potential motive to do bad research. That’s important, but it doesn’t prove the research is bad.</p>

92

<p>That’s a good point, Tarhunt. </p>

<p>Think about this, CGM: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist & a racist. Yet she founded Planned Parenthood, an organization you view favorably. Should the taint of the founder carry over to every action of PP today? Are all clients or supporters or employees of PP racists? Eugenicists?</p>

93

<p>Well, if you look at the Pioneer Foundation, its links aren’t as obvious as they were in the past, but they do reserach on:</p>

<p>Finding the “altruism gene.” Work on finding the “IQ gene,” the “crime gene,” and the other genes underlying human behavior, has turned out to be less rapid than expected. </p>

<p>THE NEW YORK TIMES -
Sunday, December 11, 1977</p>

<p>Fund Backs Controversial Study of “Racial Betterment”</p>

<p>by Grace Lichtenstein
A private trust fund based in New York has for more than 20 years supported highly controversial research by a dozen scientists who believe that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.</p>

<p>The Pioneer Fund, a tax-exempt foundation incorporated in 1937 for the express purpose of research into “racial betterment,” was worth more than $2 million, according to its 1975 Internal Revenue Service return. Yet several officers of the leading geneticists profession- al organization say they never heard of it. A month-long study of the Pioneer Fund’s activities by The New York Times shows it has given at least $179,000 over the last 10 years to Dr. William B. Shockley, a leading proponent of the theory that whites are inher- ently more intelligent than blacks.</p>

<p>The money was paid through Stanford University, where professor Shockley was a Nobel Prize-winning professor of engineering science, as well as through his own personal foundation - a customary method of foundation disbursement.</p>

<p>Another major beneficiary is Dr. Arthur R. Jensen, an educational psychologist at the University of California, whose article in 1969 theorizing that intelligence was hereditary touched off a furor over the value of compensatory education for disadvantaged black students.</p>

<p>Some Others Who Got Grants</p>

<p>Dr. Travis Osborn of the University of Georgia, Dr. Frank C. J. McGurk and Dr. Audrey Shuey are other well-known researchers in the same area who got Pioneer grants.</p>

<p>Two researchers known to few specialists in the genetics field, Dr. Roger Pearson and Dr. Ralph Scott, also got substantial grants, which they declined to discuss. Neither man is a geneticist.</p>

<p>Theories of racial inferiority pursued by Pioneer’s staff of researchers have been widely discredited in recent years. Some data developed by Cyril Burt, a British scientist, which had underpinned the theory, are now alleged by leading geneticists to be without scientific value.</p>

<p>In addition, at least one major association of professional geneticists has publicly decried the use of what it regards as questionable material on heredity and race to buttress political positions.</p>

<p>However, Burke Judd, former secretary of the Genetics Society of America, and Hope Punnett, secretary of the American Society of Human Genetics, said that in principle they were in favor of any legitimate genetics research, even when it encompasses what some feel is an extreme point of view.</p>

<p>“If you really believe in open research you’ve got to let these people do their ‘research’ and then let the rest of us question it,” said Dr. Punnett. She said she did not take either Dr. Jensen or Dr. Shockley “too seriously” because she did not think they had developed good scientific information to support their theories.</p>

<p>Some Are Embarrassed</p>

<p>Other colleges that have accepted Pioneer grants for “eugenics and heredity” include the University of California at Berkeley, University of Georgia, University of Southern Mississippi, Randolph-Macon College, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology and the University of Northern Iowa.</p>

<p>High officials of the last two schools said hey now were embarrassed by the grants. They asked to remain anonymous, on the ground that criticism by them would suggest interference with academic freedom.</p>

<p>It is not known whether Pioneer financed research in fields other than heredity and eugenics.</p>

<p>Spokesmen at all the schools who knew about the grants said they did not know the Pioneer Fun had been chartered for research into “racial betterment.” Nor did those scientists who The Times was able to reach who would answer questions.</p>

<p>A spokesman for the University of California at Berkeley said its records showed no Pioneer Fund grants to Dr. Jensen, although it did accept a Pioneer grant for a political science professor. Dr. Jensen confirmed that some of his grants came through the university.</p>

<p>In each case the university, or another foundation, was named as recipient of the grants, although the actual work was done by a specific professor in residence. This is common practice in grant-giving everywhere.</p>

<p>However, in at least one school, Northern Iowa, the professor, Dr. Ralph Scott, used some of the money not only for research but for anti-busing, anti-school integration seminars in such off-campus places as Louisville, (KY) and Boston (MA), according to the school’s grants administrator.</p>

<p>(not so much in the distant past-)</p>

94

<p>Dorothy- if I misunderstood the Darwin quotes, I am not the only one…and my other INFORMATION is quite accurate…do some research yourself</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=625[/url]”>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=625&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>guess if you all want to believe that the authors of the Bell Curve were pure scientist, had no agendas, that their funders had no agendas, fine, be naive…I can’t convince anyone if they believe that the research was accurate and believe that blacks are inferiour due to IQ which is what the research infers</p>

<p>I for one look deeper into the motivations of research and the researchers, whil others take things at face value…if you like the results, then look no deeper, and sounds to me like some of you do…</p>

<p>sad indeed</p>

<p>If you look at many signers of the WSJ letter, many of the professoers received grants from the Pioneer Fund, not neutral scientists or professors…money talks…</p>

<p>At a glance, you might say, what an impressive list, but if you look closer, well, the are all connected, they often share the same donators, etc</p>

<p>If you like Murray and what he says, feel free. I don’t.</p>

95

<p>And yes, the Pioneer Fund and the Bradley Fund give to many great instituions, doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda and try and steer research…how naive can people be?</p>

96

<p>citygirlsmom:</p>

<p>Of course they try to steer research. But that doesn’t mean that the research is invalid. It simply means one should be skeptical of such research. It’s like saying there are eight reasons why, if God didn’t exist, mankind would have invented him/her. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It just reduces the probability.</p>

<p>The research needs to stand or fall on its own.</p>

97

<p>Notice that Darwin did not endorse eugenics, despite several sympathetic remarks, as you can see from the preceding quotations. At the same time, you can also see that eugenic ideas were “in the air” in Darwin’s time, because major European nations (including the United States) were competing with each other in various fields. Such competitions were often likened to the “struggle for existence”.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/DonEug.html[/url]”>http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/DonEug.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>but hey, if I was unclear on Darwin and Eugenics, it is a cloudy issue for many</p>

<p>If you like the ideas of Murry, read him…I don’t care…I read him and find him a hack, as do hundreds of other more informed people than I…</p>

<p>Toodles</p>

98

<p>and many many many have repudiated the research and those that have “supported” it, in many cases have been funded by Pioneer Fund and the Bradley Foundation</p>

<p>I find that interesting…if you look at the list of professors who say the research is good and valid, and signed the WSJ letter, you will see they many got funding fromt he same sources, write for the same organizations, etc</p>

<p>If that is how they need to prove validity, so be it…reeks of non-neutrality to me in checking it out</p>

99

<p><a href=“http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm[/url]”>http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>last post on this subject</p>

<p><a href=“http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000099/[/url]”>http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000099/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Herrnstein and Murray (1994) essentially challenged social scientists who disagreed with TBC’s conclusions to produce scientific results showing otherwise. Over the last five years, various scholars have done just that, as reviewed above. Just as an inoculation at the doctor’s office leads the body to build resistance, TBC’s claims that intelligence is predominantly due to genetic factors and largely unmodifiable appear to have stimulated a number of researchers to build up a body of scholarship reaching opposite conclusions.</p>

<ol>
<li>Importantly, one could argue that the basis for supporting environmental enrichments in areas such as education and nutrition appears to be stronger now than when The Bell Curve was published. Although the new research studies on cognitive benefits of schooling and on environmental womb effects have their own limitations (as with any research), they do present an optimistic picture about environmental enrichment. At the same time, as argued above, some of TBC’s claims appear to need at least some trimming back.</li>
</ol>

100

<p>I don’t think that the controversy over “The Bell Curve” was much about the research methodology–an area that only a few handfuls of people in the academy had both the expertise and inclination to evaluate. To be fair, the APA review was probably the most objective, balanced review, and it confirmed many of Murray’s findings, failing only to endorse his strong version of heritability of IQ differeces between races and gently calling for a broader definition of intelligence.</p>

<p>The controversy really centered on the fact that the book didn’t stop at the borders of psycometrics, but used the research to justify public policy recommendations. And it was the rhetoric of those recommendations that were really polarizing. </p>

<p>Howard Gardner’s review (from one of cgm’s posts) really gets to the heart of what bothered me a the time:</p>

<p>

</p>