------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phoenix trader, hmm you have so much bull shit again. You try to make the ET readers think I PROMOTE Gould. Then you post all the criticism of Gould to pretend I promote bad science in the link. My link DOES NOT promote Gould...only talk about what he said of the bell curve. And if you read all the article you can see this in the link I post. Aaaa, you are sneaky. "This fact led one critic of the idea of general intelligence, Stephen Jay Gould (1983) to argue that factor analysis is not an appropriate way of defining the variables underlying test scores, because one solution is statistically as a good as another. Gould was wrong. There are statistical methods (which were well known to specialists at the time) that make it possible to compare the goodness of fit of one factor-analytic solution to another. When these methods are applied, investigators virtually always find a highly reliable first factor. The case for general intelligence, the unitary IQ score, is far from trivial. However, there are alternative explanations for the data, based on the idea that there are different types of intelligence, even when one restricts oneself to the notion that intelligence is what the tests measure. To understand what they are, we need to delve into factor analysis a bit more." ("Gould was wrong.")
1)You liar, you did promote gould: supposedly as an expert. 2) Attacking an experts credentials and his body of work are fair game . It's not like I posted pedophilia charges or something of an unrelated personal nature. gould was essentially caught red handed misrepresenting data to fit his narrative. I suspect he's been a little niggardly with the truth elsewhere in his arguments too, in attempts to discredit "the bell curve" and it's potential implications. 3) Describe his criticism in your own words and I'll address what you understand.
What trendlover and others ignore in the articles is that by claiming that other types of intelligence exist, they are engaging in question begging. Until they actually empirically define it and measure it then it is all PC handwaving to soothe the feelings of lefties. IQ tests measure something biologically instrinsic or there would not be such a large correlation with reality. IQ tests are the basis of public assistance and define mentally retarded medically. We donât have or may never have a complete ab-initio model for human beings, but the correlations are so strong that scientifically it would be irrational to conclude anything but genetics plays a role as it does with the short distance runners. Never has there been so much invested in educating people of a certain race, yet they still fail. Liberals come up with all sorts of theories, like black parenting sucks, or Asshole Wrights left-brain and right brain stuff (even Jeremiah Wright thinks there are genetic differences). Everyone else just does it without assistance. If they could have, they would have. So much attention is given there is even a journal devoted to this: http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_graduate_admissions_test.html Notice how they never face reality, the answers are always racism, more money and more AA. Political pressure ensures no university will fail many blacks, they donât want the stats. Iâve been on the inside and blacks continue to underperform all the way to the ends of their careers in hard science. Typically after obtaining some lesser graduate degree, AA makes sure they get hired into some bullshit job where they typically do nothing. It happens all over the government labs. I say typically because of course there are exceptions, which far too few to justify all the waste. Physics is a very stratified achievement based culture contrary to what these know-nothing folks claim. I can tell you at the elite levels there are so few blacks that statistically they are at noise levels. Nowhere did I ever see any roadblocks for people to excel, itâs all up to the individual and there is so much AA that any black that wants it can have it assuming they are capable. LOL Of course, Obama the pot smoking empty suit would still be taking hits in Hawaii.
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and all of a sudden it dawned me, hadn't thought of it before. In my professional class we were told there were 650 qualified applicants and only 40 slots. That breaks down to accepting just a little over 6% of the applicants into the program. Now here is the odd thing there were exactly zero blacks in my class or the class junior to mine. We did have one Indian (from India) These facts I already knew. What dawned on me is I don't know a single black person with my professional degree. Furthermore I've never even met or seen any (black professionals with my degree) ever! This observation includes the years of professional annual continuing education classes I attended. btw:You kinda stole some of my thunder but from reading the bozo from nyu (ned block) that rcg linked to some epiphanies dawned on me concerning the rationale for certain gubbermint behavior. I expect to post this hypothesis in another thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, you really the BIG liar. My link talk about the IQ test and how this measure success in life, in modern world. I do not promote Gould. You lie so much. In my link they talk about Gould only one time. (Why) they talk about him is to show he WRONG when he talk about the factor analysis for the subsets of the IQ test. Gould say the analysis is wrong and only a chance for the number, so he say is not accurate analysis. But the link show (how Gould is wrong )to say that. Here read you big liar. I am not promote Gould. Mav88, you are not stupid. I know you can see how Phoenix is THE BIG LIAR to say I promote Gould. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we apply factor analysis to test scores, instead of hot dogs, the first factor accounts for most of the variation between people just as the length of the hot dog accounts for most of the positioning of the pimientos. But instead of saying "length of hot dog," we say "general intelligence." There are two objections to this argument. One is that when the data are reduced from the K-dimensional to the P-dimensional space, the orientation of the orthogonal dimensions in the P-dimensional space is arbitrary. To see this, consider the hot-dog example again. Although locating pimientos can be reduced from a problem in three dimensions to a problem in one dimension, the one dimension does not have to point exactly along the long axis of the hot dog. It could be rotated to any angle at all, excepting at a right angle to the long axis, and the pimientos could still be located with equal accuracy. This fact led one critic of the idea of general intelligence, Stephen Jay Gould (1983) to argue that factor analysis is not an appropriate way of defining the variables underlying test scores, because one solution is statistically as a good as another. Gould was wrong. There are statistical methods (which were well known to specialists at the time) that make it possible to compare the goodness of fit of one factor-analytic solution to another. When these methods are applied, investigators virtually always find a highly reliable first factor." http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=878&y=0&no=&content=true&page=8&css=print
your link cited him My apologies but this is exactly why I specifically ask you to describe what it is your supporting links/quotes are supposed to convey. Thanks for making your stance known as rejecting Gould's criticisms specifically of "the Bell Curve" and by extension, his difficulties with honesty accepting the facts laid out in my OP. Please note your rejection of gould bolsters my position (decimates rcg) as he was the leftist's "SUPERSTAR" on these controversial matters. thanks. So now if you still want to use your link as a reference? Tell me the points you think it's arguing. (I'm not going to take the time to decimate every point made in a link you've made) Namely refutation of the black/white IQ gap. Once I think I've established that fact beyond reasonable doubt and decimated you and your fellow fools (that contest it) I will go on to explore more. best of luck , your gonna need it
For Phoenix Trading's benefit I just want to point out that more recent research has provided very strong evidence that cognitive and other abilities that I.Q. tests are designed to measure are not fixed at birth, but may be hugely influenced by external stimuli in infancy and childhood. This is consistent with the human brain's neural development at birth being less complete than for other mammals, a well-established fact, and the increasing evidence that neural development in infants and children is strongly dependent on external stimulation. Whereas previously it was hypothesized that brain development was influenced by both genetics and environment with genetics being the more important factor, current evidence is showing that the extent and nature of external stimuli is a far more important factor than was previously assumed. The consequence of these findings is that even if I.Q. in adults determined by standard measures is correlated with race, it is nevertheless likely that the link between race genetics and I.Q. is weak.
1) I'm sorry but that's a complete misrepresentation of the facts: via the strawman argument. I haven't stated nor implied IQ is fixed at birth. AS a matter of fact IQ is ALWAYS (normed) AFAIK in testing. No one expects a 3 month old to express the cognitive abilities of a 20yo. The heritability of "g" increases with age culminating at .85 with 18year olds. As a side note it's also well documented that "g" or IQ peaks in early adulthood and is partly responsible for the notorious difficulty in adults returning to rigorous academic work significantly later in life. That portion of your post highlighted in red is complete BULLSHIT and or irrelevant, it doesn't address the issue at all. The gap still exists. Unless of course you want to argue the differences are due to the HERITABILITY FAIRY striking all blacks as a group with the STUPID STICK.
tell that to Down's syndrome parents, all they needed to do was provide more stimulation. the external stimulus thing has been known for some time, and once again people are trying to hand wave desperately. There have been studies of children of different races raised in white homes, the results are predictable.
People don't understand me, and that's fine. I actually want blacks to succeed, it is in my interest. Maybe they would stop all this AA, endless complaining, race obsessing, marching, suing etc. in place of productive activities. I fear we have made race politics too lucrative. I tried to help with the HBCU set asides once and I was talking with a certain black physicist (nationally recognized among blacks, a nobody in the larger picture). He graduated from an HBCU, then all he did was promote AA type programs and education because we allow him to do it. He kept telling me that we are not using an untapped resource when we need to be competitive- black people. He didn't get it, he just could not fathom that HE was supposed to be the resource. It is always the next generation that will do great things, the blacks folks now are too busy complaining... Any people that cost so much and still do not perform are not a resource, they are a drag. Black people are right there next to whites, free to excel as far as their talents will take them. You don't need to come from a great home to learn math, you need to simply apply yourself in the moment and do it. I'm sure the folks at the Journal of Black education will say that there needs to be more elaborate government this and that, and then OTHER blacks will suddenly become very intellectual.