3 ms·

I agree it probably isn’t genetics alone, notably the increase in visual spatial skills I would suspect to have more to do with video games than genetics. I ha

I agree it probably isn’t genetics alone, notably the increase in visual spatial skills I would suspect to have more to do with video games than genetics. I have yet to read “the bell curve” said, but did they really use an argument that flew in the face of the abundant evidence of IQ increases unlinked to genetics as a result of better nutrition and education? Hell America gained a few IQ points nationwide from banning leaded gasoline alone so we also knew of environmental means to affect IQ levels. This was all known about and very well established at the time of authorship. Is there an excerpt?

runarberg 4y ago
> did they really use an argument that flew in the face of the abundant evidence of IQ increases unlinked to genetics as a result of better nutrition and education? Yes they did, and they did a lot worse than that. And that is the reason why the scientific community was very fast to discredit this book. The science in it were bad, to say the least. It wasn’t even peer reviewed. I think the decline in IQ research is in large part thanks to the pushback this book rightfully got. It is actually nice that this books is raised here, because the journal this study was published in Intelligence has its ties to true believers of The Bell Curve. Richard J. Haier is the editor in chief signed an editorial defending this book back in 1994. And the board included disgraced eugenicist Richard Lynn (whos discredited pseudo-scientific work cited throughout the book) was on the editorial board until 2018.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > Yes they did, and they did a lot worse than that See above reply. Wikepedia completely contradicts what you are saying. I also know what you're saying about AEI is mostly garbage, too.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
You are being overly charitable. He worked at the American Enterprise Institute, so if you just imagine their attitude to the scientific facts of climate change, transposed onto genetics, you'll have a good idea of what they were saying. So it's not so much as not being aware of the science, but of not liking the obvious policy conclusions it leads to and so having to work really hard to counter it. https://www.desmog.com/american-enterprise-institute/ https://www.desmog.com/american-enterprise-institute/
Izkata 4y ago
I haven't read it either, but even just a quick look at Wikipedia shows the other responders don't know what they're talking about: > According to Herrnstein and Murray, the high heritability of IQ within races does not necessarily mean that the cause of differences between races is genetic. On the other hand, they discuss lines of evidence that have been used to support the thesis that the black-white gap is at least partly genetic, such as Spearman's hypothesis. They also discuss possible environmental explanations of the gap, such as the observed generational increases in IQ, for which they coin the term Flynn effect. At the close of this discussion, they write: > > 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 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Part_III._The_National_Context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Part_III._The_N... The part I find especially amusing is how often the Flynn effect is used to refute The Bell Curve, even though the term "Flynn effect" comes from The Bell Curve.
- runarberg 4y ago
  There are many ways to refute The Bell Curve. In addition to the Flynn effect, the science in it are plain bad, the policy proposals they enlist don’t necessarily follow their scientifically flawed results, it repeatedly cites a disgraced eugenicist as source, it was never peer reviewed etc. At this point, nothing in this book should be accepted as nothing more than a poor attempt at scientific racism. Let alone should anyone take any sort of scientific consensus. Other than the fact that it was wrong. This YouTube video[1] does a fair job of summarizing the bulk of what is wrong with this book. But IMO very fact that the book is an apologia for eugenicists should be enough of a critique, you shouldn’t need any more. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo PS. Regarding the naming of the Flynn effect: > Flynn stated that, if asked, he would have named the effect after Read D. Tuddenham who "was the first to present convincing evidence of massive gains on mental tests using a nationwide sample" in a 1948 article
- 4y ago

runarberg 4y ago

> did they really use an argument that flew in the face of the abundant evidence of IQ increases unlinked to genetics as a result of better nutrition and education? Yes they did, and they did a lot worse than that. And that is the reason why the scientific community was very fast to discredit this book. The science in it were bad, to say the least. It wasn’t even peer reviewed. I think the decline in IQ research is in large part thanks to the pushback this book rightfully got. It is actually nice that this books is raised here, because the journal this study was published in Intelligence has its ties to true believers of The Bell Curve. Richard J. Haier is the editor in chief signed an editorial defending this book back in 1994. And the board included disgraced eugenicist Richard Lynn (whos discredited pseudo-scientific work cited throughout the book) was on the editorial board until 2018.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> Yes they did, and they did a lot worse than that See above reply. Wikepedia completely contradicts what you are saying. I also know what you're saying about AEI is mostly garbage, too.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

You are being overly charitable. He worked at the American Enterprise Institute, so if you just imagine their attitude to the scientific facts of climate change, transposed onto genetics, you'll have a good idea of what they were saying. So it's not so much as not being aware of the science, but of not liking the obvious policy conclusions it leads to and so having to work really hard to counter it. https://www.desmog.com/american-enterprise-institute/ https://www.desmog.com/american-enterprise-institute/

Izkata 4y ago

I haven't read it either, but even just a quick look at Wikipedia shows the other responders don't know what they're talking about: > According to Herrnstein and Murray, the high heritability of IQ within races does not necessarily mean that the cause of differences between races is genetic. On the other hand, they discuss lines of evidence that have been used to support the thesis that the black-white gap is at least partly genetic, such as Spearman's hypothesis. They also discuss possible environmental explanations of the gap, such as the observed generational increases in IQ, for which they coin the term Flynn effect. At the close of this discussion, they write: > > 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 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Part_III._The_National_Context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Part_III._The_N... The part I find especially amusing is how often the Flynn effect is used to refute The Bell Curve, even though the term "Flynn effect" comes from The Bell Curve.

runarberg 4y ago
There are many ways to refute The Bell Curve. In addition to the Flynn effect, the science in it are plain bad, the policy proposals they enlist don’t necessarily follow their scientifically flawed results, it repeatedly cites a disgraced eugenicist as source, it was never peer reviewed etc. At this point, nothing in this book should be accepted as nothing more than a poor attempt at scientific racism. Let alone should anyone take any sort of scientific consensus. Other than the fact that it was wrong. This YouTube video[1] does a fair job of summarizing the bulk of what is wrong with this book. But IMO very fact that the book is an apologia for eugenicists should be enough of a critique, you shouldn’t need any more. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo PS. Regarding the naming of the Flynn effect: > Flynn stated that, if asked, he would have named the effect after Read D. Tuddenham who "was the first to present convincing evidence of massive gains on mental tests using a nationwide sample" in a 1948 article
4y ago