Ned Block on The Bell Curve

By -
If you have any interest in the topic of race and IQ and you haven't read this, you really ought to do so. Block shows the very basic error made by Murray and Herrnstein, in carrying over the heritability of IQ within a race to heritability across races. (As Block clearly demonstrates, there is no necessary connection between the two numbers whatsoever.) Along the way, he also shows that "These issues are pathetically misunderstood by Charles Murray.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy6:14 PM

    White writers are so stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah8:53 AM

    Not as bad as Irish writers!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Per Johansson3:40 PM

    Am a bit confused. Did M & H really make the basic error they were aware of?
    p. 298:
    That a trait is genetically transmitted in individuals does not mean that group differences in that trait are also genetic in origin.

    p. 299:
    The heritability of individual differences in IQ does not necessarily mean that ethnic differences are also heritable

    Thought the controversy was about empirics but maybe not...

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah3:57 PM

    Per, as Block notes, speaking of the heritability of an individual's IQ does not make any sense at all!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gabe Ruth10:05 PM

    Now I know why I'd never heard of you or your blog until a few weeks ago (ie, you get no link love). Thanks for the link. It's always bugged me a little that a so many intelligent people on the right put as much stock as they do in a book basically about statistics on a nebulous and contested quantity (though I think Murray has redeemed himself at least a little with his latest).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more