The Impact of Genetic Heritability on Intelligence: Fact or Fiction?

[Evo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo
But this test was administered by M.L. Finch . . . hardly a pure, unbiased scientist.

In politics, absence of bias is a requirement for authenticity.

There is no such requirement in science, and this partly because authenticity is not an aim of science.

Is this something in a link I posted? I don't have the verbage from every link memorized. I don't even know who M. L. Finch is.

 

[Evo]

Are there $2 million houses in Middle America? Of course. Are there ANY neighborhoods in Middle America that has a MEDIAN value of $2 million. NO! That was my point. Evo is trying to say that the STARTING value of her neighorhood is $2 million which is absolutely false. If $2 million is the starting value, I would LOVE to know what the median value is.

A neighborhood is a group of homes, in the context that we are discussing. It can be 2 homes. It can be 100 homes. Every home in a neighborhood can be the same price. There is no rule that says there has to be a range of prices or how many homes there have to be. I know you don't understand this.

Moonbear is correct, this is off topic.

 

[Monique]

As we agree it is off topic, don't go into it any further or this topic will be locked. Also, BlackVision, please stop calling other members dumb or stupid as it only undermines your own intellect. This has been going on long enough.

 

[Evo]

As of April, 1991, Bouchard had not published the case studies. It was requested in a letter to Science by Beckwith that Bouchard publish his case studies. As quoted above, Science magazine requires that requests for data be reasonable, and Science's test for reasonableness of request for data is that the data in question be necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported. Beckwith argued that the reason the request was reasonable was that placement bias by adoption agencies might cause the environments of the separated MZ twins to correlate independently of their genetics (making the genetic correlation look higher than it is).

Jensen, on page 178 of his 1998 book The g Factor, explains that placement bias is irrelevant because the variance in IQ caused by placement variance itself can be calculated and in turn shown to be "exceedingly small":

<snip>

So, that is why Bouchard's October, 1990 Science article can be considered both:

• published in a peer-reviewed journal
  
  and
  
  
• adhering to the guidelines of that journal upon which legitimate peer-reviewed status ultimately rests

I don't believe that it was the consensus of Science that Bouchard had met the requirements. Do you have anything that says Science agrees he met the criteria? I think I still have an article or two that says he didn't. That would mean that he had not met the peer review criteria. But I was willing to let you have that one. I still am, because I am really swamped right now and don't want to spend the time hunting for them.

Even if we say he had one peer reveiwed article in Science, his peers in this journal almost unanimously criticized and/or rejected his article for a number of reasons. In essence he failed the peer review. I know you will tell me that Bouchard rejected the criticism he received, but merely rejecting the criticism of a peer without disproving the accusation is meaningless. Anyone can say "no, darn it, I am sure I am right".

And the fact remains, Bouchard has never allowed another researcher to examine the data he used, so no one has ever been able to verify the accuracy or validity of his study.

This is what I have a problem with. If he didn't intentionally slant the data, why is he so afraid to let another researcher look at it? If he truly is correct, why would he allow himself to come under so much criticism? Seems to me that unless he had something to hide he'd be glad to clear his name.

 

[Nereid]

Has Bouchard ever stated publicly why he is (was?) unwilling to allow other researchers to examine his data?

 

[BlackVision]

BV, this must stop.

I'm just playing ball. Evo did flame me first. I merely return the favor.

 

[BlackVision]

As we agree it is off topic, don't go into it any further or this topic will be locked. Also, BlackVision, please stop calling other members dumb or stupid as it only undermines your own intellect. This has been going on long enough.

Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.

 

[Evo]

Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.

Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.

 

[BlackVision]

Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.

Yeah you haven't been lately but once it starts, hard to refrain from it afterwards. I apologize as well.

 

[hitssquad]

The M. L. Finch experience

But this test was administered by M.L. Finch . . . hardly a pure, unbiased scientist.

In politics, absence of bias is a requirement for authenticity.

There is no such requirement in science, and this partly because authenticity is not an aim of science.

Is this something in a link I posted?

No. It is part of the excerpt from the "excellent report" by Tim White that you reproduced in this post.

I don't even know who M. L. Finch is.

If you do an Advanced Search of Physics Forums with the Show Results as Posts option selected and for the argument finch, you will find a link to your Post 156 from this thread wherein you wrote:

• Anyone familiar with The Bell Curve knows that although it lists a lot of references, the study was based primarily on just a few studies.
  
  Most significant was the data provided by Richard Lynn.
  
  Here is an exerpt from an excellent report being worked on explaining the sources and actual data used by The Bell Curves' authors...
  
  Another of the "definitive" studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to "prove" such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.

 

[Evo]

Yeah you haven't been lately but once it starts, hard to refrain from it afterwards. I apologize as well.

Well, as I said it was my fault for starting it, so I am the one that needs to apologize to everyone.

It appears we both are certain we are right about the posts, and I think we are both guilty of being too vague to the point that we both went down different roads, both right and both wrong, and we are both too stubborn to admit we might have contributed to the confusion, at least I am. One of my MANY faults. But since I am always right, I guess it's forgiveable. (joking, kind of)

Truce?

 

[BlackVision]

Well, as I said it was my fault for starting it, so I am the one that needs to apologize to everyone.

It appears we both are certain we are right about the posts, and I think we are both guilty of being too vague to the point that we both went down different roads, both right and both wrong, and we are both too stubborn to admit we might have contributed to the confusion, at least I am. One of my MANY faults. But since I am always right, I guess it's forgiveable. (joking, kind of)

Truce?

Topics such as these tend to get very heated given the subject matter. And one slight mishap will collapse the entire infrastructure. Not an excuse for the way this debate has progressed but it's more understandable that it happens in such a topic then it would be in other topics.

And yes. Truce.