>>12160>political equality is not economic equalityI avoided referencing the bell curve there as I can see it's well challenged here. but picrel, they get what they work for.
>attached, gouldI've read a few criticisms of them, to find all of them misinterpreted the book, some so wildly you wonder if they had even read the book at all. so I'll read the section "CritiqueofTheBellCurve"
>slashing social programs canbe so abetted byan argument thatbeneficiaries cannotbeaided duetoinborn cognitivelimits ex-pressed as low1Q scoresthe point of slashing the programs were to build community and to discourage the stupid from making rash decisions. H&M find it is mostly the low IQ who are on welfare and related
>Intelligence, in their formulation, mustbe depictable as asinglenumber, capableof rankingpeople in linearorder, geneticallybased, and effectively immutable. Ifany ofthese premises arefalse, theentire argument collapses.There is no requirement of a genetic basis of intelligence to be true.
>Disingenuousness of contentH&M compared differences between groups, including race, but their main focus was intelligence. Unfortunately in almost every criticism there's screeching about race and no solid acknowledgement of anything else.
>the book gets validity from being big and intimidating!jfc
>no justification for gwhile g was mostly given as an assumption, there are sections, including the one he sites about the three schools, in bell curve which show
>tests of the varying in-telligences in his theory seem to be intercorrelated (p19)Gould admits this himself before going completely offtopic, saying "it isn't indicative of the cause".
>Admittedly, factoranalysis isadifficult andmathematical sub-ject, butitcan beexplained tolayreaders witha geometrical formu-lation [which I used but admit didn't "suffice for adequate explanation"]lol, lmao
>…so, althoughI offersome sketchyhints below,readers shouldnot question their ownIQ's ifthetopic stillseems arcane.you don't understand, don't feel bad, it's my fault!
>Inanycase,onecan't graspthe issueatall withouta clear expositionof factoranalysis>says it again, [proof required]if he can't explain his evidence it means nothing
ironically, just earlier he accused the bell curve of appearing ofcusicated and the text looking complicated (it isn't).
>V-bias TBC acknowledges affrimative action and you can see and picrel what they think of it. They dismiss racism as being prominent in denying opportunity to blacks in their time, and anyway, how does blacks being treated socially unfairly by society affect their reaction times when tested?
>they don't show the scatter plotfinally a good criticism
>muh correlationdoesnotimplycauseso propose a different mechanism!
>appendix 4 statementalso good argument, I will check those
Gould writes in a way that suggests TBC promotes "the cessation of Head Start" (TBC notes that Head Start may have other benefits but not increasing intelligence)
>WemustfightthedoctrineofTheBellCurvebothbecauseitiswrongandbecauseitwill,ifactivated,cutoffallpossibilityofpropernurturanceforeveryone'sintelligence.Ofcoursewecannotallberocketscientistsorbrainsurgeons(tousethetwocurrentslangsynecdochesforsmartestofthesmart),butcritiqueofTheBellCurvethosewhocan'tmightberockmusiciansorprofessionalathletes(andgainfarmoresocialprestigeandsalarythereby)—whileotherswillindeedservebystandingandwaiting
>conclusion>useless irrelevant blurb about TBC suggested policies preventing people from becoming rockstars or athletes>strawmans TBC as denying an environmental factor like childhood nutrition in intelligenceso the only criticisms worth investigating:
>g is contested>they don't show a scatter plot and they don't use the conventional goodness of fit, and when they do, the relationships are tinybig if true