Re: nbc Jeff Jacoby on the looters nbc

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:18:14 -0500, "Gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


>
>>
>> They're my words based on what I have read on the subject, but it is
>> very doubtful that anyone with any knowledge concerning the subject
>> would disagree with anything I wrote.
>
>
>You don't have to google very long to find out there are more than a few
>people who disagree not only with Jensen, but also his methodology.
>Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your remarks?

I thought you would have known that there are those who disagree with
Jensen without me having to tell you that. After all, you were aware
that he was controversial.

FWIW, the researcher who is the most effective in rebutting Jensen's
hypothesis that group differences in IQ are partly due to genes is
probably James Flynn, of "Flynn Effect" fame. Stephen Jay Gould is
often mentioned as a "debunker" of Jensen's hypothesis, but his book
"Mismeasure of Man" is ineffective at rebutting Jensen (even Flynn
says so).



>
>Yes, but how do you conduct an experiment in 'intelligence'. Let's assume
>it's genetic. Genetics are a function of evolution. In order for Jensen to
>conclusively prove his thesis wouldn't you have to put a group of similar
>humans in a 'test' room and let evolution take its course over time. Don't
>you have to set up the experiment so as to factor out any environmental
>influences? These are only a couple of things I can think of off the top of
>my head.

Well then, there's a lot you can learn about the methods that
researchers use to estimate the genetic and environmental contribution
to human traits. Bouchard discusses some of the methods on pages 6
through 10 of the article that I previously posted the link to.


>The fact of the matter is although you may find Jensen's work
>intriging a lot of people thought he was a quack, did they not?

As I said before, when Jensen is mentioned in the mass media, he is
frequently portrayed as a quack. Whether his hypothesis that genetic
and environmental factors both contribute to the black-white gap in
average general intelligence is correct or incorrect isn't known. But
it's probably correct to say that no one who is knowledgeable about
the study of intelligence thinks Jensen is a quack, regardless of
whether they agree with him or not. A survey during the late 1980's by
Snyderman & Rothman of experts in the study of intelligence (responded
to anonymously) demonstrates the discrepancy between the position of
experts on this question (a plurality of whom agreed with Jensen's
hypothesis) and the portrayal of the controversy in the mass media.

[Quoted from: http://tinyurl.com/awwtf ]:

Media portrayal and public opinion

Snyderman and Rothman (1988) conducted a study of the news media
(newspapers, news magazines, and broadcast TV news) and surveyed the
opinions of journalists and science editors. (They separately surveyed
intelligence experts.) Their analysis indicates that media coverage of
intelligence related topics is overall very inaccurate and misleading.
This is partly attributed to the tendency of the news media to
emphasize controversy, and the difficulty of accurately reporting
technical issues such as complex statistics. However, they conclude
that these factors alone cannot account for their finding that the
media has misreported the views of the scientific community,
especially about the role of genetic and environmental factors in
explaining individual and group differences in IQ. For example, the
media regularly presents the views of Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Kamin
as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those
who stress that individual and group differences may be partly genetic
(e.g., Arthur Jensen) are characterized as a minority. Their survey of
expert opinion confirms that the opposite is actually true.



>Jensen's research (and I'm only using him because you've made him the one
>example to form your opinion), as far as I can tell, can't lead one to the
>conclusions he's making. There looks to be two distinct variables involved,
>genetics and environment. Unless you can find a way to hold one variable
>constant while studying the dynamic effects of the second variable then I
>don't think you can come to the same conclusions Jensen is making. If you
>think about it a minute it would be very difficult to conduct this type of
>experiment so Jensen has attempted to form a conclusion based on a static
>sample as he finds it at a particular moment in time.

No one thinks that the two variables are "static" and immutable.

If everyone had the same environment, all variance would be due to
genes, and if everyone had the same genes, then presumably all
variance would be due to environment. Also, genes account for less
variation in traits in children that in adults. That's why estimates
for heritability are typically qualified by the age and the
environment (society) of those being studied.


Jerry
.