home

Bell Curve Sully

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:39:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via DougJ, the return of Bell Curve Sully:

Charles Murray was onto something, wasn’t he?

Speaking for me only

Let's make this an Open Thread.

< Obama's Secret Laws? | Prison Consultant Convicted of Impersonating Lawyer >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bell Curve Sully | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The bizzare (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by eric on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:54:24 AM EST
    thing in that his reference to Charles Murray doesn't really follow his quote.  Less educated people are being disproportionately affected by job losses, therefore Charles Murray?  What?

    I think you're supposed to read into it (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    "Those stupid ___ people."

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    Not only is he the R-word, he's also making stupid conclusions.

    The numbers he quotes greatly stem from the fact that the college educated middle management are typically the ones laying off the less-educated workers, "to save money". Once they have no one to lay off, they get laid off themselves.

    It's a hierarchical structure, not a "black" issue.

    I'm just glad my brother (a white guy) is a peon in the potato chip industry.  Potato chips and other comfort foods  are doing okay.  My sister in law works in bullets, another industry that will probably survive this recession (LOL)...especially with congressmen in this region calling on people to "protect themselves" etc. because of police layoffs. I'm mentioning my family members because both are high school dropouts -- and based on the recession-resistant industries they've chosen, who says they aren't smart! ;-).

    I think the demand for comfort food (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    will definitely increase. Also, on 60 Minutes they had a clip a gun show in VA. People are stocking up on bullets and other ammo since we all know that President Obama plans to take your guns away (Their expressed opinion not mine). So it looks like your sister-in-law may not only have job security but may be able to look forward to overtime.

    Parent
    Why not just call him what he really is? (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    Racist Sully.

    Yes. This is a horrific statement (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    on his part.  It puts him in the company of the conservative crazies -- my neighbors, my town -- behind the foundation that funded The Bell Curve book.

    Beware the fingerprints of the Bradley Foundation, folks -- and be aware that it was a major funding source behind the push for voucher schools.  Just saying. . . .

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    It drives me crazy, crazy, crazy that Greenwald quotes him approvingly all the time.  That book has some serious bigotry.  

    well ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by dws3665 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    Sully is a very mixed bag, sometimes (like this one) infuriatingly so. His writings opposing torture and restoring civil liberties (which are what I have seen Greenwald cite) are extremely lucid, forceful, and moral. His (Sully's) self-identification as a conservative also give his viewpoint on those civil rights issues more heft.

    Sully's apologism for Murray/Bell Curve/Social Darwinism horse-pucky is gobsmackingly putrid.

    I doubt Greenwald will link to any of that, unless it is to criticize and mock it (but it's not really GG's wheelhouse).

    I just think that people -- and pundits -- are not all right or all wrong. Sully is egregiously and unforgivably wrong on this; he is forcefully and obviously right on much of what he says about torture, however.

    Do you dismiss everything he says because you disagree (vehemently) with some of it? I can't stand Obama's stance on some issues, but I still embrace him as my President.

    Is it different with pundits vs elected officials? I don't know; I'm still sorting it out for myself.

    YMMV.

    Parent

    a silly invocation (none / 0) (#4)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    I only vaguely remember the arguments over that book.  IIRC the environmental people were saying that poor health of the mother from environmental exposure to toxins could explain the twin studies with underperforming minorities.

    Something like that.

    And iirc the primary racism of the book came less from the science as from the conclusions they drew regarding how public policy should deal with it.

    OMFG (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    It's just unbelievable that this kind of talk is even happening in the 21st century.

    There are simply reams of literature to counteract this rancid stuff, but it still persists. An easy read is 'The Mismeasure of Man' by Stephen Jay Gould.

    hhmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:23:22 AM EST
    Well, I think there is no doubt you are going to find measurable regional, but minor, variations in human IQ once the science advances.  Because you  find regional variation in all gene distributions.  That's the whole point of genes.  Genes dont care about fair and you tend to get traits that bunch up into regions because of the nature of human reproduction.

    There are some italians with a gene that makes them resitant to heart disease.  I'd like to have it but it's not all italians, it's regional.

    Unfortunately the topic is radioactive. Modern society demands that all groups be perfectly equal.  Our history with racism is too near for us to even joke about minor variations that likely wouldnt even line up racially but regionally. All africans arent great sprinters or marathon runners.  But there are regions who are good at one or the other.  I think there might be one white man in  history to break a 10 second 100 yard dash.   Africans do it all the time.

    Parent

    There is no evidence (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    for regional variation aligning with race in genes that control IQ. In fact, there is no gene yet identified that controls IQ. IQ itself is difficult to measure.

    But, yes, sure there are lots of genes that display regional and ethnic variation.

    Parent

    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    Connecticut Yankee gives the pseudo-science claptrap that we hear too often.

    Parent
    She just agreed with me. (none / 0) (#13)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    There are regional variations.  They just can't do much with IQ elements today because the whole science is still in it's infancy.

    But it is just a fact.  They will not find identical gene distributions in all populations.  That's just how it works.   But it's very likely that it won't line up racially, but regionally.   And it's very likely that the variations will be incredibly minor.

    The difference between the top european sprinters and the top west african sprinters, both trained to be at the top of their game, is very small.  And I think you'll find as many regional variations between european populations as between any other group.  But they are going to find them because genes don't care about equality or politics.

    When they do find uneven distrubtion of alleles that govern aspects of "IQ", count on the media to over-hype it.

    Parent

    Pretty sure she disagreed with you (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    You wrote "I think there is no doubt you are going to find measurable regional, but minor, variations in human IQ once the science advances."

    She wrote "There is no evidence for regional variation aligning with race in genes that control IQ. In fact, there is no gene yet identified that controls IQ. IQ itself is difficult to measure."

    I dunno, maybe it's me and the English language, but that reads like disagreeing to me.

    Parent

    No, its not your understanding of english (none / 0) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    it's your comprehension.

    I'm speaking of a future event and she is speaking of the current state of the art.  As she said, "yet identified", but I believe that you will find genes are involved in the process and that genetic distribution tends to be uneven.

    Unless you are suggesting that genes arent involved and that magic is behind it.  I have no comment on that.

    Parent

    You are displaying (none / 0) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    a very simplistic understanding of genetics.  Go read a book....Hartwell, Griffiths both have good ones.

    Parent
    Genetic distribution being uneven (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    is the norm. Predicting that it will be uneven if they were to ever find a gene controlling for IQ doesn't say much about much.

    Parent
    And it's also true... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    that some genes do not display much variation regionally.

    And it's also true that some genes are 'silent' in the human genome and control for nothing, but may be leftovers from ancient evolutionary history, or may be switched on again in future evolutionary events.

    None of this is the basis for saying anything about alignment of IQ with racial identity or genetic control of IQ.

    Parent

    You moved the goalposts my friend (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    I think we are clear now.

    Parent
    You can find no two individuals (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    that are the same genetically  (not even twins due to mutation, epigenetics, etc).  How can you say that a whole class of humans can be classified according to haves and have-nots in IQ?

    Parent
    hm (none / 0) (#22)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    Oddly, I never used the terms "have and have nots" or "an entire class of people".

    Say for example they identify x genes involved in 30 different abstract "IQ" measurements.  It's very likely there will be distribution patterns for those genes that can be measured in various populations.

    They might find "spatial relations xyz" measurement has a 2% better expression in population abc.  These are the variations I mean.  I think it's inevitable but likely to be incredibly minor.  Possibly even completely drowned out by environmental factors, I dont know.

    I just know that you are unlikely to find a perfectly even genetic distribution across populations.  

    WHen they discover something like this, youll have popular science run a headline, "hungarians have a better sense of direction", or some other incredible simplification or exaggeration.


    Parent

    The difference (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    between the top human and the top mouse, chimpanzee or dog ar also very small.

    Parent
    Isn't that cool? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    I love the fact that humans share over 99% of the same genes with a palm tree.

    Parent
    And it's a mistake (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    to believe that there's "a gene" for anything!  We are a product of development based on a complex cascading hierarchy of genes in combinatorial complexity and expression thresholds pushing and pulling at different levels.  And once we're developed we're still a product of all of those cascades and combinations.  True, melanism has been pinpointed to one gene, but even that gene works in harmony and conflict with a bunch of other genes.  All you have to do is look at a tribe of any race -- even one that hasn't been infiltrated too much by whites -- and you still see a great variation.

    Of course, you know all this.  I'm talking for those who don't.

    And I just think I'm smart because I'm taking a molecular evolution class right now.

    Parent

    Yes, but I didn't think (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    a discussion of evo-devo was prudent here! Yay for molecular evolution class.

    Parent
    I dont think anyone here suggested (none / 0) (#30)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    a one for one relation for each gene or attribute.  Youve simply added an additional layer of complexity.  Whether you have 1:1 or a much more complex series of relationships you still have a structure or blueprint.

    If you have individuals who have a gene package (of whatever complexity) that allows them an advantage, you will also find that gene package in populations.  The distribution for a given set of traits, however abstract, can easily be non-equal between different populations.

    One of the first things to be tracked is genetic disease and we know already that there is unequal distribution.  The rest remains to be determined.

    Parent

    Nah, I think you're smart because (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    you musta got your mama's smart genes.

    Or maybe it's just that you got up the gumption to get educated and take such a smart course.

    Parent

    At the risk (none / 0) (#32)
    by JamesTX on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    of sounding overly critical (which I'm not), I think it is important to remember IQ is easy to measure. Intelligence is another matter. Therein lies the crux.

    Parent
    There's no equality in the US. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    What a goofy comment.  

    Parent
    genes and IQ (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    Just because they haven't been identified doesn't mean that about fifty percent of IQ isn't genetically determined.  You can look at the Minnesota twin study of twins reared apart or about a million studies of children adopted at birth who don't have the IQ of the adoptive parents.  
    It's time to work on getting all children to function at their maximum potential, whatever that is, rather than live in a world of denial about inherited variations in IQ.  Next thing you'll be saying that there are no inherited variations in speed or jumping ability because you can't find the particular gene for it as yet.

    Yes, the evidence is (none / 0) (#33)
    by JamesTX on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    quite convincing that there are individual differences in intelligence and genes account for 40% to 60% of the variance. The argument comes in in the operational definition of intelligence. The part of the variation in ability attributable to genes may not always be measured by traditional IQ tests. Culture determines how the ability is expressed, but there are variations in ability nonetheless. Some people interpret the culture-bound testing problem as evidence that there is no such thing as intelligence, or that the construct is not useful. That is a misinterpretation. There is such thing, and it does vary among people, and the disposition is inherited. A person with the g genes will excel in any cultural environment in which they are raised. But the cultural environment in which they are raised may not value the things measured by Western IQ tests. How to reliably and validly measure it in individual cases while controlling for culture is the problem.

    Parent
    Open thread.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    found this link on Fark...I think I'm gonna have to score this book about the Piraha tribe in the Amazon...any tribe that can convert missionaries sent to convert them has gotta be onto some good living....missionaries are tough nuts to crack!
    hehehe. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:40:40 PM EST
    I thought that was Piranha tribe.  

    Parent
    Snakes on a plane (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:44:13 PM EST
    Calling Samuel L. Jackson.

    Bell Curve Sully | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment