The idea that group genetics can manifest differences in physical appearance, musculature, and immune system traits yet has no bearing on psychological traits seems pretty ridiculous.
@@default2826 No, it unfortunately is not. It is a test, like any other, which people learn to ace. That's how you have a Mensa composed entirely of average people.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Isn't the Mensa test available for free on their website for people to take as many times as they want? Pretty sure a proper IQ test has to be conducted under the supervision of a licensed psychologist where you don't get the opportunity to prepare for the exam. I've had two of these administered, one as a child and one as a young adult. Neither time was I even aware that I was going to be receiving such an exam. Obviously it's because it needs to be conducted spontaneously to yield useful results.
There was another female researcher on an episode of "Through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman" who studied the differences with IQ and race and she came to the same conclusion. No surprise she was shunned from the academic "community". Can you imagine doing research and presenting your findings only to realize that these other "researchers" aren't researchers but political and ideological activists.
Imagine becoming literally anything, then act perfectly antithetical to who you supposedly are. Anti-science scientists are like anti-fence fence installers
Science isn't perfect. There are never any purely dispassionate, empirical, results achieved. The researchers assumptions will always influence the results. Even our best theories - such as natural selection and general relativity, theories that have been observationally confirmed thousands upon thousands of times - are still only ever one result away from being falsified. Indeed, both Darwin and Einstein fully expected their theories to be superceded at so Moreover, personal conflicts, hidden assumptions, politics, confirmation bias, culture, normative judgements, and ultimately the evolutionary biology that has shaped the lens through which we all can't help but see the world through, all go to influencing the results of scientific inquiry into the world around us. We like to think that science is a purely empirical domain, that experimental results and theoretical conclusions are _objective_ rather than _subjective,_ but this just isn't true. Within any one small corner of physics there are considerable differences of opinion as to what constitutes the truth of the world - there is almost never anything like a concensus. Look at our most succesful theory of reality ever, quantum mechanics. There are almost as many interpretations of what quantum theory is telling us about the world as there are possible locations that we could find an electron within a hydrogen atom... Namely, an infinite number! There's different schools championing the Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds theory, Bohmian mechanics, hidden variables, Q'bism, Orch-Or, and M-theory, to name just a few! We can accurately predict the results of experiments to sixteen decimal places, yet we can't even agree if the wave function actually exists or not! And if you want to keep recieving that grant money then you would be better off just quietly dropping any references to Bohmian mechanics - it still carries that whiff of communism about it! (David Bohm was ostracised by the mainstream scientific community after Neils Bohr launched a vicious PR campaign against his theory. He ended up being unable to find work in the US, and had to take a position at a university in Brazil - which was then a communist country. This quickly led to the CIA putting Bohm on a 'watch list'. It destroyed his career, and neither he, nor his theory, have ever fully recovered their credibility! Politics. In quantum mechanics! Moreover, most science is conducted within, and funded by, educational institutions, all of which vie for limited governmental funding and have close links to 'sponsors' and investors from the private sector. So, to simply pretend that scientific inquiry is somehow above the day-to-day intrigues, and thus influences, of life is to have one's head buried in the sand. humans are deeply social. Humans do science. Science is deeply affected by society. Simple the culture, popular opinions, jealousies, intrigues, and of course the _filthy lucre_ is to plead an ignorance o surroundings that simply cannot be justified. Humans are a deeply social animal, indeed, this empathically driven aspect of homo sapiens sapiens is _the_ main reason that the human project has been able to get as far as it has. We have achieved triumphs of intellectual understanding such as general relativity precisely _because of our ability to syntactically communicate information with each other!_ We experiment, we share our knowledge, and then we build upon it. That we have an agreed upon scientific syntax - a procedural manual for doing science - is a remarkable achievement in and of itself. Science has been an incredible success - from any perspective - but we should remember that science is a human invention - and that humans are fallible creatures. For better or worse everything that we have ever done, and everything that we will likely _ever_ do, is going to be informed by sociology, politics, money, personality, assumptions, beliefs, morality, philosophy, culture, history, identity, our biology, and an infinite number of other factors too... This is only natural, it couldn't be any other way. And 'doing' science is no exception! Physics, and more generally all of science, is at best a *model* of the world. A representation. An approximation. An abstraction. *_"The map is not the territory!"_*
I was a research scientist in geology for my entire career. When a geological event occurred and any geologist in our department was interviewed about it, it was always incorrectly intertpreted by the media. They got it wrong every time!
@@matt291 Well, they're JOUNALISTS, after all! They didn't study STEM subjects in university. Were not inclined to do so. I too have experienced the media getting just about everything wrong in my areas of expertise. But, more today then in the past, we DO see journalists seeking out actual expertise in their subject matter rather than going it on their own. While not putting myself on the level of a Gell-Mann, I quite independently "discovered" this "amnesia" effect concerning the media several decades ago all on my own! LOL!
The problem with hiding a potentially painful truth that can be misused, is that the lie can also be misused. So you end up in the worst of all places. 1. You dont address the actual problem or challenge, since you don't have the truth.and 2. You create solutions that do harm., Like eliminating advanced programs because "math is not a talent".
What is this current talk going around about math being "wrong" or not that important?? Furst off = there are many branches of math, not just arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, number theory, statistics, modeling ,etc MATHEMATICS IS NEEDED to grow and learn people!❤️😉
Math is a talent I don't have , Higher mathematics that is. But if I have $5 and I spend it, I know enough of basic math to know I don't have the $5 anymore. That's a basic truth that isn't taught in any of the schools , from Kindergarten through Harvard.
My oldest daughter had her math education poisoned by a curriculum change that was supposed to address and math education gap between girls and boys. She only recovered in community college.
I haven’t watched this video yet. I came to comments first because the title intrigued me. I am most definitely after the raw truth without bias in the most rational fashion. I am a realist. Your comment brings me some excitement. I’ll be back.
Alright. So. I don’t think it’s accurate. Because I believe that naturally, black and white people are no different to one another’s intelligence (IQ). The reason I state the test is inaccurate is because this test was done at a sensitive time in African American lives which was historically closer to the impacts of slavery and civil rights and those reverberations for a long time after even to this day. Therefore, if this test was done to black people who were not at disadvantages in any way shape or form on the same level as white people. Meaning, same problems, disadvantages, and same advantages and opportunities then there would be no difference. They would be equal. Now, is it wrong to do this study ? No. Of course not. This is my unbiased feelings of it. I think to understand all sorts of humans is a good thing. To learn more about all types of humans. All under the assumption this study was taken unbiased to racially tension at the time. But there is no difference in intellectual capacity between me (w) and my neighbor (b) or any of my black friends. But it is not wrong or morally wrong or scientifically wrong or racially wrong to do this study. Science is unbiased. Science has created, understood, and discovered itself to our world we live in today which has historically come a very long long way. If you have to make this about race, then you are intellectually immature to speak on it.
I was amazed to learn that the term intelligence is never used in educational materials among instructors in public schools. That really says a lot about how incendiary the topic of intelligence is.
It's not "incendiary", it's not measurable in a reliable way. All tests can be (and are) gamed. Non-linear progress is a reality in all areas of development. Race difference is simply too big a venn diagram to be useful. If there's anything to this, it's economic and cultural differences.
Intelligent workers are undesirable for the neo capitalistic elite so they use all of their power to keep workers misinformed and badly educated. And it saves government spending as well. Two purchases for the price of one.
Nowadays, when describing the impact of intelligence on ability to master material, educators speak of age: "Students are ready to grasp topic X at different ages." In essence, the reticence is not merely about race, it's about refusing to label individual differences as manifestations of ... shhh ... intelligence. Ironically, differences in musical talent and athletic ability are not handled so tentatively.
I feel we have an unhealthy relationship with diversity when our coping strategy is to pretend our differences don't exist. Regardless of intentions, obfuscating the truth doesn't free us from dealing with reality as it is. Ideally we should be able to have candid conversations about differences without being assholes about them or prejudging people. But we're not working on that.
Well, imagine being a bricklayer on the same, walking into a briefing for electricians. While the electrician MAY have some experience laying bricks, The bricklayer is assumed less likely to know a comparable amount of electrical terms and info. They are both on the same job doing different things and don't actually need to know about echothers crafts in detail. All things with secrets share this in common. It's a shame that some minds are locked shut... from the inside😢
@@RichardEnglander It looks like in addition to being unable to comprehend science, you are also entirely ignorant of history. Name one point in history in which Europeans were not at war with each other, and point out when Europeans *didn't* engage in the most destructive wars the world has ever seen.
@@NanakiRowan what are you jabbering about now? Again nothing to do with this thread either. Why are you stalking me? You conflate war with social stability, a fallacious non sequitur. Your logic is terrible. I won't be replying again.
0:16 Its A Fascinating Book I Know Charles Murray 0:24 What The Bell Curve Is About The Importance Of Intelligence Is Everyday Life 1:00 Controversy One Chapter Difference Between Black And White Americans 1:44 Academic Mental Ability IQ Test 2:01 They Don't Care Whether Its Genetic Or Cultural Its True 2:45 People Took Away That Blacks Were Genetically Less Intellectually Inferior 3:38 It Is Psychology Most Taboo Subject 4:05 Very Little Research Since Black Curve 4:26 Arthur Jensen 4:53 Study On Great Society Programs To Raise Intellectual Capabilities Results 5:04 Before Heart Start 5:22 Stimulate Cognitive Provide Nutrition 5:44 Its All Society Fault 6:02 Compensatory Education 6:16 Marginal Improvements 6:34 When U Love Humanity Too Much 6:50 Opening Statement On Article 6:57 It Was A Complete Failure 7:20 Its Not Nurture Its Nature 7:46 Most Infamous Paper In Whole Of Psychology 8:05 Book Of Neuroscience Of Intelligence 8:12 Threats On Body And Limb 8;52 All Intelligence Research Become Taboo 9:15 Jensen Nixon White House 9:57 When They Wanted To Publish This Chapter 10:17 Producer From Nightline 10:42 Good Book 10:56 Tactful Answer 11:25 I Am Glad Its Genetic 11:38 Genetic Means Biological Thus Can Improve 11:50 You Dare Make This Public 13:38 Cultural 14:14 Environment 14:53 No One Wants To Do Research On Nature VS Nurture 15:02 Tenured Professor Don't Want To Do It Let Alone Students 15:13 Jensen Stupid Answer 15;37 He Is Probably Asperger Syndrome 16:16 He Is A Scientist At Heart 16:45 If He Is Wrong Other Scientist Will Prove Him Wrong 17:25 Love And Hate Relationship With Mass Media 20:31 Why I Participate In Mass Media To 20:56 Taboo Subjects 21:23 I Am Editor Of A Magazine Called Intelligence 21:52 Even In Scientific Community I Must Be Careful Might Be Syndicated 22:24 Even BBC Wants To Have Ratings 23:18 There Are Still Studies That Show Bell Curve Is Correct 24:10 What We Can Do With This Bell Curve 24:27 Educational Papers Don't Discuss Intelligence 24:53 California 27:18 Gates Foundation
If your minutes are correct (I cba to watch another interview about the validity of race science) then this guy is a grafter. There is plenty of science that challenges the claims made in this book, and we've done plenty of research into intelligence and genetics since the nineties. He is encouraging conspiracy theorists and making viewers feel as if they have discovered some hidden sector of the science world- but they haven't. Intelligence, race, genetics aren't feared subjects in science. We have very good explanations for why it once seemed that one race is more intelligent than the other, and very good explanations for how we know that isn't true. Adam Rutherford writes extensively about the subject for laymen.
@@laurenaroha8957 Show any research you can find that debunks the claims in The Bell Curve about IQ and socioeconomic status and the relationship between the two.
@@laurenaroha8957There Are Differences In Human Cognitive Capability I Myself Am Average Whats Wrong With That Not To Accept The Innate Cognitive Differences Among A Diverse Group Of Human Beings Is Wrong
Richard Haier makes the most important point at the beginning. The studies point to groups, not to individuals. A result of one standard deviation difference is indeed significant. Each individual must be held to their own particular capabilities, not the group’s capabilities.
The point being made is that there is more variance amongst individuals within a group than there is variance between groups. It’s distributions of intelligence so yes you should make case by case claims. But when generally speaking it’s not incorrect to state general differences
The book gives me an almost visceral response. Back when it came out, it was touted just about everywhere as being fringe science. It made a big initial splash that seemed to settle out. During the years that followed, most of my reading was pretty strict; either I was reading 'hard' empiricist canon, or else classic literature. Rarely did the book come up in college discussions (and not at all out in the polite public world), so to my embarrassment, it didn't hit my radar at all until about seven or eight years ago, when I found a pristine copy for three bucks in a used book bin. I'd just assumed it was hateful garbage, but for the sake of fair expression, I wanted to hear its claims. Don't you dare form an opinion without reading it. The soft sciences have now become polluted with Relativistic thinking, and so _The Bell Curve_ had to be sacrificed at the altar of fairness. At no point is the book anything less than a cogent, considerate statistical argument noting the dangers of redistributing intelligence. Perhaps ironically, now that every barely-smart kid out there abandons hometown to pursue a dream of an overpriced degree and its entitlements, the new IQ disparity has hit many communities like a tsunami of unfairness. Shame on us for neglecting to see the relevant point for the sake of avoiding some discomfort. Now I'm disgusted at myself for ever having fallen victim to a mass dismissal of what was a really prescient argument. Like LeVar Buton used to say: _but you don't have to take my word for it._ Read it for yourself. You won't believe that _this_ is what has become so "controversial."
It is complete pseudo science with hundreds of basic errors. See Shauns video titled "the bell curve" for a detailed explanation of the most important problems with the methodology and conclusions
@@Nick-gx4oc Rather than citing somebody else's detailed explanation, maybe you could pick one single erroneous point and show it to me. I'd like to think that I can notice problematic methodology & conclusions for myself when I see them. Ever try it? This is what I like to call 'being rational.'
@@pocket83squared why would you listen to a youtube comment instead of an in depth analysis that took hundreds of hours of work to create with numerous citations from pier reviewed studies? Doesn't seem very rational to me...
@@Nick-gx4oc Imagine how easy it would be for me to here refer you to an exhaustively large catalogue of information that's in support of whatever position I might choose to take. Argument is about presenting a point and defending it. It's _not_ about making sweepingly non-falsifiable generalizations or outlandish claims. Try reading the entire _Encyclopædia Britannica_ first, and then maybe you'll understand my point. At the risk of being tiresome, I must ask: did you actually read the book in question, or are you just using somebody else's opinion?
@@pocket83squared Please do refer me to whatever exhaustively large catalogue of information that supports the idea that the bell curve isnt complete pseudo science. I refered you to the shaun video because he researched and explains it better than I ever would care to. My goal isn't to argument but spread the truth
You guys should have talked about separated twin studies, including the Thomas Bouchard twins study in Minnesota showing IQ correlation for twins separated at birth. There are studies even showing a stronger intelligence correlation between adopted children and their birth mother compared to the parents who actually raised them.
@@oasisneko1 if it's totally irrelevant how do you explain the studies I just referenced in this comment? And interestingly the people who did those studies so badly wanted those findings not to be the case that they held back from releasing that data for a long time. It's by far the most comprehensive study of its kind and I've never found another that refutes it with any similar size or scope. Read about that whole thing, it's very interesting.
Monozygotic versus dizygotic twins. A split embryo gives identical twins, genetically. Such twins are rare but essential in these studies. It’s only at this level of nature controlled that raised nurture is evident, if they’re separated. I believe EQ took precedence but that’s socially nurtured so it’s a poor choice but HR seems to favour it. We’ve abandoned IQ in favour of EQ. No wonder society is so problematic. Social fit isn’t as sound a selection tool as intelligence.
@@brynleytalbot778 EQ is completely useless. Whatever limited value IQ has is still a heck of a lot more than that EQ bogus which essentially means nothing
It really baffles me that some people just don’t want too or can’t understand that there might be a difference in intelligence, on average, between groups!
Because envy and the denial they’re aren’t as intelligent. That’s all it is. The problem is we’re allowing them to rot us from within and openly hate us without retaliation.
Just because there's a social stigma against the claim doesn't mean the matter is settled. The general public isn't mature or responsible enough to appreciate that fact.
Separated Twins studies show IQ is genetic. Not only IQ, but majority of personality. How else do you explain twins separated at birth, living separate lives with different families, but end up so similar? Similar clothes style, hobbies, interests, mannerisms, beliefs etc.
It would be interesting to see how the twins would end up if one grew up in a very rich family and one with a very poor family. How similar would they end up then?
IQ cannot be genetic, because if you study for IQ tests, your IQ becomes astronomical. You can get as high a score as you want, by training a little. This means that IQ is not any more a property of an individual than "maximum weight you can lift". In addition, group IQ averages rise by 20 points every 50 years, this is called "The Flynn Effect", and this is an astronomical change, it dwarfs any statistical difference between groups of people that the book talks about. Any large group of people today, on average, scores so much better than any group of 40 years ago, no matter which group you take, that it makes no more sense to say those people are defective than to say your parents are defective. It further means that all the data in the book is wrong, because all the scores are out of date in the 30 years since the book was published. These enormous problems with IQ tests are why people don't take IQ score analysis like in "The Bell Curve" any more seriously than phrenology. It's not political correctness, this is junk science. What IQ is good for is detecting the effect of lead poisoning on large cohorts, identifying mental retardation and learning disabilities, and identifying attention problems like adhd. It is useless for large-group differences, because it is not an immutable characteristic, it varies with training.
@@vandpiben Those twin studies are fraudulent. The number of separated twins can be counted on one hand, and nearly all of them are 'separated' as in one lives with the mother, and the other lives with the father across town. That's exactly the type of 'separated twin' that the studies used, purposefully fraudulently, because they couldn't find any actual separated twins.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 "if you study for IQ tests, your IQ becomes astronomical. You can get as high a score as you want, by training a little. " This is straight up bologna. And I say this as someone with quite a low opinion of Charles Murray. " In addition, group IQ averages rise by 20 points every 50 years, this is called "The Flynn Effect" " IQ scores are periodoically re-normalized for precisely this reason.
I remember how harshly this book was treated in book stores and grocery stores as they tried to eliminate all copies in a type of book burning. My friends didn't even want to borrow the book to read it despite their strong opinions on the content of the book
@@OhHeyification Did you watch the video you are commenting below at all? Lex and Dr. Haier spent almost half of it taking the mismeasure of man apart.
@@kerimzunic anyone "taking mismeasure of man apart" (lmaoooooo) in favor of bell curve is either (a) profoundly ignorant of what they're endorsing or (b) an open racist. it doesn't make a difference whether its (a) or (b) if we're determining whether or not you're a piece of shit (you are either way)
Lex completely fumbled this. His guest was finishing up his answer with a really profound statement and he not only cut him off but he blew right past this and continued on towards cancel culture and what look to be his own struggles related to operating social media as a widely known figure. It's clear that's this man has thought deeply on this over the course of many many years. Instead of asking about solutions he took the conversation in a direction that seemed oddly political. I'm a fan of Lex and don't mean to be harsh! But it just seems like missed the plot here
Lex is bad at this. He isn't great at compsci either. He boasts about how he thinks so much about things but that isn't the case. He doesn't give things a lot of thought. He confuses his mind chatter for useful thoughts. His ability to construct sentences seems to get worse every podcast
@@jkim8282I’m not trying to be rude or anything, but you could try meeting new friends who enjoy intellectual pursuits. I say this because, I hadn’t heard of this book either until I started hanging out with a friend who we all nick-named “Guru”, because the guy is so flipping smart. I’ve learned more by hanging out with Guru and reading the books he recommended, than just about anything else.
I (33) have a learning disability. My IQ is approx 80. I got tested twice in school. It is mainly due to the fact that my mother drunk alcohol during her pregnancy (FASD spectrum/Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) Everything is harder in my life. No matter how hard I try, I always fail. I needed to visit special ed class till 18, I never had many friends, I never had the ability to visit college or achive high education, I only work at sign holder jobs...or fast food...I also never had a girlfriend. A low intelligenc is a severe punishment for your whole life, which affects every aspect of your life negatively.
My friend, you may consider yourself lesser in your intelligence than many others, but there are options! Unfortunately, they are not well known. Perhaps that's the way it's meant to be, for now. The most reliable option that I understand, is a nutrient available in a fungus known commonly as Lion's Mane. This nutrient promotes neurogenesis. I am no expert, and I do not know your health details, but as far as I know, Lion's Mane could very well be your answer.
It’s clear from your writing ability that you’re not as low in IQ as your test results indicate. It’s very possible that the learning disability is falsely lowering your IQ score.
I took several Psychology courses at a Canadian University in the late 2000's and the professors taught us all about twin studies and we were taught that most psychological differences, including IQ, were partially or mostly genetic. I find it very strange that this is considered controversial today, is psychology being taught differently now?? This wasn't that long ago, this was 2007/2008 in British Columbia, Canada.
Clearly there are lineages of people with very high and very low intelligence. Inbred groups have high intelligence members and mongoloid members, so both extremes occur. But jumping to ethnic groups which are slang definitions does not work.
@@nicholassmythe5274 I think that by mongoloid he means idiot, and by referring to ethnic groups as slang terms, he means that the broad categories we use to divide by race - white, black, Asian, etc, - are so large and genetically diverse even within those populations that you cannot make accurate generalisations about the genetic capacities of those groups. You would need to study a relatively small and genetically undiverse group to get useful results. One example would be Ashkenazi Jews, who consistently demonstrate substantially higher than average intelligence levels (at least as measured by IQ, which while an imperfect measurement is still useful despite some ignorant comments in this video) but also a higher propensity for certain diseases like Tay-Sachs.
When I was still on twitter I had a great chat with Charles about the current state of the social sciences, and I explained that seeing how they treated him, was the turning point for me and I got the hell out. The humanities and social sciences have been rotted out by ideology, in no small part due to postmodernism.
This is complete nonsense. In my own field (international relations, which is often placed within political science departments), the vast majority of scholars are positivist (though post-positivist/post-modern viewpoints are tolerated and heard). Moreover, an increasing proportion of scholars are moving away from the old "grand theories," such as neorealism, liberalism, constructivism, etc., and towards paradigm-less research that applies theories as they are relevant. In other words, polisci is becoming more and more empirical over time (this is associated with the similar quant-ificiation of the field and the gradual, increasing importance of quantitative methods in social science research. In fact, the subfield of American politics--that is, the one most often bemoaned by laymen as being plagued by ideology and postmodernism--is the MOST math-heavy subfield of all the five major ones other than political methodology (the other three being international relations, comparative politics, political theory). Charles got more hate than he deserved, but I'd take anything he says about the state of academia with a pinch of salt because he has a very large axe to grind and no shortage of "enemies." Frankly, Charles reminds me of Mark J. Ramseyer, a Harvard professor specializing in Japanese legal studies. Ramseyer published a highly controversial article in a non-specialist journal asserting that "comfort women" during the Pacific War were actually volunteers and not coerced into sexual slavery; when faced with the eventual, overwhelming backlash from the international historical community, he decried his critics as "Stalinists" who didn't actually read his article despite his academic critics providing entire manuscripts picking apart his work. It's just all a victim complex.
lol not surprised. the most intellectually bankrupt reactionary takes and you connected over your shared grievance about academia. the race science revivalist wasn't welcome among people he despises and seethes about to this day. how sad for him. keep nursing those wounds believing you're the victim instead of engaging with ideas you find objectionable, like any intellectually curious person would do instead. you're unfamiliar with the scholarship because you gave up trying to understand.
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits!
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits! (When tested, Australian natives blew away European kids, on textures and color recognition, extremely important in survival in their environment!) 😮
I left academia twenty years ago. I thought science was supposed to be about observing things as they are and then trying to figure out how it was happening. Even then, though, too many seemed to think it was about finding something you didn’t like and describing why it was happening… Subtle but profound shift in focus, driven by a legion of PhDs who never learned how knowledge works. As a consequence, they are doing the work of priests and rabble-rousers and don’t even know it. It’s helped produce a whole lot of bad ideas.
00:00:00 - The Controversy of "The Bell Curve" 00:03:26 - Race Differences and Intelligence 00:05:21 - The Failure of Compensatory Education 00:07:14 - The Controversial Paper on Genetic Influence 00:09:00 - The Controversy Surrounding the Bell Curve and the Nixon White House 00:10:42 - The Bell Curve and the Role of Intelligence in Society 00:12:20 - The Truth of Genetic Differences 00:14:14 - The Elimination of Environmental Toxins and Race Differences 00:15:57 - The Scientific Method and Racial Bias 00:17:38 - The Responsibility of Anticipating Misinterpretations 00:19:18 - The Interpretation of Data and the Role of Scientists 00:21:01 - Publishing Controversial Science Papers 00:22:49 - The Science of Intelligence and Group Differences 00:24:38 - Achievement Gaps in Schools and the Absence of Intelligence Data 00:26:20 - The Impact of School and Teacher Variables on Academic Achievement 00:28:04 - The Truth and Successful Relationships 00:29:46 - The Concern of Misallocating Resources 00:31:41 - Criticisms of the Bell Curve and Intelligence 00:33:26 - The Controversy Surrounding "The Mismeasure of Man" 00:35:02 - Nietzsche and Hitler 00:36:41 - The Difficulty of the G Factor 00:38:21 - Molecular Biology of Learning and Memory 00:40:10 - Measuring Individual Differences
The fact that we as a society are aware of these findings and instead of finding a way to live with it harmoniously we instead lie and say it’s crap and everybody is just as smart but a small minority has to be given an easy route through life like a helping hand and still told there victims while everybody else has to work twice as hard . That’s a recipe for hate
In my long life, one thing is clear. Scientists, researchers are afraid to research this topic because they all sense that they will come up with the same hypothesis. If I am wrong, then hundreds of researchers would dive head first into this arena to discredit the Bell Curve, once and for all. They don't. Can someone come up with another reason?
I’d push back and say that the people from each demographic that join the military are not randomly selected. There is potential that intelligence is related to the likelihood of joining the military.
I did research on the first military intelligence tests (US) years ago. And it was very interesting. It was marketed to the brass as a way to save time by channeling the proper people into the jobs they are most capable if doing. I took them multiple times in the early seventies. And its well proven. But that's measured over a large number if people: there will be out liers.
Speaking truth should never be a moral dilemma. Lying is always ethically wrong. Lowering all of society to accommodate the lowest common denominator is always ethically wrong.
Knowledge is built on science and the core of science is peer-reviewed empirical evidence. The reason murray put it in a book and didnt submit it to a journal is because the data in it is terrible and is not statistically significant. The bell curve is not a science book, its propaganda for race realism.
I was in graduate school at the time of its release, in the college of education. I had a professor talking the book down in class. I asked her if she had read the book. She said no, but had read several critiques of it. So I bought the book the next day and read it. It was well laid out and logically presented. It also addressed potential controversy. I remember that the college of education basically refused to acknowledge IQ as an actual thing. It’s still largely ignored except in special education and psychometry.
When I was studying philosophy in college much of the department had the same visceral reactions to the topic of evolutionary psychology. I would cite books like "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker and they would react with disgust and, of course, not s single faculty member had actually read it.
The book is bunk. That doesn't mean that the published 'refutations' aren't also problematic. Most of the refutations at the time didn't understand the fundamental problem with IQ tests, as the Flynn effect had not been discovered yet, and people took IQ a lot more seriously as a result of decades of propaganda making it look valid.
Progressivism is a fundamentalist religion that requires its flock to reject reality in favor of aesthetics. Higher education is now overwhelmingly progressive, and dissent is ironically not tolerated. Lots of 19th and 20th century Marxists called for the infiltration of academia, so it's not surprising that investigation into race & IQ is immediately dismissed or squashed entirely.
Good God Lex 👏👏 I finally got the time to watch this amazing episode, and WHILE I’m watching this amazing episode-you drop the Martin Rees episode 😱 There is more amazing content on your channel than there is free time in the day sometimes, and that is a fantastic problem to have. Thank you good sir
Perhaps someone ought to tell you that if you use those asinine and infantile little yellow symbols you declare to all the world that you are an imbecile child do you really wish to do that? - Whether you wish it or not that is exactly what you do you abuse them as if you were imbecile child
Hearing the story about Jensen, what stands out is that the rage directed at him was obviously caused by the fact that people actually thought he was right, bit didn't want him to be..
I remember after reading this book many years ago that the most important trait common among successful people wasn't IQ - it was a long planning horizon. I seem to remember he linked this to class. I would think that good results would be gained by teaching young people how to use long planning horizons.
Dr. Peterson said it best in his 2017 Personality class lectures on RUclips. "If you have a high IQ, are high in conscientiousness, and can use a computer, you are deadly!" Conscientiousness on The Big 5 Personality metrics is divided into 2 subcomponents: orderliness and industriousness. Conscientiousness is the ability to plan and work, essentially. People high in conscientiousness have an easier time forgoing short term pleasures for long term gain. Also, people with higher IQs have a much easier time planning and thinking ahead than people with below average IQs.
@@proudatheist2042 Peterson also said that creativity is inversely correlated with success; while by "conscientiousness" he means the ability to follow rules and instructions accurately.
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits!
Having read the book, back when it came out, I noted that little attention by the authors was given to culture. AND having attended 3 different primary and secondary schools in the US that were primarily Black: I am of the opinion that home culture values are paramount. Quite frankly, the kids in those schools didn't study much. They didn't aspire, value, becoming doctors, scientists, engineers. But they did spend a lot of time in sports.
I saw the same retarded values regarding education in certain parts of white American South. But that is fading out. Unfortunately, the damage ing culture failure isn't in black inner city America.
NBA star Charles Barkley said that when he talks in classrooms 90% of black boys raise their hand when he asks about who wants to be a pro athlete. Barkley said that he will know that black students are making progress when 10% raise their hand
I had a colleague named Charles Murray, who wrote for an electronics design magazine, who got lots of hate because people thought he was the "other" Charles Murray. This continued years after the book was published.
"It's become fashionable to find racism in any discussion like this" actually nowadays it's become fashionable to find racism in any discussion period.
Steven Pinker wrote the Blank Slate and describes how his work was opposed by mainstream biologists such as Steven J Gould because to even raise a question of whether we all start from scratch ie a blank slate, upon which nurture writes, was anathema to the scientific community
I once mentioned Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" to someone in passing and they came back at me "Isn't that guy all tangled up with E p stein?" (I had to write it like that because google censors that word, yikes). This is what happens when you publish science that doesn't support the political-religions, they start trying to take you out. It's like the 1950's McCarthyites all over again.
I'm mostly Mesoamerican or INCA descent. I go out with my American friends hiking all the time, mostly white. I always found it intriguing that every 100 feet or so, my eyes point to tiny insects on the leaves. My friends always get amazed to how Im able to do that effortlessly. 😮 I can't help but theorize in my head that environments create or sharpen different skills for survival depending on the geography. This may be an obvious example of these differences and would like to know more about them. It wouldn't make much sense to me that religion, food, music, skin color, accent, demeanor, language, bone structure(to name a few) gets diversified BUT our cognitive abilities. 😅 May not be the case for most, but I'd embrace and love my differences with other groups rather than living in denial.
Your statement here is what is called an Anecdotal Fallacy. "I'm mostly Mesoamerican and my eyes are drawn to insects more than most people, so ALL Mesoamericans must do the same, and I am able to do this BECAUSE I'm of Mesoamerican descent". Give me a break. Start seeing people as what they are. Individuals. That said, your little "superpower" is most likely just a simple manifestation of the autism spectrum, not some type of "racial superpower".
Very observant and thoughtful. Thank you. I have long known that Native Americans in New York City frequently are hired (or should I write "highered"?) to work on skyscrapers because of their superior sense of balance. I have known people whose families have done this kind of work for generations. In fact, it is a blessing to them because they make much higher salaries tha I could when I was active. Going on a steel beam atop a skyscraper isn't something I would consider even for $300K.
If your point is that all generalizations about groups are fallacious, you are wrong. YacuMiraq may know enough fellow Mesoamericans to generalize. Another example is that I am Jewish, and I realized at a young age, in the 1960s, that Jews tended to be affiliated with left-wing political causes. That is a statistically valid generalization, and I can provide you with reams of data to demonstrate that it is factually true. Assuming that characteristics are not affiliated with groups is not scientific, and it is not true. As another example, and just to illustrate the absurdity of your claim, left-wing extremists frequently use the phrase "white privilege" to suggst that whites in America were not discriminated against while other minorities were. Is your point that phrase "white privilege" reflects bigotry because each member of the white race needs to be treated as an individual? Conversely, is your point that Blacks cannot be said to have been discriminated against because some Blacks were in fact not discriminated against? @@NanakiRowan @YacuMiraq
I read the book shortly after its publication and before the groundswell of controversy about it arose. It was one of the the books that most impressed me and I was nonplussed when I saw its authors being vilified in the media of the day. I have not met any other person who has actually read the book. But I sure have met people with strong, negative things to say about it!
I read most of the book when it came out. I found it well-written and well-researched. I had already reached the same conclusions from personal experience and some historical context. I''m currently reading the book again now. I found it in pdf form and downloaded it. I'm in Part 1, Chapter 8. I don't see anything 'controversial' in the book. It's all reported facts and figures. The conclusions reached are all historically verifiable.
@@cjay2In good faith, I will admit I have not read the book as you’ve said you have. I have only been made aware of it through others talking about it (such as Lex, etc.). I agree with the labeling of it as controversial but strike it as odd how two things can be true: it is just a collection of facts and statements while also being labeled as bad science? Like I said, I have not read the whole book, have only heard of it secondhand and therefore consumed its contents through others. My main source of contention with it is through Shaun’s “The Bell Curve” video. If what he says it’s true, then it seems like the opposition’s problems with are intense but fair in the end. What are your defenses of the Bell Curve and why is it not deserving of the criticisms it has received by others?
I haven’t read it yet. Which racial group does it specifically state is superior to all other racial groups? If you are assuming that IQ and intelligence makes you superior. Thanks guys.
@@joshuamuncada4299 It occurred to me when I read the book that it presented facts that could be construed as being "awkward," "troublesome" or "inconvenient" for our egalitarian society. Perhaps even pernicious. Keep in mind that, IIRC, and it's been about 30 years, all the controversy arose over a single chapter, comprising about 70 pages or so of a 700 page book. It is fashionable to claim that IQ, and its measure is all a humbug. That undermines the entire work. It relies on IQ statistics from large data sources. Again, IIRC, the US Army was a mine of IQ stats. If IQ, and its measure were as unreliable and next to meaningless, as many critics will assert, many of the graphical data presented in the book become rather inexplicable. The book showed that lower IQ people were more likely to, in no particular order, without claiming to be complete and, again from fallible memory . . . Go to prison Have pregnancies out of wedlock Earn less money. If IQ were indeed meaningless, it is hard to explain why plotting IQ against these life situations should strongly correlate. One thing drummed into me in a discussion with a colleague is that statistics don't apply to individuals! Sure there are smart, high IQ people that go to prison, have unplanned pregnancies, etc, etc. But, as a large group . . . you get the idea. Another thing that stuck with me from the book is that IQ is, not only reliably measured, but remains constant, more or less, over a lifetime, from childhood into the age where cognitive decline frequently sets in. If interested, you really should read the book and make up your own mind. That goes without saying. To criticize it without doing so is meaningless. I found it fascinating and easy to read.
I read the book. It’s pseudoscience and the central premise of the book can be refuted pretty simply. Many scientists have refuted sections of the book. Calling it “controversial” is like calling “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” controversial.
Well, he specifed intelligence research. He said elsewhere that intelligence research was "dead on the water" for 30 years. You are correct about politically correct research.
I find it interesting that Head Start presumed kids needed more mental stimulation, because we're seeing that kids aren't reading as well today from an overabundance of audio/visual stumuli. I know my childhood was different from many of my peers (though we would've scaled the same on metrics of race and socioeconomic conditions) largely because my immediate family didn't have a television (by conscious decision of my parents). As a result, we read for entertainment. We had long stretches of quiet periods (in church and at home). Peace and quiet are essential for concentration, and concentration is essential for reading and thinking snd engrossed play.
Yes. Both heritage and cultivation of virtue are important and effect the development of individual competence. Nature vs Nurture 100%- 100% Individual differences are real. The group dynamics effect the individual. The individual effects the group. Most do not define the terms so that we all have the same comprehension of the facts discussed. Definition of intelligence? Anyone? Definition of illusion? Anyone? Thank you
I think you're right. The ability to concentrate is like a muscle that needs to be exercised. Distraction is the opposite of concentration, and that is also a muscle that can be exercised. Unfortunately I see many people constantly in a state of distraction, without the ability to concentrate for any given period. Personally, I never read a book in my life until I spent five years in prison, during that time I read over a thousand books. At first I found it difficult, and I was amazed at other long time prisoner's abilities to finish books quickly, these guys were reading a book in a day easily. I followed the example and I can now finish a book in one sitting if I wanted to. I can concentrate much better now than I ever could before. I can also remember more in detail than I could before. Concentration is a super power.
I'm no genuis but the difference I think in say black and white intelligence is thousands of yrs ago black had a abundance of resources all around them no need to really think about getting a meal ,when whites didn't have that resource readily available and had to think about getting the meal under much harsher situation in nature . Basically whites had to stuggle to get themselves feed and sheltered were blacks had a much easier life food everywhere and no harsh climate like cold weather.
Great conversation. Haier is careful to express nuance while still being clear and straight-forward about the data available. I would have liked to hear more of his thoughts on The Bell Curve's warning of a "cognitive elite" developing in modern society, where higher-IQ individuals can handle increasingly complex systems, while many others will be unable to do so. I think this was well ahead of its time for current issues we face like working with AI, financial institutions, and job automation. For me this was the most fascinating part of the book, but since the book was vilified for that one chapter, it is rarely part of these discussions (or part of any discussion at all 😅).
Hi, just wanted to let you know the the book is in reality racist bullshit and has been thoroughly debunked: ruclips.net/video/UBc7qBS1Ujo/видео.html if you are actually interested in why no one takes the book seriously. Btw It’s not because the left wing Marxist academics can’t accept the hard truth, it’s because the authors don’t understand the topic, make bad arguments based on bad data, and do so while being funded and supported by actual nazis.
We're already there, the vast majority are unable to master complex physics or the skills needed to design microchips, etc etc. I'd wager not 1 in 10,000 people understands all the technology in a cellphone, probably more like 1 in 100,000.
Higher elite? What about the hypothesis: the ones who make to the top are the ones with a personality disorder that in a pathological manner forces them to keep climbing to the top. And, the ones that don't make to the top are peaceful minds that are happy where they are.
@michaelrose93 ok. Maybe these people can't have meaningful familiar relationships. Are they really the top. ? People are so certain to fataly define " intelligence ". I've seen chimps perform memory tests better than the majority of human beings would. Does that make human beings less intelligent than chimps.
@@michaelrose93 While you're right that most people (myself included) don't understand things like how cellphones or microchips work (or airplanes, or skyscrapers, etc.) but these aren't necessarily a problem. Technology and culture allow us to live in a world that is too complicated for any one person to understand and this is good because our accumulated knowledge is far greater than any individual's intellectual capacity. We are all stupid in comparison to the complexity of the world we live in and we generally benefit from this. The problem with a cognitive elite is when higher IQ individuals design how we interact with this complex world, and create systems which ignore the challenges that lower IQ individuals will face. So we end up with bureaucratic banking, tax, legal systems, etc. that can ensnare (and often take advantage of) lower-IQ individuals. Consider something like making some changes to an online account, which may involve other steps like enabling 2-factor identification linked to a phone number, logging in to another platform, selecting several options from an automated call service before being able to speak with another person, and perhaps preparing some additional information related to government paperwork. If you have an average-or-better IQ this process will be annoying and unpleasant, and may even require several attempts before you've gotten everything in order. But now imagine you had an IQ of 85 or so and you might realize that this task has essentially become impossible for you to complete. And in the meantime you're being charged fees for terms you didn't understand, which may precipitate an even larger bureaucratic challenge you will be similarly-unsuited to solve. Then imagine that this type of scenario starts occurring in nearly every area of your life, including in a job you were previously just barely able to manage, and you can see how quickly life gets even more difficult than it already was. What Herrnstein and Murray pointed out was that the "cognitive elite" were increasingly isolated; rather than starting with others and gradually rising, they were attending separate schools from a younger age, then universities, internships, and early job positions alongside a similarly gifted cohort. This isolation may mean these cognitive elite aren't even aware of the challenges their policies and systems create for those with lower IQs, because they have very little interaction with those outside their high-IQ networks.
The best way to test who is best at anything is to let people compete on a level playing field. There's a reason why Asians score highest in intelligence. They also study (or exercise the mind) the most. We all went to school with really smart guys - i.e. guys who studied the hardest - and many probably ended up meeting at the Ivy Leagues. It's no use comparing intelligence when some folks are not really exerting themselves. Also, it is hard to have a competition between the descendants of the slave vs. the descendants of the slave master. Just think about the economic difference alone and therefore quality of life, family culture, exposure, etc. But if you compare apples to apples, I think it will be found that there are very smart people in every race. Also, given the same challenge, folks of all races can rise to meet it.
When I see comments like this, I know there are still good people in this world. eliminating the context not ever daring to mention just how underprivileged and behind in the race African-Americans are acting like we all just appeared on this country 400 years ago and ended up this way is where it becomes racist. If your family was slaves literally during your great grandfather‘s times you obviously didn’t have the same education or opportunities to learn and grow. These white people have been getting college education since we were in chains and passing down important information that was lawfully hidden from blacks and now they’re gloating like look at smart white people without acknowledging on average white people have more access to information. but your comment gets 8 likes there’s gets 4000.
As a scientist, I really think everyone missed the most important point of the Whole book. I also think we are seeing it acted out in real life now. There are entire swaths of people who lack significant cognitive intelligences that are critical for logic, science, and STEM. Yet, all of these people vote, work, and breed. I think there are 2 key real variable hierarchies that are at the heart of societal unrest ... financial and intelligence/competence. And, DEI is trying to assure that the worst answer for society becomes the policy. DEI wants people who have no skillset to make and retain money to get equal money ... and they want all positions of importance that require intelligence to be equally doled out. It's the recipe for disaster, as we are promoting incompetence and punishing competence.
Thats why slavery and casts existed since birth of humanity, its so new that majority of global slavery is abolished as we know it, yet still its a thing on various degrees on various places
Prove you’re a scientist, science has been wrong about so many things, that is proven by the changes in the way we view so many things. James web telescope latest example. This is true across the board in all the sciences. This only serves for discussion not truth.
This is extremely interesting. Everything I’ve heard from psychologists and in studying psychology has been centered around focusing on nurture because we can use psychology to fix the nurture gaps, but we can’t do anything about nature. This man literally said the opposite which is fascinating!
They focus on nurture because they don’t like that nature can’t be changed. Nurture also doesn’t do much and the empirical data proves it. They must disparage it to make their profession seem legit
@@darbyohara Not sure if you seen my reply, but if you look I posted a link which is a 2 hour debunking of all the claims of this bullshit racist book. Would highly encourage you to watch that if you are actually interested in engaging in the reality of race iq (ie a relationship doesn't exist).
I know what we can do about the biology at the present moment but with gene editing advancement we might be able to make progress. They didn't know about gene editing potential as recently as the late 80s, so it's understandable that people would want to focus on things we can control in the present like nurture. But if it doesn't work its time to consider other avenues of progressing.
@@lexpox329 Gene editing for intelligence is unwise, because you are trying to edit such a colossally complex system that has so many unknown interactions.
Their chronic need of outside help to navigate the modern tech world, or even get by in native lands is general proof of the book's veracity. It essentially debunks wokeism but we can't go there.
The problem is that too many people use the information to justify institutional racism. Yeah, real “smart.”🤦🏼♂️🙄 But also keep in mind that the majority of the worst wars and genocides in history have been waged by whites and Asians, the two “smartest” groups according to the Bell Curve. Intelligence is one of the most overrated and poorly understood traits going. Example? The sloth has been around for over 64 million years. Humans, being the self-professed smartest animals ever, won’t come anywhere near that kind of run. Hell, we probably won’t last another century. Two, tops. The only thing the Bell Curve proved to me is that humans are f-ing morons and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this planet. No animal has ever been more deserving of its extinction than us.
I bought a copy when it first came out. This book had so much interesting information outside of the race chapter nobody ever discusses. Not then, not now. Still people only discuss the controversial chapter. It talked about the effects of environment, nourishment, education, lead paint in houses, leaded gasoline in city soil, violence in the home, dozens of factors.. 1000+ babies studied born to poor parents but adopted by rich families. It talked about geniuses born into poverty and disadvantaged. It talked about average IQ people born into rich families born with great advantage. Single parent homes. School districts. Age. It talked about different IQs in manual labor jobs, construction or fast food jobs where you don't need an education and the jobs are easy to learn, but it still has some effect on productivity because smarter people flipping burgers will often find better ways to flip burgers. It talked about productivity and income a lot. When I first bought this book I was 17. I was flipping burgers at a Hardee's restaurant. When they hired me they had 4 people cooking in kitchen the AM. Two months later I was the only cook and the food was coming out faster. New Years day we opened at 6am and were the only restaurant open in the city for thousands of hung over people. We sold $8000 worth of breakfast food in 4 hours. Only me in the kitchen and the owner at the cash register. Personally I think much had to do with energy levels and motivation, but part did have to do with intelligence. We would hire people who couldn't cook French Fries. Dump fries in basket, put basket in hot oil, press button. When buzzer goes off a minute later remove fries from oil. There were people who couldn't do this consistently. My point is there is an entire chapter about how intelligence doesn't only affect jobs requiring degrees, it affects every jobs productivity, along with motivation and energy. It affects people's spending at home. Balancing their budget and saving money. The book and especially should be noted the race chapter is statistical average. When I was 30, working research and development, there was a Nigerian Chemist. This man was smarter than any of the white people who worked there. He had spent 5 years making a material for a foam take out tray that would not melt in the microwave when you reheated your food at home. The project had failed 5 times. He couldn't understand why it kept failing. they mixed the chemicals, extruded the foam sheets. But when they tried to form the foam sheets into trays every time after a week it was deems "unformable". The projects scrapped and he had to start over. Change the formula and try again. The 5th try again unformable. Only this time I was told to help the guy forming the tray. The entire week it kept failing and I kept making suggestions. The guy forming the trays said no that won't work and wouldn't try. So it was deemed unformable and the project scrapped.. The following Monday I came in 15 minutes early, ran to the machine, warmed it up, and ran the sheet through with my idea for the settings. first try failed. Adjusted the settings more, second try perfect trays. I made 50 trays really quick. My boss came out and asked what I was doing. I said I was making the unformable trays. There was something I wanted to try the previous week, but was only the helper. My boss told me to trim out the trays and put them on the Nigerian Chemist's desk. I did this. The guy who kept ruining the project and couldn't form the trays was also black, and an alcoholic, who I believe was only still working there for a diversity quota. It didn't bother me, but I'm pretty sure it had affected the Nigerian Chemist. He seemed depressed every time his project failed. I know it affected his raises. He may have been fired eventually. Five years of failure. The company had spent around 3 million dollars on his projects, only to have them fail. On materials, payroll, flying engineers and technicians to different factories to make the foam. Putting everyone in hotels. Shutting down part of production for 2 months each time so we could use a foam extruder. Having to switch the extruder back to regular foam settings. Having to clean the different types of foam out before returning to regular production.
@@BrettonFerguson YES! You're absolutely correct! I found the "non-racial" topics fascinating. I didn't get the sense that these researchers were trying to prove that Blacks were "dumber" than Whites, of anything like that.
@@BrettonFerguson institutionalized poverty is the main problem, especially when it’s multigenerational as it has long been in the US. It has been firmly proven that when people make enough to meet their needs with a little left over that IQ scores go up. Literally everything improves across the board. I think that the reason “liberals” harp on the race card is that they’re part of a well orchestrated strategy akin to Good Cop, Bad Cop. But the rub is that both sides playing off each other are bad cops. They only want people talking about this in racial terms because they know it works very effectively to keep the majority of people thinking that black people are of lesser value. The doting liberals, the very type that Malcolm X disparaged, get to keep their pets this way and the bigots get to keep their hate.
@@pete5691definitely, as do social and emotional IQ in a broad sense, self awareness, emotional regulation beyond mere impulse control, ability to interpret and act on those emotions or to read others, etc. Some of these can be trained as well, impulse control included and they can be greatly affected by environmental factors. Like Red food coloring being linked to ADHD.
@@fromthefire4176 The three i mentioned are the basic outline. Yes they can be refined further. They can also be shaped by our parents but again their genetics and behaviors determines ours.
I did the big brother thing and got a very smart 9 yr old ADHD kid assigned to me. He knew he was high IQ. Over the years I often told him that his good brain was like a powerful car, that needed a good driver to get anywhere. I think he understood. He just graduated HS with honors, and entered the Air Force with a big bonus!
That's because it's been broadly criticized for selective use of data, focusing on studies that support its thesis while disregarding a vast array of research suggesting the significant impact of environmental and socio-economic factors on intelligence. This approach not only skews the analysis but fundamentally undermines its scientific integrity. But people tend to believe whatever makes them feel good
@@diztrustful Whether there is a genetic component to intelligence or not, it's better to focus on matters that can be controlled. Like don't drink water contaminated with lead, make sure young kids are not deficient in the nutrition required for fully developing the brain.
@@hybridh9702 he didn't have to say it. it's obvious, it's self-evident. genetics somehow control everything about us EXCEPT intelligence? nobody is stupid enough to actually believe this. it's politics, it's diplomacy, it's deception. every honest person knows intelligence is largely genetic, as are most other traits a person can have. and the people most upset by The Bell Curve understood this as well, that's why they were so upset in the first place. they knew they couldn't argue against it with facts. an emotional freakout, censorship, collusion, these are the tools you can use to combat facts. these are the tools you resort to when you know facts aren't on your side.
Regarding whether the author was a 'racist' or not, Sir Isaac Newton was fanatical about alchemy and theology, but no-one questions his science or his methods in the areas where he got it right, or his motivations for doing so.
The kind of "people" screeching about racism have no understanding of principles or work separated from the author. It's why they commonly think it's a contradiction that a right wing person enjoys something a left winger has produced.
Alchemy was the chemistry of Newton's day, and theology was the main province of all major western collegiate education up until the early 20th century and Newton was rigorous in both. It's not about whether they study something others find trivial or silly or too abstract for practicality, it's about rigorous methodology and sound reasoning and Newton had both in spades.
@@eellss333 Im going to respond with a copy and paste from another post i made on this topic, actually, im going to slightly alter it to fit your post better. Its kind of a shame people didnt pay more attention to the peer review and their criticisms of the studies and reasoning as to why the studies and conclusion failed said peer reviews. And i do want to address your last sentence quickly. Ive never heard this from anyone, ever and i think you might be getting the criticism wrong. Hey, i could be wrong myself, but ive never seen anyone say what you're suggesting but i have seen people (myself included) speak on right wingers and art. One thing ive regularly had to address is right wingers crying about left wing politics or social issues in art, movies, books, etc. They will generally think this is a new "problem" and (falsely) think the stuff they like or could cite, is void of these left wing ideals. There are a couple other similar criticisms from right wingers ive seen, but are not as common as that one. The above criticism is something you will find by the thousands on basically every single movie trailer or review on youtube, you can think of. And of course the criticism here is not "omg, its a contradiction for a right winger to like the art of a left winger", its about the fictional reality created by the right winger that is at the core of their criticism.
I was a graduate student in a top sociology program when the The Bell Curve came out. I had done comparative politics in my undergraduate studies and focused on East Asia. However, I had no sociology classes before entering the graduate program, so I was naïve. There was a particular theory seminar required for all Ph.D. students, and during the seminar, each of the eight students was required to review one work or author and lead a class discussion. I approached the professor with whom I was on good terms and told him I would review the Bell Curve. He said, “No way.” It was at a state university, so the first amendment still applied, and my proposal met the requirements laid out in the syllabus. I said I am not backing down. It was an important work worthy of critical discussion. We agreed that I could write a one-page summary of the book and hand that one page out. I could not discuss it. I took the compromise, knowing that there was no stopping what would happen once on the table. I remember that table clearly and that day as if yesterday. By the time I reviewed it, I had little illusion that there much interest in honest intellectual inquiry among the students. It was a quantitative-focused graduate program, but students and many professors were selectively interested in an empirical understanding of the world. So my day to present came, and I handed out the summary. Immediately there was agitation. The other Ph.D. students explained what the authors said and were angry. I pointed out that I did not see what they were upset about in the book. When I asked them if they had read any part of the book, they said, “No.” But they were righteously indignant that I had read the book. One person said the book should not be allowed to be read. So I asked, “Should it be allowed to be sold?” A couple of them said, “No.” So I asked each in the seminar one by one if they agreed with that statement that it should not be allowed to be read. They all said they did. That day I realized there was no future for me working with colleagues that absolutely did not accept the concepts of liberty and free speech. From that cohort, some of us left the academic career track. More disturbing is that some of those in that seminar are now tenured professors at major universities. If you have a mind and any personal integrity, read the book with honest skepticism as you should any book and make your critical interpretations. In my view, it is one of the few, and perhaps best, works of science in the social sciences in the last 50 years. I have not seen any evidence presented that it is not. Of course, it is difficult in its implications, but a responsible citizen would do well to see what it says, then work on solving the complex problem it presents. Thank you for having the courage and integrity to discus The Bell Curve and the authors for doing the hard work to produce it.
Thick in pages thin in content. Essentially, you didn't read the book, otherwise you would discuss its ideas, not your experience with controversy surrounding it. Get a life. you fraud.
I don’t know too much on the context of your situation let alone the book but I do know that politics or opinions have invaded our pursuit of knowledge for longer than we should’ve allowed and it’s magnificent that your willing to read AND even discuss it even if others would crucified you for just reading a damn book made by a well educated author. It is a shame that someone like you, someone who is willing to understand and dissect most things ISN’T continuing your studies and sharing the knowledge you would accumulate, but the destruction of knowledge, no matter how hard we try accumulate, preserve and make accessible is some what doomed to time and our preferences. Because If I believe in something whole heartedly and my people do as much as I, then you come with evidence that what I believe is false, I’m likely to attempt every method to prevent the spread of that knowledge, burn every page you have on it, degrade, discredit and shame your evidence on the basis of it doesn’t correlate with what I believe my world revolves around and makes sense to me than it’s wrong, it’s evil, it’s inaccurate, over supported and biased and I can’t allow such blasphemy to be spread, after all, I’m right, I’m justified in my opinion, I believe with my gut and soul this is wrong, so, it is! no matter what! (All agree, and those that don’t, will, if it pleases them or not) Either way, I hope you have a good day and aren’t too discouraged to keep learning, documenting and don’t mind my comment being lacking in knowledge and understanding, because I’d be lying if I’m a bit out of my depth speaking about such complex concepts, A.K.A please don’t bully me, I’m not smart enough for this.😭
@Ziplokk I would still recommend advanced training. Notwithstanding the problems I encountered above, my training has served me well in my career and made my life richer. In addition, being around people that did not agree with me or were even hostile to other views that were not their own, while tiresome, did make me a better thinker. What you say is true of many, but there is also occasional brilliance in the academy.
@@theyoungfool.1895 Thank you for your response and encouragement. I have gone on to continue to learn and teach occasionally, so I was not wholly discouraged. I am now in my late 50s and have returned to medical school to pursue a different career and new study area. I have always loved learning and doing something useful with what I learn. I hope you can find that too. Do not worry about being bullied; state what you think, listen to good feedback or criticism and work on learning to ignore the rest. It is the ever-persistent challenge, to use an old American idiom, of distinguishing between shite and Shinola. The greatest thinkers of every age were wrong about most things they held to be true. You will be in good company if you make mistakes and are wrong about many things.
Lex asked whether a scientist should concern himself with the nature of his research and the content of his messaging? For the sake of science,a scientist should only concern himself with doing good science. Always amenable to opposing findings,regardless of personal cost . In reality, not only do scientists have to worry about hostile reception of their work, but more importantly, they need to weigh the risks of not getting published altogether,or worse yet, not getting funded in the first place. Science today has been fatally captured by very powerful governmental and corporate interests, motivated almost entirely on advancing their own interests at the expense of the common good. Long gone is the golden age of independent citizen scientists advancing the field in the pursuit of truth.
I was reminded of this book when Larry Summers was drummed out of Harvard for his comments about the lack of women in math and engineering (to a less extent science and medicine). Not because of the reasons why this might be the case but the literal mass hysteria that followed it. People like to think of the scientists are these perfectly logical, dispassionate and rational beings... Nah! Not that this would even get published in 2022, but can you imagine the twitter-storm it it were?!
The book messed up gender differences. It used children aged 9-14, but almost every study showed boys behind in the younger ages and a growing advantage after 15.
He reminded me instantly of the many great professors I had, back before The Great Dumbening of the universities. Those I see elsewhere nearly all have that blank, satisfied, well-fed and religious look to their faces which betrays a lack of intellect.
@@Repetoire ...asks the dude who packed four writing errors into a 13-word sentence.🙄 Actually, difficulty reading can indicate you've had a stroke yourself.
When reading another man’s writings, there is not one, but two places biases can interact and color the subject in print. The obvious, and most identified, being the mind of the writer. The second being the mind of the reader. And this second place, will never be identified, except by a person who has reflected enough to catch a glimpse of their own. I can prove it, by example of my own. A life time of dealing with my brother, and his narcissistic abuse, has had it’s effect on me. If I opened a text from him, no matter how pleasantly it might be worded. I can only hear it in my head, in a negative and hateful manner. I wrote this hoping that others might recognize, and learn something about themselves, they otherwise may be oblivious to. The only way to remove your own personal bias from a subject, is to be aware of it.
In the north of Ireland there was a test called the 11+. You took this test at age 11 and it often determined the course of your life. If you passed you went to a grammar school, and then usually on to university after that. If you failed you went to a comprehensive school, and were done with education by age 16. For the two years leading up to this exam, we did nothing but train for it. 100 mensa-style puzzle questions, that you had 40 minutes to answer. We learned all the quick methods for breaking down a question and answering it. There wasn't a sentence to be written on the entire thing. All multiple choice answers. Your capacity to train to do lateral thinking puzzles, and your ability to be tested under pressure at a young age, determined the future of your education. Savage.
Normally the test consists of 3 parts...math, verbal, and problem solving. Much like an SAT test. The SAT is an excellent predictor of how well a student can perform in school. The SAT is heavily g-loaded, more than some versions of IQ tests. The test does not directly measure effort, and effort also is a good predictor of academic success.
I passed because I had good nerves and was trained to solve these specific problems. This ultimately worked against me though. I never learned the mental discipline that's required for real academic success. A much more relevant, and accessible, skill than training to solve mensa style puzzles. There is something deeply flawed with this whole approach. If you tell an 11 year old child that their abilities are limited, then this has every likelihood of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just as if you tell a child who scores well they are the cream of the crop. When in fact all they've actually done is retain a few methods for quickly solving puzzles.
I find it unbelievable that people don't won't to even consider the possibility that we are not all created equal, individually or racially. It seems to me to be common sense that some groups would have different traits than others. Whether that be physical or mental.
Your phraseology is rather telling. It is most revealing about your character that you think persons are unequal if they possess differing IQ scores. Equality and the moral and ethical inviolability of human beings have nothing to do with intelligence quotient.
Your phraseology is rather telling. It is most revealing about your character that you think persons are unequal if they possess differing IQ scores. Equality and the moral and ethical inviolability of human beings have nothing to do with intelligence quotient.
Thousands of yrs ago Africans had food and good weather so there's not much thinking going into feeding ones self of shelter cause weather not cold,but whites in say Europe had to hunt and travel and food was hard to come by and weather was alot more difficult to deal with so their iq had to be higher to survive it's that simple imo ! That's why their a difference in iq ! So races are better at somethings than others just fact.
A desire sounds very environmental. Don't use ambiguous language like this. Yes, you can't fix stupid. Because it's a PHYSICAL TRAIT the person afflicted with it cannot change. They may desire to change but they cannot change.
I think they touched on the problem, and it's that there are several problems, none with the book. 1. There ARE some people with bad intent who would gladly misuse the findings to say "those people are inherently lower and unfixable" and thus don't deserve better. 2. Some people are so (understandably) horrified by that, they would create an atmosphere that prevents any chance of that misuse, even if it prevents understanding and fixing a problem and helping people. That's a terrible approach, but they see the people in (1) above and think "what's the choice?" 3. People don't live in a vacuum -- poverty messes with gene expression and development. So poor kids in the US are less well nourished, exposed to more stress, exposed to more toxins including lead, provided fewer resources, judged more by stupid standardized tests, given fewer chances, etc. If we bury our heads out of (again, understandable) fear of bad faith arguments, we won't fix anything.
Why are people poor? Do you not think that low intelligence is a cause of poverty? Ignorant or dishonest folks confuse cause and effect. Poverty is an effect of having low intelligence, not the cause of it.
@seph3803 Far more likely is cultural effects and parental attitudes toward work. If it was IQ based, and had a genetic racial component, than how come 2nd and 3rd generation Asians end up performing worse than 1st generation? By the time an immigrant has had grandchildren, their grandkids will end up performing worse *if they don't inherit the wealth of the grandparents* Everyone is aware of this phenomena, and how "Americanization" of immigrants from Asia, Nigeria, Iran, et al, ultimately lowers economic performance. And if you want to really get specific, and I realize you aren't that intelligent Seph, so this may go over your head, but in Japan, there is a group of people called the Barakumin. They are genetically identical to Japanese and you can only tell them by where they live and their family name. The Barakumin were historically associated with work that was deemed disease ridden or dark, leather work, undertakers, butchers, executioners, etc. Over the centuries, the Barakumin were discriminated against. And guess what? These genetically identical Japanese people have lower IQs, lower economic performance, commit more crimes, are more violent. Shocking, I know? In fact, the Barukumin in Japan have an IQ gap with mainstream Japanese about as large as the gap between Black and White median scores in the US. But I'm sure their poverty has everything to do with their genetics, and nothing at all to do with the fact that Japanese companies trace your ancestry and won't even hire you if you have Barakumin lineage. I really wish people with conservative mentality had a better ability to reason about these things, but ya know, maybe it's genetic IQ?
@johndrumpf9888 stop making stuff up. In modern times nobody cares about barakumin. They used to also discriminate against korean lineage in Japan but koreans actually have higher iq than Japan. It's cultural discrimination.
I remember reading an article, which was written in the 1950s, that 100 years earlier (1850s) most people were living on farms, and people who had an IQ of less than 80 could be employed in a useful way, they did not even had to know to read and write. Today (1950s) most of those people can not be employed.
I honestly only found out about that from Jordan Peterson's talks on IQ back around 2017. It is a *SHOCKING* stat and one that most people will not even remotely talk about. Also because our world is requiring higher IQs, not less, it maybe the case the actual cutoff is higher, maybe not by much (And thank god if its not much or at all!) but it is still something that is VERY concerning. And yet we seem hell bent to not only do nothing but make it worse.
10% of the us population has an iQ at or less than 83. The army determined that these people are not competent enough to perform menial tasks. They are too dumb to work. 33 million Americans.
@@CmoIsDaNam3i the world does not really require higher iqs. Humans just need to get along better. Also human hybris about their intelligence will be crushed by the abilities of ai. Even the most intelligent human ist still a pretty mentally restricted animal.
America is heading in a very dangerous direction by moving away from the emphasis on merit. A capitalistic democracy absolutely depends on allowing the very best to succeed. The overall driving force that enabled America's incredible economic success and dominance has been merit based empowerment. The reason the Soviet Union failed is because decision-making was based on bureaucratic cronyism. We need the very best to be the best and to have the most influence.
So Lex believes in censorship, especially self-censorship, for scientists because uncensored results might lead to social issues and personal ones. Do we conclude that pursuing truth itself then is less important than how people might feel about that truth? What are the consequences for society if so? Interesting and surprising stuff from an AI scientist.
Dude he Is saying that dumb fucks can use and interpret studies in a way that gives them reasons to be racist and do racist shit. Is then worth It? What kind of progress could that study bring? This Is what he Is saying.
I give you credit for doing this interview. In a way the politicization of our schools started with this book. I have met teachers who are under constant pressure to increase test scores and they are shocked to even consider that they would only be 10% responsible for the actual results. They are never taught this information and find it almost an insult that their influence on a child is limited.
I also bought it as well as the narrative life of fedrick Douglas which I highly recommend I used to read it online now I’m getting the actual book cause it’s absolutely amazing !
I used to be an educator. I also educated my own children pre-college mostly. I believe one thing that is universally true, which is high IQ children are much much easier to teach. They are also more intellectually inquisitive.
Ethnicity has no meaning, but if you have brilliant parents, they have smart kids. The psychologists seemed to use the wrong grouping then claim all groupings are false.
@@darrinito Ethnicity has no meaning, means you cannot define it, it is a slang term attributed to whatever you want. For example, you cannot state the favorite color of Jews. You cannot state the favorite pasta of Italians. Only slang grossly illdefined generalities can be applied to grossly illdefined ethnic groups. You might say well Koreans value education more than Mexican Americans. Well, we don't know what Koreans in Korea do, we just have some sense of academics of Koreans in America.
@@darrinito Ethnicity is in propaganda speak called a loaded word, a word with high emotional impact but no definite meaning. You disprove that not by making idiot analogies to your mother in law and other things but by starting with defining every ethnicity in America exactly. For example, do you define a Southerner as a person that likes black eyes peas, root beer, okras, chicken, frog legs, pecans, corn bread, corn dogs, biscuits and gravy, and chitlins and grits?
All Southerners, a well-defined ethnic group, eat okra. Anyone who does not is not a Southerner. That is what you just said, and yes, it is illiterate vomit. Ethnicity only works at the gross generality level with endless exceptions. Now, even there two groups can identify as different, but eh, getting into specifics is still hard. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the Gods. Maybe the holidays. Maybe the language. Maybe the region they live in. And maybe hundreds of other things. This is why social policy based on ethnicity does not work. You know, speaking as an exceptionally smart German to a local dolt.
Resources are finite. People are not equal, even in royalty. Forcing equality by means of discriminatory distribution of wealth is a waste of resources.
The most important point of the book is that the differences amongst individuals is greater than the differences between the groups so whether or not a group is or isn't more intelligent it doesn't matter when it comes to the individual and that's just science
The most important point the book skips over is that IQ test scores improve the more people train. If you want to score astronomically high, just learn the IQ puzzles, it only takes a few months, and then you can join Mensa, because your IQ will be 180 every time they test you. Because it depends on training, the IQ test cannot be used to differentiate scores among groups of people the way the Bell Curve does it, because any difference in scores is meaningless. Unlike, say, comparing a child's score before and after lead-exposure, or a group of children, which is meaningful, because it is looking at the effect of a factor. This is why people jump all over the Bell Curve, it is using a concept which is not serious, which is a scientific myth, the concept of 'general g', and then drawing the stupidest and most shopworn sociological conclusions about different groups of people, conclusions which were already proven false decades ago.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 so ur premise is that white toddlers train more than non-white toddlers, but not more than asian toddlers? interesting, i was unaware that so much IQ training was going on with the elementary school kids across the world.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Your argument would make sense if some of the groups studied spent time practicing IQ tests while others didn't. That wasn't the case, though.
@@candidlens All mathematical education trains for IQ tests. All reading trains for IQ tests. All puzzle solving trains for IQ tests. All internal logical thinking trains for IQ tests. This is why IQ scores go up by about 20 points every 50 years, so that if you look at people from the 1920s, their scores would average around 65 on today's IQ tests. This means IQ is not stable enough as a measurement to use the way it is used in "The Bell Curve". It can be used to test for lead-poisoning, or to check for the effect of some factor, it is better than average grades for that, because it is less subjective. But to use it to compare groups of people, or even individuals, is as ridiculous as using the scores on a calculus test. This is why "The Bell Curve" is as scientific as phrenology, and that's why Herrstein and Murray are frauds.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 OK, but is there any evidence that the average person in a given racial group spends any more time doing mathematical education or problem-solving-puzzles etc. compared to the average person of any other group? The average person of the groups I know of spends almost no time doing those things yet the magnitude of difference in results remains constant. I hope you're not suggesting that the average white person spends more time doing puzzles etc. than the average black person. Only if certain groups did these more than others would your argument hold water. Even if there is somehow a change in the mean over time, it doesn't explain the consistent difference between groups relative the mean.
And if frogs had wings ... Ideology rules. Tramples empirical evidence routinely. I question the value of a liberal arts education for my grandson, the way my parents would NEVER have done so for me.
And there wouldn't be the outrage about under performing blacks in society. Much of the reason for the underachievement is genetic and not simply the fault of white people.
Well the authors said they wanted more progressive public policy and more socialism. They said it. Talk is so cheap. The book was an advertisement for cheap talk and apparently...abusive "science".
I read this book in HS, my desk was near the teachers desk and his bookshelf. At the time I had no idea it was controversial, it was just a really interesting read and I learned a lot from it. Looking back I realize how based my teacher was. Probably wouldn’t even be allowed to have it on his bookshelf today.
Oh my God I feel like an elderly man now when somebody has to explain what Nightline was and that Ted Koppel was the host. In my mind some of the methodology used in the bell curve has been superseded by the Flynn effect. The effects are socioeconomical with parents being over harsh on their children worried that they won't succeed in society. In an ironic twist I'm a white person but I also had a mother that was like that because she grew up in the depression era. What it is it's a mother who's very quick to correct any small language infraction from fear of her childhood being wrongly left behind.
I very much want to read this book to see if it addresses my own kooky theory: "Different groups of people KNOW what they need to know.....and they know only what they need to know." If that makes sense 😉 reading through these comments and people talking about meant to tests and training for the tests......what about the reality that so many of the problems we have to solve today....are problems that we created. There are areas of the world that do not have these problems. Or at least to their perception they aren't situations that demand a solution. Hence "not a problem, not something that I should increase my knowledge of it in order to better understand and then attempt to modify"
As I've gotten older I've given up on trying, and eventually pretending, to ignore facts. It's tiresome and life is short. Now, I simply take what I know largely to be true of certain groups and act accordingly, just as I do with anything else in life. It serves me well and usually keeps me away from danger and stress. - WW
@@jjj-bl8yf If you think in terms of probability you can make decisions based on the evidence provided. That said there are no "facts" that can be applied on the individual level.
Yes, he also missed the studu was done in the 1960s when racism still existed, meaning black people and women wouldnt be smarter based on standardized testing.
Why do you think they created affirmative action. An artificial leveling of the playing fiekd. But it still wont stop the one side from scoring more goals.
By not misrepresenting the data and recognising that different cultures in different environments have different IQs (closer to 100) than the others. This “science” is eugenics. The Nazis answered this question pretty damn hard and we only had to drop a couple million bombs until they’d piss off
I think on top of the controversial topic, a major issue many had with the book, especially in the psychology community, was Murrary's "and so." He went on to connect the work to his political views, using it as a justification for stripping back social programs. Basically, "the IQ distribution is this, the conclusion is that, and so we should cut programs because their socioeconomic level is largely a product of intelligence rather than opportunity."
@@veritasmenscounselling He wasn't only implying the programs with the specific goal of raising IQ were a waste of time and money, but that head-start programs in general would likely prove fruitless and that his findings cast doubt on a wide array of social safety-net schemes. I should probably apologize for the novel I wrote, but you did ask the question. Also, please excuse any typos, I typed this on my break, so my time was limited. The problems with his interpretation and conclusions are three-fold: 1) It was based on preliminary research with few attempts at replication, and so it was not comprehensive enough to discount confounding "third" variables (which he-himself acknowledged); 2) Not taking into account the affects of epigenetics; 3) The nature of IQ testing and the Flynn Effect. So, first, there has been nowhere close to the research required to sufficiently account for the confounding variables also correlated with IQ and race, and scant replication of that which has taken place. Meta-analyses can attempt to smooth out the wrinkles, so to speak, but not if there are fundamental flaws throughout the subdiscipline approach so far. I'm not talking about the IQs results themselves, but the conclusions drawn from those IQs, which correlated variables are emphasized (and there are always a number of confounding variables). My own thesis was on the so-called "Replication Crisis" in psychology in which keystone research is being brought into question as more and more fail the most important scientific test in any field: replication. Psychological research can be extremely expensive and messy to recreate and human behaviour is difficult to predict. In can be done, but the farther you go back, the more often you find studies whose impact got a lot of press, made it into textbooks, but failed replication (if even tried). Another important concept in its infancy at the time of the _Bell Curve's_ release was "epigenetics." Epigenetics involves those systems related to modulating genetic expression, such as the proteins that wrap up the DNA strand unspooling to allow transcription, codons that allows alleles to be activated or silenced, and countless other mechanisms that we're only just coming to terms with in recent years. These systems are highly influenced, not just by your environment, but the environment of recent generations. They're designed to allow rapid, intergenerational adaptation that responds faster than the thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of years required for purely genetic evolution to take place through mutation of one's genome. Now, finally, is the issue with the malleability of IQ results. There is a phenomena referred to as the "Flynn Effect." The 100 point average has to be updated generation after generation because each new group, as they come of age, are often up to 10 IQ points higher on the scale than their parents. What used to be 100 last generation, is now 90 so that they can keep the average score at 100 for the new people coming of age. The reason for this is not fully understood. The reported, seemingly fixed IQ scores of minority groups refers to _relative_ scores. ALL groups are increasing in intelligence - at least in comparison to their parents' IQ scores. This implies either a flaw in the test or fluidity in IQs that should at least be taken into consideration before making rash decisions about who does and does not deserve government help. Frankly, when taking into consideration the known impact of poverty on IQ and the negative impacts of intergenerational trauma due to epigenetics, whether or not one has been raised in a stable middle-class home _this_ generation, it is not at all surprising that a group who spent 300 years in slavery, destitution, and subjugation still carry those effects with them. To leave you with one last fact: research has demonstrated that African American men who have stereotypically "black names" and have to write their names on their tests will, on average, score ten points lower than those who are only required to place a code number on the test. These tests were multiple choice and scored by computers, so the only discriminatory effect was the negative impact their own awareness of black stereotypes had on the self-confidence. Psychology is complicated and while more research may prove Murrary correct, to draw conclusions and base on policy positions on what's contained within the scant research so far is highly, professionally unethical. It makes me think he had a conclusion from the get-go and worked backwards from there.
@@veritasmenscounsellingut A.) social programs are hardly effective generally speaking… the conclusion that “we tried headstart and that didn’t work so I guess black people aren’t smart like me” is a horribly flawed conclusion that I don’t even think needs talking about… B.) IQ IS increasing… it’s increasing yearly to the extent that our great great great grandparents born in 1900 with 100 IQ’s would have IQ’s that are borderline retarded today… ostensibly from the increase in economic conditions for individuals… and since historically speaking the gov has actively harmed black people’s economic conditions in a myriad of ways would also imply that there’s gonna be empirical differences in IQ similar to the difference in time period… C.) Murray’s political opinion, especially if it’s promoted in the book, taints his evidence and conclusions, yes??? Confirmation bias. I never hear obvious contrary positions in these interviews to challenge the interviewee. Just tacit agreement
@@silverjaiden2450 IQ WAS increasing. The Flynn Effect has now reversed. I won't speculate as to why. Further, there is a large body of evidence indicating that these social and educational programs have next to no effect on increasing IQ. The one possible counter example is to ensure that children are able to consume enough calories to avoid being malnourished.
I recall the author of this book having a conversation with Sam Harris some years ago, now Lex is also bringing the information to the masses. Good work
@@judgeholden849 thats your opinion, which seems kind of ad hominem, but your opinions on his character doesn't discredit his ideas. Sam Harris does provide sound and cogent arguments using rationality, reasoning, science
@@altruism8637 Learn what ad hominem means. Insulting somebody is not ad hominem. Saying they are WRONG BECAUSE they are whatever insulting thing you claim would be ad hominem. Judge said nothing about whether or not Sam was right about anything. He pointed out what he saw as character flaws.
@@galenschultz3239 thats actually why i said kind of. youre ciritising him as person and not his work or arguments. also seems like you dont disagree with his arguments/claims. nice. hes admitted being slightly pessimistic. whatever hes done great work in theis world exposing the wickedness of religion
Ive always felt that fundamentally, the differences between groups of people, were relatively small when compared to the huge potential differences between individuals.
Incredible that mainstream "news" organizations contact him basically to ask that he play the villain in what is essentially a drama for their audience.
One of the conclusions of the book is that it's relatively easy to reduce the intelligence potential of children, but it's damned near impossible to *raise* one's potential.
That does no chime with the modern understand of neuroscience where early childhood development is now recognized to play a fundamental role in forming neural connections in the brain that sustain the potential of said brain for the rest of the person's life.
@@secullenable Then it should be easy to support your argument, because it's not so. If a child is isolated during early childhood or if they live in a violent/abusive environment, they can be horribly stunted developmentally. There's no question about this. However, if a child gets reasonable human interaction as an infant and normal toddler/pre-school age simulation, there are zero long-term gains to be had by early schooling. The only advantage the very early schooling has is when compared to neglect.
@@MrTL3wis so in other words, the way society is going, we are actually stepping away from out true potential and dumbing down ? regardless of children ?
the foundation of the argument "IQ scores matter". Einstein could not spell because there are no rules. If Einstein was in today's schools they would have put him in special ed like myself and told his parents that he would probably never learn to read write or handle basic math and then the school system would have thrown him in the corner and taught him nothing like I. Luckily for me my dad was a disabled veteran so I went to ten years of college used a spell checker and learned how to write complex some extremely complex government automation: Law, Medical Database, Mental Health. I am also a philosopher and understand Economics, Philosophy and massive reduction of government processes through automation. I can tear apart the bible because I it was written by lawyers who clearly and obviously did not site their source "God" and they the authors made it clear to anyone with a dictionary that they did this. Which is a nice little trick let the audience know that your dogma comes from "inspiration of god" Inspiration definition: "The excitement of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity." and then allow people drop god's name in judgment based on the word's that you labeled clearly man. Anyway I am low IQ and you can judge for yourself.
It makes me think of my great grandmother. I only wish I had taken more time to learn what she knew. She lived off the land. She gardened, canned, foraged, and made home products from the earth. She knew how to find water, build an outhouse, and take care of a sick child. She had not one book in her home.
We in Australia have problems with "FAS" fetal alcohol syndrome, which shows life long problems, for children whose mothers drink alcohol. Nutrition is paramount to healthy growth of all organisms. Attitude of students belief in themselves can make a major impact as well.
Think his talking point towards the end of the conversation was the true gem. This needs to be investigated by neuroscientists. Read a book a while back on neoplasticity, There's much we still don't understand. Especially in regards to learning, Could be as simple as understanding how different parts of the brain communicate and maybe improving those connections. additional Andrew Hubermann has posted some pretty amazing video's.
@@condorb7756 They don't need to if it was debunked properly. And even debunking is a strong term because it is a book, not a scientific article. It more about propagating a scientific idea then scientific arguments.
I remember hearing this around 25 years ago on the radio. Of course I found this incredibly interesting and controversial subject I’ve ever heard. As he says “treat each individual as an individual “
Agree with Dr. Haier about what we should do with the current data (@38:02). Neurosciences research is incredibly important - not only in terms of intelligence but also, and perhaps even more importantly, to debilitating disorders/diseases that occur (quite frequently) to people of all demographic types.
As a species we are holding ourselves back from the truth. Even on the micro/individual level, emotions cloud rational thought and hold back progress. If we could get out of our own way we would sooner have the answers to our questions and could be working on solutions to our problems instead of wasting time being upset by objective data. Being objective and being ethical at the same time is possible and also imperative to understanding nature. A doctor must withhold emotion when delivering test results or making treatment decisions. It's both an ethical and objective duty that must be done for the benefit of the patient. Nature is cold.
Wonder how many in the comment section, that has actually read 'The Bell Curve'...? I have, and I have never read any other book, where the authors do so much to NOT be racist. Maybe give the book a try yourself, instead of just listening to what others (me included) say about it?
@@NanakiRowanI've been reading a lot of your comments and while I can't say I am convinced that black people are dumb your arguments still suck and your way to convinced that it's impossible for genetics to be involved eventhough we don't know so you keep saying stupid stuff cause you want to be right.
It's only controversial because of the results. If it was flipped, all of a sudden you will see these people that disparage the study be totally fine with it.
@@cretaceoussteve3527 Science does not attempt to prove the things you claim. The Null Hypothesis is literally that there are no significant differences in populations. The populations, not the observers determine the outcome unless science is subverted. What you claim to seem obvious is *completely* without evidence. You are arguing against valid science because it doesn't support your social or political beliefs, not because of any flaw in the process which you can identify. Putting together two independently verified pieces of information, i.e. test results for different populations and correlation of test results to performance in other arenas, to reach a conclusion is a proper and valid application of the scientific method.
I was in graduate school in the college of education when the book was released. I bought the book and poured through it. I had multiple professors who would bash the book, but when I asked if they read the book they would say “no, but I’ve read reviews.” At that time, and still educators pretend IQ isn’t real or important. I believe not using IQ on an individual level in education is one of our biggest failures.
@@froster42 consider a classroom with a wide verity of students, add ESK and special needs students. The more academic diversity in a classroom the less every student gets from the instruction. Further we give standardized tests to students. In the past we gave a test scored in bands 1-5 with five being best. If a study scored a 2 we would want to move him up to a 3, but if his IQ was used to make a decision about his performance we may find out he has a 75 IQ and his score is very good based on his ability. Or if the kid has a 110 IQ we know that he’s underperforming. If we put kids in class based on abilities they will preform better.
@@Aikidoman06 So intellectual segregation is what you think is best? Don't we have data on this already? IIRC it leads to "high achievers" being boosted and "low achievers" being left behind. Why is this preferred? What about the emotional impact on children that are put into the "low achiever" category? It also ignores the impact that material conditions play on a child's intellectual ability. How would you safeguard against disproportionate adverse effects on communities with poor material conditions? Doesn't this perpetuate the problem?
@@froster42 yes, placing in class based on ability levels. Considering this would be done by grade level it will not have a negative effect. Consider a 3rd grade in a school. Schools being geographically filled the students will generally come from neighborhoods of like demographics. So if you place students into three levels it’s still within the demographic of the school. Right now an above average kid is placed in class with average, below average, special needs and ESL students. Dividing instruction hurts them all. As for how kids feel about being in one group of the other; I think once they realize they can’t read and do grade level work, or that the won’t graduate or can’t function after school is far more hurtful.
The idea that group genetics can manifest differences in physical appearance, musculature, and immune system traits yet has no bearing on psychological traits seems pretty ridiculous.
IQ is not a psychological trait.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 yes it is, it is a trait of your psychological capabilities
@@default2826 No, it unfortunately is not. It is a test, like any other, which people learn to ace. That's how you have a Mensa composed entirely of average people.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 🤣
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Isn't the Mensa test available for free on their website for people to take as many times as they want? Pretty sure a proper IQ test has to be conducted under the supervision of a licensed psychologist where you don't get the opportunity to prepare for the exam. I've had two of these administered, one as a child and one as a young adult. Neither time was I even aware that I was going to be receiving such an exam. Obviously it's because it needs to be conducted spontaneously to yield useful results.
its crazy to me that some people actually think everyone has the same potential
Potential for what is the question
@@mtrest4 success
Nobody in power does. They promulgate the myth to keep the populace pacified.
I know right? Are these people too dumb to think everybody is like them or are they too smart to think everybody has to be like them?
@@mtrest4 intelligence, critical thinking creativity, self discipline
There was another female researcher on an episode of "Through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman" who studied the differences with IQ and race and she came to the same conclusion. No surprise she was shunned from the academic "community". Can you imagine doing research and presenting your findings only to realize that these other "researchers" aren't researchers but political and ideological activists.
Imagine becoming literally anything, then act perfectly antithetical to who you supposedly are. Anti-science scientists are like anti-fence fence installers
Science isn't perfect. There are never any purely dispassionate, empirical, results achieved. The researchers assumptions will always influence the results.
Even our best theories - such as natural selection and general relativity, theories that have been observationally confirmed thousands upon thousands of times - are still only ever one result away from being falsified. Indeed, both Darwin and Einstein fully expected their theories to be superceded at so
Moreover, personal conflicts, hidden assumptions, politics, confirmation bias, culture, normative judgements, and ultimately the evolutionary biology that has shaped the lens through which we all can't help but see the world through, all go to influencing the results of scientific inquiry into the world around us.
We like to think that science is a purely empirical domain, that experimental results and theoretical conclusions are _objective_ rather than _subjective,_ but this just isn't true. Within any one small corner of physics there are considerable differences of opinion as to what constitutes the truth of the world - there is almost never anything like a concensus. Look at our most succesful theory of reality ever, quantum mechanics. There are almost as many interpretations of what quantum theory is telling us about the world as there are possible locations that we could find an electron within a hydrogen atom... Namely, an infinite number! There's different schools championing the Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds theory, Bohmian mechanics, hidden variables, Q'bism, Orch-Or, and M-theory, to name just a few! We can accurately predict the results of experiments to sixteen decimal places, yet we can't even agree if the wave function actually exists or not! And if you want to keep recieving that grant money then you would be better off just quietly dropping any references to Bohmian mechanics - it still carries that whiff of communism about it! (David Bohm was ostracised by the mainstream scientific community after Neils Bohr launched a vicious PR campaign against his theory. He ended up being unable to find work in the US, and had to take a position at a university in Brazil - which was then a communist country. This quickly led to the CIA putting Bohm on a 'watch list'. It destroyed his career, and neither he, nor his theory, have ever fully recovered their credibility! Politics. In quantum mechanics!
Moreover, most science is conducted within, and funded by, educational institutions, all of which vie for limited governmental funding and have close links to 'sponsors' and investors from the private sector. So, to simply pretend that scientific inquiry is somehow above the day-to-day intrigues, and thus influences, of life is to have one's head buried in the sand. humans are deeply social. Humans do science. Science is deeply affected by society. Simple the culture, popular opinions, jealousies, intrigues, and of course the _filthy lucre_ is to plead an ignorance o surroundings that simply cannot be justified.
Humans are a deeply social animal, indeed, this empathically driven aspect of homo sapiens sapiens is _the_ main reason that the human project has been able to get as far as it has. We have achieved triumphs of intellectual understanding such as general relativity precisely _because of our ability to syntactically communicate information with each other!_ We experiment, we share our knowledge, and then we build upon it. That we have an agreed upon scientific syntax - a procedural manual for doing science - is a remarkable achievement in and of itself. Science has been an incredible success - from any perspective - but we should remember that science is a human invention - and that humans are fallible creatures.
For better or worse everything that we have ever done, and everything that we will likely _ever_ do, is going to be informed by sociology, politics, money, personality, assumptions, beliefs, morality, philosophy, culture, history, identity, our biology, and an infinite number of other factors too... This is only natural, it couldn't be any other way. And 'doing' science is no exception!
Physics, and more generally all of science, is at best a *model* of the world. A representation. An approximation. An abstraction. *_"The map is not the territory!"_*
@@simesaid QED
I would wager that affluence and nutrition are the primary drivers here. Any "lowest" affluence area black or white or Indian would net lower IQ's.
@@NineIndex Exacly
I was a research scientist in geology for my entire career. When a geological event occurred and any geologist in our department was interviewed about it, it was always incorrectly intertpreted by the media. They got it wrong every time!
Journalism and law (government) are the most innumerate occupations on the planet.
Once you realize Gell-Mann amnesia is a thing you will never look at journalists the same.
@@matt291 Well, they're JOUNALISTS, after all! They didn't study STEM subjects in university. Were not inclined to do so. I too have experienced the media getting just about everything wrong in my areas of expertise. But, more today then in the past, we DO see journalists seeking out actual expertise in their subject matter rather than going it on their own. While not putting myself on the level of a Gell-Mann, I quite independently "discovered" this "amnesia" effect concerning the media several decades ago all on my own! LOL!
Purposely misinterpreted*
@@terrydanks what if they get everything wrong not just the subjects you are familiar with?
The problem with hiding a potentially painful truth that can be misused, is that the lie can also be misused. So you end up in the worst of all places. 1. You dont address the actual problem or challenge, since you don't have the truth.and 2. You create solutions that do harm., Like eliminating advanced programs because "math is not a talent".
What is this current talk going around about math being "wrong" or not that important??
Furst off = there are many branches of math, not just arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, number theory, statistics, modeling ,etc
MATHEMATICS IS NEEDED to grow and learn people!❤️😉
Math is a talent I don't have , Higher mathematics that is. But if I have $5 and I spend it, I know enough of basic math to know I don't have the $5 anymore. That's a basic truth that isn't taught in any of the schools , from Kindergarten through Harvard.
My oldest daughter had her math education poisoned by a curriculum change that was supposed to address and math education gap between girls and boys. She only recovered in community college.
And that is the fruit of the propaganda tree, no? but the lie is so delicious, may I have another?
@edwardadams9358 I am Interested where she went to school and when?
Something does not sound right about what you state here.
Thank you
Only Lex would have a 'clip' 45 mins long. Absolute legend
Indeed : )))))))))
We are not allowed to tell the truth about race and gender.
Joe Rogan has an hour long clip posted on his main JRE with Firas Zahabi, an Arab MMA fighter, discussing scientific truth
Why does that make him a “legend?”
@@powertuber3.047 you don’t have it to tell.
These things aren’t difficult to talk about among people who are after the truth. Once other people get involved it gets difficult.
only white people care about this bs well... they came up with this fcking lie after all
Right...other people who are _not_ after the truth. They make any conversation difficult.
But IQ is subjective.
I haven’t watched this video yet. I came to comments first because the title intrigued me. I am most definitely after the raw truth without bias in the most rational fashion. I am a realist. Your comment brings me some excitement. I’ll be back.
Alright. So. I don’t think it’s accurate. Because I believe that naturally, black and white people are no different to one another’s intelligence (IQ). The reason I state the test is inaccurate is because this test was done at a sensitive time in African American lives which was historically closer to the impacts of slavery and civil rights and those reverberations for a long time after even to this day. Therefore, if this test was done to black people who were not at disadvantages in any way shape or form on the same level as white people. Meaning, same problems, disadvantages, and same advantages and opportunities then there would be no difference. They would be equal.
Now, is it wrong to do this study ? No. Of course not. This is my unbiased feelings of it. I think to understand all sorts of humans is a good thing. To learn more about all types of humans. All under the assumption this study was taken unbiased to racially tension at the time.
But there is no difference in intellectual capacity between me (w) and my neighbor (b) or any of my black friends. But it is not wrong or morally wrong or scientifically wrong or racially wrong to do this study. Science is unbiased. Science has created, understood, and discovered itself to our world we live in today which has historically come a very long long way.
If you have to make this about race, then you are intellectually immature to speak on it.
I was amazed to learn that the term intelligence is never used in educational materials among instructors in public schools. That really says a lot about how incendiary the topic of intelligence is.
Group differences create resentments
@@timrichardson518 no they dont they make everybody special and thats whaat people want to be right? Special, one of a kind...
It's not "incendiary", it's not measurable in a reliable way. All tests can be (and are) gamed. Non-linear progress is a reality in all areas of development. Race difference is simply too big a venn diagram to be useful. If there's anything to this, it's economic and cultural differences.
Intelligent workers are undesirable for the neo capitalistic elite so they use all of their power to keep workers misinformed and badly educated.
And it saves government spending as well.
Two purchases for the price of one.
Nowadays, when describing the impact of intelligence on ability to master material, educators speak of age: "Students are ready to grasp topic X at different ages." In essence, the reticence is not merely about race, it's about refusing to label individual differences as manifestations of ... shhh ... intelligence. Ironically, differences in musical talent and athletic ability are not handled so tentatively.
I feel we have an unhealthy relationship with diversity when our coping strategy is to pretend our differences don't exist. Regardless of intentions, obfuscating the truth doesn't free us from dealing with reality as it is. Ideally we should be able to have candid conversations about differences without being assholes about them or prejudging people. But we're not working on that.
Because the real "differences" are completely different from the imagined differences you think you perceive because of your racist conditioning.
whos "we" and "our?"
@@aslkdjfzxcv9779 I think he's referring to humanity.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 What about your anti-racist conditioning?
Unfortunately, our tribal instincts persist into get in the way of the best of us.
Inconvenient truths are often condemned by the establishment.
Its more about social stability, which is part of the social contract to be upheld
Well, imagine being a bricklayer on the same, walking into a briefing for electricians.
While the electrician MAY have some experience laying bricks,
The bricklayer is assumed less likely to know a comparable amount of electrical terms and info.
They are both on the same job doing different things and don't actually need to know about echothers crafts in detail.
All things with secrets share this in common.
It's a shame that some minds are locked shut... from the inside😢
@@Canadian_Eh_I That sounds like in a multiethnic society we have to lie in an attempt to keep harmony.
@@RichardEnglander It looks like in addition to being unable to comprehend science, you are also entirely ignorant of history. Name one point in history in which Europeans were not at war with each other, and point out when Europeans *didn't* engage in the most destructive wars the world has ever seen.
@@NanakiRowan what are you jabbering about now?
Again nothing to do with this thread either. Why are you stalking me?
You conflate war with social stability, a fallacious non sequitur.
Your logic is terrible.
I won't be replying again.
0:16 Its A Fascinating Book I Know Charles Murray
0:24 What The Bell Curve Is About The Importance Of Intelligence Is Everyday Life
1:00 Controversy One Chapter Difference Between Black And White Americans
1:44 Academic Mental Ability IQ Test
2:01 They Don't Care Whether Its Genetic Or Cultural Its True
2:45 People Took Away That Blacks Were Genetically Less Intellectually Inferior
3:38 It Is Psychology Most Taboo Subject
4:05 Very Little Research Since Black Curve
4:26 Arthur Jensen
4:53 Study On Great Society Programs To Raise Intellectual Capabilities Results 5:04 Before Heart Start
5:22 Stimulate Cognitive Provide Nutrition 5:44 Its All Society Fault 6:02 Compensatory Education
6:16 Marginal Improvements 6:34 When U Love Humanity Too Much 6:50 Opening Statement On Article 6:57 It Was A Complete Failure
7:20 Its Not Nurture Its Nature
7:46 Most Infamous Paper In Whole Of Psychology
8:05 Book Of Neuroscience Of Intelligence
8:12 Threats On Body And Limb
8;52 All Intelligence Research Become Taboo
9:15 Jensen Nixon White House
9:57 When They Wanted To Publish This Chapter
10:17 Producer From Nightline 10:42 Good Book 10:56 Tactful Answer 11:25 I Am Glad Its Genetic 11:38 Genetic Means Biological Thus Can Improve 11:50 You Dare Make This Public
13:38 Cultural 14:14 Environment
14:53 No One Wants To Do Research On Nature VS Nurture 15:02 Tenured Professor Don't Want To Do It Let Alone Students
15:13 Jensen Stupid Answer 15;37 He Is Probably Asperger Syndrome
16:16 He Is A Scientist At Heart 16:45 If He Is Wrong Other Scientist Will Prove Him Wrong
17:25 Love And Hate Relationship With Mass Media
20:31 Why I Participate In Mass Media To 20:56 Taboo Subjects
21:23 I Am Editor Of A Magazine Called Intelligence
21:52 Even In Scientific Community I Must Be Careful Might Be Syndicated
22:24 Even BBC Wants To Have Ratings
23:18 There Are Still Studies That Show Bell Curve Is Correct
24:10 What We Can Do With This Bell Curve
24:27 Educational Papers Don't Discuss Intelligence 24:53 California
27:18 Gates Foundation
If your minutes are correct (I cba to watch another interview about the validity of race science) then this guy is a grafter. There is plenty of science that challenges the claims made in this book, and we've done plenty of research into intelligence and genetics since the nineties. He is encouraging conspiracy theorists and making viewers feel as if they have discovered some hidden sector of the science world- but they haven't. Intelligence, race, genetics aren't feared subjects in science. We have very good explanations for why it once seemed that one race is more intelligent than the other, and very good explanations for how we know that isn't true. Adam Rutherford writes extensively about the subject for laymen.
@@laurenaroha8957 Show any research you can find that debunks the claims in The Bell Curve about IQ and socioeconomic status and the relationship between the two.
Thank you, friend. You are a friend.
@@laurenaroha8957it’s been proven
@@laurenaroha8957There Are Differences In Human Cognitive Capability I Myself Am Average Whats Wrong With That Not To Accept The Innate Cognitive Differences Among A Diverse Group Of Human Beings Is Wrong
Richard Haier makes the most important point at the beginning. The studies point to groups, not to individuals. A result of one standard deviation difference is indeed significant. Each individual must be held to their own particular capabilities, not the group’s capabilities.
The point being made is that there is more variance amongst individuals within a group than there is variance between groups. It’s distributions of intelligence so yes you should make case by case claims. But when generally speaking it’s not incorrect to state general differences
It's also important to know, for a fact, that the individuals being critical want to view people as a group for the sake of being provocative.
The book gives me an almost visceral response. Back when it came out, it was touted just about everywhere as being fringe science. It made a big initial splash that seemed to settle out. During the years that followed, most of my reading was pretty strict; either I was reading 'hard' empiricist canon, or else classic literature. Rarely did the book come up in college discussions (and not at all out in the polite public world), so to my embarrassment, it didn't hit my radar at all until about seven or eight years ago, when I found a pristine copy for three bucks in a used book bin. I'd just assumed it was hateful garbage, but for the sake of fair expression, I wanted to hear its claims.
Don't you dare form an opinion without reading it. The soft sciences have now become polluted with Relativistic thinking, and so _The Bell Curve_ had to be sacrificed at the altar of fairness. At no point is the book anything less than a cogent, considerate statistical argument noting the dangers of redistributing intelligence. Perhaps ironically, now that every barely-smart kid out there abandons hometown to pursue a dream of an overpriced degree and its entitlements, the new IQ disparity has hit many communities like a tsunami of unfairness. Shame on us for neglecting to see the relevant point for the sake of avoiding some discomfort.
Now I'm disgusted at myself for ever having fallen victim to a mass dismissal of what was a really prescient argument. Like LeVar Buton used to say: _but you don't have to take my word for it._
Read it for yourself. You won't believe that _this_ is what has become so "controversial."
It is complete pseudo science with hundreds of basic errors. See Shauns video titled "the bell curve" for a detailed explanation of the most important problems with the methodology and conclusions
@@Nick-gx4oc Rather than citing somebody else's detailed explanation, maybe you could pick one single erroneous point and show it to me.
I'd like to think that I can notice problematic methodology & conclusions for myself when I see them. Ever try it? This is what I like to call 'being rational.'
@@pocket83squared why would you listen to a youtube comment instead of an in depth analysis that took hundreds of hours of work to create with numerous citations from pier reviewed studies? Doesn't seem very rational to me...
@@Nick-gx4oc Imagine how easy it would be for me to here refer you to an exhaustively large catalogue of information that's in support of whatever position I might choose to take.
Argument is about presenting a point and defending it. It's _not_ about making sweepingly non-falsifiable generalizations or outlandish claims. Try reading the entire _Encyclopædia Britannica_ first, and then maybe you'll understand my point.
At the risk of being tiresome, I must ask: did you actually read the book in question, or are you just using somebody else's opinion?
@@pocket83squared Please do refer me to whatever exhaustively large catalogue of information that supports the idea that the bell curve isnt complete pseudo science. I refered you to the shaun video because he researched and explains it better than I ever would care to. My goal isn't to argument but spread the truth
You guys should have talked about separated twin studies, including the Thomas Bouchard twins study in Minnesota showing IQ correlation for twins separated at birth. There are studies even showing a stronger intelligence correlation between adopted children and their birth mother compared to the parents who actually raised them.
Isn't that completely obvious?
@@Goriaas apparently not to everyone (see other reply comment haha)
@@oasisneko1 if it's totally irrelevant how do you explain the studies I just referenced in this comment? And interestingly the people who did those studies so badly wanted those findings not to be the case that they held back from releasing that data for a long time. It's by far the most comprehensive study of its kind and I've never found another that refutes it with any similar size or scope. Read about that whole thing, it's very interesting.
Monozygotic versus dizygotic twins. A split embryo gives identical twins, genetically. Such twins are rare but essential in these studies. It’s only at this level of nature controlled that raised nurture is evident, if they’re separated. I believe EQ took precedence but that’s socially nurtured so it’s a poor choice but HR seems to favour it. We’ve abandoned IQ in favour of EQ. No wonder society is so problematic. Social fit isn’t as sound a selection tool as intelligence.
@@brynleytalbot778 EQ is completely useless. Whatever limited value IQ has is still a heck of a lot more than that EQ bogus which essentially means nothing
It really baffles me that some people just don’t want too or can’t understand that there might be a difference in intelligence, on average, between groups!
Because envy and the denial they’re aren’t as intelligent. That’s all it is. The problem is we’re allowing them to rot us from within and openly hate us without retaliation.
You cant quantify intelligence and there is no intelligence gene. This author and his paper have been entirely discredited for decades
Just because there's a social stigma against the claim doesn't mean the matter is settled. The general public isn't mature or responsible enough to appreciate that fact.
@Cheesesteakfreak racial groups are too diverse. Real science doesnt divide groups on racial grounds. Its not measurable or definable
If your IQ is below 80, you truly might not be capable of understanding.
Fascinating now let’s all go to the comments to see what all the experts have to say
WORD
jajajajaj🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Separated Twins studies show IQ is genetic. Not only IQ, but majority of personality.
How else do you explain twins separated at birth, living separate lives with different families, but end up so similar? Similar clothes style, hobbies, interests, mannerisms, beliefs etc.
It would be interesting to see how the twins would end up if one grew up in a very rich family and one with a very poor family. How similar would they end up then?
IQ cannot be genetic, because if you study for IQ tests, your IQ becomes astronomical. You can get as high a score as you want, by training a little. This means that IQ is not any more a property of an individual than "maximum weight you can lift". In addition, group IQ averages rise by 20 points every 50 years, this is called "The Flynn Effect", and this is an astronomical change, it dwarfs any statistical difference between groups of people that the book talks about. Any large group of people today, on average, scores so much better than any group of 40 years ago, no matter which group you take, that it makes no more sense to say those people are defective than to say your parents are defective. It further means that all the data in the book is wrong, because all the scores are out of date in the 30 years since the book was published. These enormous problems with IQ tests are why people don't take IQ score analysis like in "The Bell Curve" any more seriously than phrenology. It's not political correctness, this is junk science.
What IQ is good for is detecting the effect of lead poisoning on large cohorts, identifying mental retardation and learning disabilities, and identifying attention problems like adhd. It is useless for large-group differences, because it is not an immutable characteristic, it varies with training.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 twin studies showed you are wrong.
@@vandpiben Those twin studies are fraudulent. The number of separated twins can be counted on one hand, and nearly all of them are 'separated' as in one lives with the mother, and the other lives with the father across town. That's exactly the type of 'separated twin' that the studies used, purposefully fraudulently, because they couldn't find any actual separated twins.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 "if you study for IQ tests, your IQ becomes astronomical. You can get as high a score as you want, by training a little. "
This is straight up bologna. And I say this as someone with quite a low opinion of Charles Murray.
" In addition, group IQ averages rise by 20 points every 50 years, this is called "The Flynn Effect" "
IQ scores are periodoically re-normalized for precisely this reason.
I remember how harshly this book was treated in book stores and grocery stores as they tried to eliminate all copies in a type of book burning. My friends didn't even want to borrow the book to read it despite their strong opinions on the content of the book
It’s a terrible book. If you read through it critically, it’s not hard to see.
@@eldenfindley186 I thought it was fantastic!
Read the mismeadure of man - a book that precedes Murray’s work by 10 years that entirely undermines the thesis
@@OhHeyification Did you watch the video you are commenting below at all? Lex and Dr. Haier spent almost half of it taking the mismeasure of man apart.
@@kerimzunic anyone "taking mismeasure of man apart" (lmaoooooo) in favor of bell curve is either (a) profoundly ignorant of what they're endorsing or (b) an open racist. it doesn't make a difference whether its (a) or (b) if we're determining whether or not you're a piece of shit (you are either way)
Lex completely fumbled this. His guest was finishing up his answer with a really profound statement and he not only cut him off but he blew right past this and continued on towards cancel culture and what look to be his own struggles related to operating social media as a widely known figure.
It's clear that's this man has thought deeply on this over the course of many many years. Instead of asking about solutions he took the conversation in a direction that seemed oddly political. I'm a fan of Lex and don't mean to be harsh! But it just seems like missed the plot here
Agreed. I thought the same.
Yup. Then again, if it wasn't for lex, I wouldn't even know about him and this topic
Ridiculous. Same with some fuckjut named Ferrari
Lex is bad at this. He isn't great at compsci either. He boasts about how he thinks so much about things but that isn't the case. He doesn't give things a lot of thought. He confuses his mind chatter for useful thoughts. His ability to construct sentences seems to get worse every podcast
@@jkim8282I’m not trying to be rude or anything, but you could try meeting new friends who enjoy intellectual pursuits. I say this because, I hadn’t heard of this book either until I started hanging out with a friend who we all nick-named “Guru”, because the guy is so flipping smart. I’ve learned more by hanging out with Guru and reading the books he recommended, than just about anything else.
I (33) have a learning disability. My IQ is approx 80. I got tested twice in school. It is mainly due to the fact that my mother drunk alcohol during her pregnancy (FASD spectrum/Fetal Alcohol Syndrome)
Everything is harder in my life. No matter how hard I try, I always fail. I needed to visit special ed class till 18, I never had many friends, I never had the ability to visit college or achive high education, I only work at sign holder jobs...or fast food...I also never had a girlfriend. A low intelligenc is a severe punishment for your whole life, which affects every aspect of your life negatively.
Maybe you should stop listening to those people that told you you have a learning disability because you texted a pretty good legible comment.
My friend, you may consider yourself lesser in your intelligence than many others, but there are options! Unfortunately, they are not well known. Perhaps that's the way it's meant to be, for now.
The most reliable option that I understand, is a nutrient available in a fungus known commonly as Lion's Mane. This nutrient promotes neurogenesis.
I am no expert, and I do not know your health details, but as far as I know, Lion's Mane could very well be your answer.
Life success isnt measured by your IQ. We have to take the hand weve been dealt & make the most of it.
It’s clear from your writing ability that you’re not as low in IQ as your test results indicate. It’s very possible that the learning disability is falsely lowering your IQ score.
You are amazing and wonderful.
I took several Psychology courses at a Canadian University in the late 2000's and the professors taught us all about twin studies and we were taught that most psychological differences, including IQ, were partially or mostly genetic. I find it very strange that this is considered controversial today, is psychology being taught differently now?? This wasn't that long ago, this was 2007/2008 in British Columbia, Canada.
Clearly there are lineages of people with very high and very low intelligence. Inbred groups have high intelligence members and mongoloid members, so both extremes occur. But jumping to ethnic groups which are slang definitions does not work.
@@donaldkasper8346 agreed
@@donaldkasper8346 but what do you mean by ethnic groups are slang terms? Don’t think I’m following
@@donaldkasper8346 also what does “monogloid members” mean ?
@@nicholassmythe5274 I think that by mongoloid he means idiot, and by referring to ethnic groups as slang terms, he means that the broad categories we use to divide by race - white, black, Asian, etc, - are so large and genetically diverse even within those populations that you cannot make accurate generalisations about the genetic capacities of those groups.
You would need to study a relatively small and genetically undiverse group to get useful results. One example would be Ashkenazi Jews, who consistently demonstrate substantially higher than average intelligence levels (at least as measured by IQ, which while an imperfect measurement is still useful despite some ignorant comments in this video) but also a higher propensity for certain diseases like Tay-Sachs.
When I was still on twitter I had a great chat with Charles about the current state of the social sciences, and I explained that seeing how they treated him, was the turning point for me and I got the hell out. The humanities and social sciences have been rotted out by ideology, in no small part due to postmodernism.
This is complete nonsense. In my own field (international relations, which is often placed within political science departments), the vast majority of scholars are positivist (though post-positivist/post-modern viewpoints are tolerated and heard). Moreover, an increasing proportion of scholars are moving away from the old "grand theories," such as neorealism, liberalism, constructivism, etc., and towards paradigm-less research that applies theories as they are relevant. In other words, polisci is becoming more and more empirical over time (this is associated with the similar quant-ificiation of the field and the gradual, increasing importance of quantitative methods in social science research. In fact, the subfield of American politics--that is, the one most often bemoaned by laymen as being plagued by ideology and postmodernism--is the MOST math-heavy subfield of all the five major ones other than political methodology (the other three being international relations, comparative politics, political theory).
Charles got more hate than he deserved, but I'd take anything he says about the state of academia with a pinch of salt because he has a very large axe to grind and no shortage of "enemies." Frankly, Charles reminds me of Mark J. Ramseyer, a Harvard professor specializing in Japanese legal studies. Ramseyer published a highly controversial article in a non-specialist journal asserting that "comfort women" during the Pacific War were actually volunteers and not coerced into sexual slavery; when faced with the eventual, overwhelming backlash from the international historical community, he decried his critics as "Stalinists" who didn't actually read his article despite his academic critics providing entire manuscripts picking apart his work.
It's just all a victim complex.
lol not surprised. the most intellectually bankrupt reactionary takes and you connected over your shared grievance about academia. the race science revivalist wasn't welcome among people he despises and seethes about to this day. how sad for him. keep nursing those wounds believing you're the victim instead of engaging with ideas you find objectionable, like any intellectually curious person would do instead. you're unfamiliar with the scholarship because you gave up trying to understand.
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits!
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits! (When tested, Australian natives blew away European kids, on textures and color recognition, extremely important in survival in their environment!) 😮
I left academia twenty years ago. I thought science was supposed to be about observing things as they are and then trying to figure out how it was happening. Even then, though, too many seemed to think it was about finding something you didn’t like and describing why it was happening…
Subtle but profound shift in focus, driven by a legion of PhDs who never learned how knowledge works. As a consequence, they are doing the work of priests and rabble-rousers and don’t even know it.
It’s helped produce a whole lot of bad ideas.
Superb discussion. The point the host makes about "unspeakable " truths is spot on.
00:00:00 - The Controversy of "The Bell Curve"
00:03:26 - Race Differences and Intelligence
00:05:21 - The Failure of Compensatory Education
00:07:14 - The Controversial Paper on Genetic Influence
00:09:00 - The Controversy Surrounding the Bell Curve and the Nixon White House
00:10:42 - The Bell Curve and the Role of Intelligence in Society
00:12:20 - The Truth of Genetic Differences
00:14:14 - The Elimination of Environmental Toxins and Race Differences
00:15:57 - The Scientific Method and Racial Bias
00:17:38 - The Responsibility of Anticipating Misinterpretations
00:19:18 - The Interpretation of Data and the Role of Scientists
00:21:01 - Publishing Controversial Science Papers
00:22:49 - The Science of Intelligence and Group Differences
00:24:38 - Achievement Gaps in Schools and the Absence of Intelligence Data
00:26:20 - The Impact of School and Teacher Variables on Academic Achievement
00:28:04 - The Truth and Successful Relationships
00:29:46 - The Concern of Misallocating Resources
00:31:41 - Criticisms of the Bell Curve and Intelligence
00:33:26 - The Controversy Surrounding "The Mismeasure of Man"
00:35:02 - Nietzsche and Hitler
00:36:41 - The Difficulty of the G Factor
00:38:21 - Molecular Biology of Learning and Memory
00:40:10 - Measuring Individual Differences
The fact that we as a society are aware of these findings and instead of finding a way to live with it harmoniously we instead lie and say it’s crap and everybody is just as smart but a small minority has to be given an easy route through life like a helping hand and still told there victims while everybody else has to work twice as hard . That’s a recipe for hate
They’re*
*they're @@angogablogian2168
One word.... and you STILL misspelt it !@@angogablogian2168
seems you’ve baked that recipe already
It's literally Harrison Bergeron come to life. These people haven't changed, and they push "equity" as a means of keeping the competition shackled.
In my long life, one thing is clear. Scientists, researchers are afraid to research this topic because they all sense that they will come up with the same hypothesis. If I am wrong, then hundreds of researchers would dive head first into this arena to discredit the Bell Curve, once and for all. They don't. Can someone come up with another reason?
Good point
none. Google IQ Map.
It has been fully discredited by innumerable authors.
@@okay8136 What exactly is a race denier?
@@369pendulum a race deiner is someone who deines the existence of races and racial differences.
There are military entrance exams in the US, no doubt in other countries. The findings in the book have been known in government for awhile.
If your iq high enough it’s common sense really .. 16% of the population yet 60% of violent crimes speaks for itself.
I’d push back and say that the people from each demographic that join the military are not randomly selected. There is potential that intelligence is related to the likelihood of joining the military.
I did research on the first military intelligence tests (US) years ago. And it was very interesting. It was marketed to the brass as a way to save time by channeling the proper people into the jobs they are most capable if doing. I took them multiple times in the early seventies. And its well proven. But that's measured over a large number if people: there will be out liers.
IQ tests are part of the institutional racism dominating non-black countries.
The ASVAB tests knowledge not just intelligence.
Speaking truth should never be a moral dilemma. Lying is always ethically wrong. Lowering all of society to accommodate the lowest common denominator is always ethically wrong.
Knowledge is built on science and the core of science is peer-reviewed empirical evidence. The reason murray put it in a book and didnt submit it to a journal is because the data in it is terrible and is not statistically significant. The bell curve is not a science book, its propaganda for race realism.
Where does the idea of “lying” show up in this?
@@dandavis749 Gould, among many, lying about the evidence, as the obvious example.
If only they could measure a person's desire or propensity to learn
I was in graduate school at the time of its release, in the college of education. I had a professor talking the book down in class. I asked her if she had read the book. She said no, but had read several critiques of it. So I bought the book the next day and read it. It was well laid out and logically presented. It also addressed potential controversy. I remember that the college of education basically refused to acknowledge IQ as an actual thing. It’s still largely ignored except in special education and psychometry.
Academic narratives can be so toxic they manipulate even supposedly "enlightened" academics.
When I was studying philosophy in college much of the department had the same visceral reactions to the topic of evolutionary psychology. I would cite books like "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker and they would react with disgust and, of course, not s single faculty member had actually read it.
The book is bunk. That doesn't mean that the published 'refutations' aren't also problematic. Most of the refutations at the time didn't understand the fundamental problem with IQ tests, as the Flynn effect had not been discovered yet, and people took IQ a lot more seriously as a result of decades of propaganda making it look valid.
Progressivism is a fundamentalist religion that requires its flock to reject reality in favor of aesthetics. Higher education is now overwhelmingly progressive, and dissent is ironically not tolerated. Lots of 19th and 20th century Marxists called for the infiltration of academia, so it's not surprising that investigation into race & IQ is immediately dismissed or squashed entirely.
Can't go against liberalism in the college of education. It'll drop your GPA by 2 points.
Good God Lex 👏👏 I finally got the time to watch this amazing episode, and WHILE I’m watching this amazing episode-you drop the Martin Rees episode 😱 There is more amazing content on your channel than there is free time in the day sometimes, and that is a fantastic problem to have. Thank you good sir
Perhaps someone ought to tell you that if you use those asinine and infantile little yellow symbols you declare to all the world that you are an imbecile child do you really wish to do that? - Whether you wish it or not that is exactly what you do you abuse them as if you were imbecile child
Hearing the story about Jensen, what stands out is that the rage directed at him was obviously caused by the fact that people actually thought he was right, bit didn't want him to be..
But not bit
If bit , shake it off.
I remember after reading this book many years ago that the most important trait common among successful people wasn't IQ - it was a long planning horizon. I seem to remember he linked this to class. I would think that good results would be gained by teaching young people how to use long planning horizons.
Dr. Peterson said it best in his 2017 Personality class lectures on RUclips. "If you have a high IQ, are high in conscientiousness, and can use a computer, you are deadly!" Conscientiousness on The Big 5 Personality metrics is divided into 2 subcomponents: orderliness and industriousness. Conscientiousness is the ability to plan and work, essentially. People high in conscientiousness have an easier time forgoing short term pleasures for long term gain. Also, people with higher IQs have a much easier time planning and thinking ahead than people with below average IQs.
The problem is that only rich people have that luxury.
@@proudatheist2042 Peterson also said that creativity is inversely correlated with success; while by "conscientiousness" he means the ability to follow rules and instructions accurately.
As a special education teacher I gave I.Q.. tests, under direction of our school psychologist! We were taught they were biased and very limited, because they're 30 area's of intelligence but school's teach to 7-9 of those! Also national tests were found to be culturally biased, but it, is what there is! Corporations develop testing, huge profits!
@@SovereignStatesmanThat is not quite right. Creativity is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Most fail and a small number succeed spectacularly.
Having read the book, back when it came out, I noted that little attention by the authors was given to culture. AND having attended 3 different primary and secondary schools in the US that were primarily Black: I am of the opinion that home culture values are paramount. Quite frankly, the kids in those schools didn't study much. They didn't aspire, value, becoming doctors, scientists, engineers. But they did spend a lot of time in sports.
Observation matches hypothesis..
Yet again.
IM AM BLACK AND YES IT A CULTURE THING.
I saw the same retarded values regarding education in certain parts of white American South. But that is fading out. Unfortunately, the damage ing culture failure isn't in black inner city America.
Yes teach me math and science by rapping and dancing
NBA star Charles Barkley said that when he talks in classrooms 90% of black boys raise their hand when he asks about who wants to be a pro athlete. Barkley said that he will know that black students are making progress when 10% raise their hand
I had a colleague named Charles Murray, who wrote for an electronics design magazine, who got lots of hate because people thought he was the "other" Charles Murray. This continued years after the book was published.
Oh, man. That poor guy 😂
You would just change your name.
This just further evidences to me how stupid and ignorant people are generally.
That kinda proves that it is a political response not an intellectual debate.
@@jurybery Good point!
"It's become fashionable to find racism in any discussion like this" actually nowadays it's become fashionable to find racism in any discussion period.
Found yours
@@ChristopherGeorge-jt6ryI don't think you did. Actually you're just trying to be fashioned within your own mind
It's tactless.
@@mlcmxbldbbqsauc1685 no
It’s western society. It’s built and sustained by racism. So yeah, it’s gonna be hard to weed out. Without it, the west collapses.
Steven Pinker wrote the Blank Slate and describes how his work was opposed by mainstream biologists such as Steven J Gould because to even raise a question of whether we all start from scratch ie a blank slate, upon which nurture writes, was anathema to the scientific community
Why would a Jewish descendant of Immigrants oppose this opinion?
The idea that humans aren't perfectible through state control is anathema to all leftists.
I once mentioned Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" to someone in passing and they came back at me "Isn't that guy all tangled up with E p stein?" (I had to write it like that because google censors that word, yikes). This is what happens when you publish science that doesn't support the political-religions, they start trying to take you out. It's like the 1950's McCarthyites all over again.
Anyone who has raised children to adulthood recognizes that those kids come into the world with very different Slates already written.
I'm mostly Mesoamerican or INCA descent. I go out with my American friends hiking all the time, mostly white. I always found it intriguing that every 100 feet or so, my eyes point to tiny insects on the leaves. My friends always get amazed to how Im able to do that effortlessly. 😮 I can't help but theorize in my head that environments create or sharpen different skills for survival depending on the geography. This may be an obvious example of these differences and would like to know more about them. It wouldn't make much sense to me that religion, food, music, skin color, accent, demeanor, language, bone structure(to name a few) gets diversified BUT our cognitive abilities. 😅
May not be the case for most, but I'd embrace and love my differences with other groups rather than living in denial.
Your statement here is what is called an Anecdotal Fallacy. "I'm mostly Mesoamerican and my eyes are drawn to insects more than most people, so ALL Mesoamericans must do the same, and I am able to do this BECAUSE I'm of Mesoamerican descent". Give me a break. Start seeing people as what they are. Individuals. That said, your little "superpower" is most likely just a simple manifestation of the autism spectrum, not some type of "racial superpower".
Very observant and thoughtful. Thank you. I have long known that Native Americans in New York City frequently are hired (or should I write "highered"?) to work on skyscrapers because of their superior sense of balance. I have known people whose families have done this kind of work for generations. In fact, it is a blessing to them because they make much higher salaries tha I could when I was active. Going on a steel beam atop a skyscraper isn't something I would consider even for $300K.
If it were a social intelligence test, I believe white people would loose that one 😅
This is a good perspective.
If your point is that all generalizations about groups are fallacious, you are wrong. YacuMiraq may know enough fellow Mesoamericans to generalize. Another example is that I am Jewish, and I realized at a young age, in the 1960s, that Jews tended to be affiliated with left-wing political causes. That is a statistically valid generalization, and I can provide you with reams of data to demonstrate that it is factually true. Assuming that characteristics are not affiliated with groups is not scientific, and it is not true. As another example, and just to illustrate the absurdity of your claim, left-wing extremists frequently use the phrase "white privilege" to suggst that whites in America were not discriminated against while other minorities were. Is your point that phrase "white privilege" reflects bigotry because each member of the white race needs to be treated as an individual? Conversely, is your point that Blacks cannot be said to have been discriminated against because some Blacks were in fact not discriminated against? @@NanakiRowan
@YacuMiraq
I read the book shortly after its publication and before the groundswell of controversy about it arose.
It was one of the the books that most impressed me and I was nonplussed when I saw its authors being vilified in the media of the day.
I have not met any other person who has actually read the book. But I sure have met people with strong, negative things to say about it!
I read most of the book when it came out. I found it well-written and well-researched. I had already reached the same conclusions from personal experience and some historical context.
I''m currently reading the book again now. I found it in pdf form and downloaded it. I'm in Part 1, Chapter 8. I don't see anything 'controversial' in the book. It's all reported facts and figures. The conclusions reached are all historically verifiable.
@@cjay2In good faith, I will admit I have not read the book as you’ve said you have. I have only been made aware of it through others talking about it (such as Lex, etc.). I agree with the labeling of it as controversial but strike it as odd how two things can be true: it is just a collection of facts and statements while also being labeled as bad science?
Like I said, I have not read the whole book, have only heard of it secondhand and therefore consumed its contents through others. My main source of contention with it is through Shaun’s “The Bell Curve” video. If what he says it’s true, then it seems like the opposition’s problems with are intense but fair in the end. What are your defenses of the Bell Curve and why is it not deserving of the criticisms it has received by others?
I haven’t read it yet. Which racial group does it specifically state is superior to all other racial groups? If you are assuming that IQ and intelligence makes you superior. Thanks guys.
@@joshuamuncada4299 It occurred to me when I read the book that it presented facts that could be construed as being "awkward," "troublesome" or "inconvenient" for our egalitarian society. Perhaps even pernicious.
Keep in mind that, IIRC, and it's been about 30 years, all the controversy arose over a single chapter, comprising about 70 pages or so of a 700 page book.
It is fashionable to claim that IQ, and its measure is all a humbug. That undermines the entire work. It relies on IQ statistics from large data sources. Again, IIRC, the US Army was a mine of IQ stats.
If IQ, and its measure were as unreliable and next to meaningless, as many critics will assert, many of the graphical data presented in the book become rather inexplicable. The book showed that lower IQ people were more likely to, in no particular order, without claiming to be complete and, again from fallible memory . . .
Go to prison
Have pregnancies out of wedlock
Earn less money.
If IQ were indeed meaningless, it is hard to explain why plotting IQ against these life situations should strongly correlate.
One thing drummed into me in a discussion with a colleague is that statistics don't apply to individuals!
Sure there are smart, high IQ people that go to prison, have unplanned pregnancies, etc, etc. But, as a large group . . . you get the idea.
Another thing that stuck with me from the book is that IQ is, not only reliably measured, but remains constant, more or less, over a lifetime, from childhood into the age where cognitive decline frequently sets in.
If interested, you really should read the book and make up your own mind. That goes without saying. To criticize it without doing so is meaningless. I found it fascinating and easy to read.
I read the book. It’s pseudoscience and the central premise of the book can be refuted pretty simply. Many scientists have refuted sections of the book. Calling it “controversial” is like calling “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” controversial.
"all research became radioactive", so we went to "politicly correct research" instead.
Well, he specifed intelligence research. He said elsewhere that intelligence research was "dead on the water" for 30 years. You are correct about politically correct research.
I find it interesting that Head Start presumed kids needed more mental stimulation, because we're seeing that kids aren't reading as well today from an overabundance of audio/visual stumuli. I know my childhood was different from many of my peers (though we would've scaled the same on metrics of race and socioeconomic conditions) largely because my immediate family didn't have a television (by conscious decision of my parents). As a result, we read for entertainment. We had long stretches of quiet periods (in church and at home). Peace and quiet are essential for concentration, and concentration is essential for reading and thinking snd engrossed play.
Yes.
Both heritage and cultivation of virtue are important and effect the development of individual competence.
Nature vs Nurture
100%- 100%
Individual differences are real.
The group dynamics effect the individual.
The individual effects the group.
Most do not define the terms so that we all have the same comprehension of the facts discussed.
Definition of intelligence?
Anyone?
Definition of illusion?
Anyone?
Thank you
I think you're right. The ability to concentrate is like a muscle that needs to be exercised. Distraction is the opposite of concentration, and that is also a muscle that can be exercised. Unfortunately I see many people constantly in a state of distraction, without the ability to concentrate for any given period. Personally, I never read a book in my life until I spent five years in prison, during that time I read over a thousand books. At first I found it difficult, and I was amazed at other long time prisoner's abilities to finish books quickly, these guys were reading a book in a day easily. I followed the example and I can now finish a book in one sitting if I wanted to. I can concentrate much better now than I ever could before. I can also remember more in detail than I could before. Concentration is a super power.
@@RaidZeroTV Thanks so much for sharing your experience! Yes, I 💯 agree: concentration IS a superpower!
I'm no genuis but the difference I think in say black and white intelligence is thousands of yrs ago black had a abundance of resources all around them no need to really think about getting a meal ,when whites didn't have that resource readily available and had to think about getting the meal under much harsher situation in nature . Basically whites had to stuggle to get themselves feed and sheltered were blacks had a much easier life food everywhere and no harsh climate like cold weather.
Great conversation. Haier is careful to express nuance while still being clear and straight-forward about the data available. I would have liked to hear more of his thoughts on The Bell Curve's warning of a "cognitive elite" developing in modern society, where higher-IQ individuals can handle increasingly complex systems, while many others will be unable to do so. I think this was well ahead of its time for current issues we face like working with AI, financial institutions, and job automation. For me this was the most fascinating part of the book, but since the book was vilified for that one chapter, it is rarely part of these discussions (or part of any discussion at all 😅).
Hi, just wanted to let you know the the book is in reality racist bullshit and has been thoroughly debunked: ruclips.net/video/UBc7qBS1Ujo/видео.html if you are actually interested in why no one takes the book seriously. Btw It’s not because the left wing Marxist academics can’t accept the hard truth, it’s because the authors don’t understand the topic, make bad arguments based on bad data, and do so while being funded and supported by actual nazis.
We're already there, the vast majority are unable to master complex physics or the skills needed to design microchips, etc etc. I'd wager not 1 in 10,000 people understands all the technology in a cellphone, probably more like 1 in 100,000.
Higher elite? What about the hypothesis: the ones who make to the top are the ones with a personality disorder that in a pathological manner forces them to keep climbing to the top. And, the ones that don't make to the top are peaceful minds that are happy where they are.
@michaelrose93 ok. Maybe these people can't have meaningful familiar relationships. Are they really the top. ? People are so certain to fataly define " intelligence ". I've seen chimps perform memory tests better than the majority of human beings would. Does that make human beings less intelligent than chimps.
@@michaelrose93 While you're right that most people (myself included) don't understand things like how cellphones or microchips work (or airplanes, or skyscrapers, etc.) but these aren't necessarily a problem. Technology and culture allow us to live in a world that is too complicated for any one person to understand and this is good because our accumulated knowledge is far greater than any individual's intellectual capacity. We are all stupid in comparison to the complexity of the world we live in and we generally benefit from this.
The problem with a cognitive elite is when higher IQ individuals design how we interact with this complex world, and create systems which ignore the challenges that lower IQ individuals will face. So we end up with bureaucratic banking, tax, legal systems, etc. that can ensnare (and often take advantage of) lower-IQ individuals.
Consider something like making some changes to an online account, which may involve other steps like enabling 2-factor identification linked to a phone number, logging in to another platform, selecting several options from an automated call service before being able to speak with another person, and perhaps preparing some additional information related to government paperwork.
If you have an average-or-better IQ this process will be annoying and unpleasant, and may even require several attempts before you've gotten everything in order. But now imagine you had an IQ of 85 or so and you might realize that this task has essentially become impossible for you to complete. And in the meantime you're being charged fees for terms you didn't understand, which may precipitate an even larger bureaucratic challenge you will be similarly-unsuited to solve. Then imagine that this type of scenario starts occurring in nearly every area of your life, including in a job you were previously just barely able to manage, and you can see how quickly life gets even more difficult than it already was.
What Herrnstein and Murray pointed out was that the "cognitive elite" were increasingly isolated; rather than starting with others and gradually rising, they were attending separate schools from a younger age, then universities, internships, and early job positions alongside a similarly gifted cohort. This isolation may mean these cognitive elite aren't even aware of the challenges their policies and systems create for those with lower IQs, because they have very little interaction with those outside their high-IQ networks.
The best way to test who is best at anything is to let people compete on a level playing field. There's a reason why Asians score highest in intelligence. They also study (or exercise the mind) the most. We all went to school with really smart guys - i.e. guys who studied the hardest - and many probably ended up meeting at the Ivy Leagues. It's no use comparing intelligence when some folks are not really exerting themselves. Also, it is hard to have a competition between the descendants of the slave vs. the descendants of the slave master. Just think about the economic difference alone and therefore quality of life, family culture, exposure, etc. But if you compare apples to apples, I think it will be found that there are very smart people in every race. Also, given the same challenge, folks of all races can rise to meet it.
When I see comments like this, I know there are still good people in this world. eliminating the context not ever daring to mention just how underprivileged and behind in the race African-Americans are acting like we all just appeared on this country 400 years ago and ended up this way is where it becomes racist.
If your family was slaves literally during your great grandfather‘s times you obviously didn’t have the same education or opportunities to learn and grow. These white people have been getting college education since we were in chains and passing down important information that was lawfully hidden from blacks and now they’re gloating like look at smart white people without acknowledging on average white people have more access to information. but your comment gets 8 likes there’s gets 4000.
💯
You made my day
As a scientist, I really think everyone missed the most important point of the Whole book. I also think we are seeing it acted out in real life now. There are entire swaths of people who lack significant cognitive intelligences that are critical for logic, science, and STEM. Yet, all of these people vote, work, and breed. I think there are 2 key real variable hierarchies that are at the heart of societal unrest ... financial and intelligence/competence. And, DEI is trying to assure that the worst answer for society becomes the policy. DEI wants people who have no skillset to make and retain money to get equal money ... and they want all positions of importance that require intelligence to be equally doled out. It's the recipe for disaster, as we are promoting incompetence and punishing competence.
Democracy has always led to tyranny. Part of the reason is simple envy, the motive for much political opinion.
Thats why slavery and casts existed since birth of humanity, its so new that majority of global slavery is abolished as we know it, yet still its a thing on various degrees on various places
Prove you’re a scientist, science has been wrong about so many things, that is proven by the changes in the way we view so many things. James web telescope latest example. This is true across the board in all the sciences. This only serves for discussion not truth.
@@mlangbert”democracy has always lead to tyranny” yeah that is a pretty obvious lie. It’s so obvious I fail to see the point of trying to peddle it?
This is extremely interesting. Everything I’ve heard from psychologists and in studying psychology has been centered around focusing on nurture because we can use psychology to fix the nurture gaps, but we can’t do anything about nature. This man literally said the opposite which is fascinating!
ruclips.net/video/UBc7qBS1Ujo/видео.html
They focus on nurture because they don’t like that nature can’t be changed. Nurture also doesn’t do much and the empirical data proves it. They must disparage it to make their profession seem legit
@@darbyohara Not sure if you seen my reply, but if you look I posted a link which is a 2 hour debunking of all the claims of this bullshit racist book. Would highly encourage you to watch that if you are actually interested in engaging in the reality of race iq (ie a relationship doesn't exist).
I know what we can do about the biology at the present moment but with gene editing advancement we might be able to make progress. They didn't know about gene editing potential as recently as the late 80s, so it's understandable that people would want to focus on things we can control in the present like nurture. But if it doesn't work its time to consider other avenues of progressing.
@@lexpox329 Gene editing for intelligence is unwise, because you are trying to edit such a colossally complex system that has so many unknown interactions.
I remember when the book initially came out; good GRIEF! So MUCH backlash! You're brave for discussing this on your show.
Their chronic need of outside help to navigate the modern tech world, or even get by in native lands is general proof of the book's veracity. It essentially debunks wokeism but we can't go there.
The problem is that too many people use the information to justify institutional racism. Yeah, real “smart.”🤦🏼♂️🙄 But also keep in mind that the majority of the worst wars and genocides in history have been waged by whites and Asians, the two “smartest” groups according to the Bell Curve. Intelligence is one of the most overrated and poorly understood traits going. Example? The sloth has been around for over 64 million years. Humans, being the self-professed smartest animals ever, won’t come anywhere near that kind of run. Hell, we probably won’t last another century. Two, tops.
The only thing the Bell Curve proved to me is that humans are f-ing morons and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this planet. No animal has ever been more deserving of its extinction than us.
I bought a copy when it first came out. This book had so much interesting information outside of the race chapter nobody ever discusses. Not then, not now. Still people only discuss the controversial chapter. It talked about the effects of environment, nourishment, education, lead paint in houses, leaded gasoline in city soil, violence in the home, dozens of factors.. 1000+ babies studied born to poor parents but adopted by rich families. It talked about geniuses born into poverty and disadvantaged. It talked about average IQ people born into rich families born with great advantage. Single parent homes. School districts. Age. It talked about different IQs in manual labor jobs, construction or fast food jobs where you don't need an education and the jobs are easy to learn, but it still has some effect on productivity because smarter people flipping burgers will often find better ways to flip burgers. It talked about productivity and income a lot.
When I first bought this book I was 17. I was flipping burgers at a Hardee's restaurant. When they hired me they had 4 people cooking in kitchen the AM. Two months later I was the only cook and the food was coming out faster. New Years day we opened at 6am and were the only restaurant open in the city for thousands of hung over people. We sold $8000 worth of breakfast food in 4 hours. Only me in the kitchen and the owner at the cash register. Personally I think much had to do with energy levels and motivation, but part did have to do with intelligence. We would hire people who couldn't cook French Fries. Dump fries in basket, put basket in hot oil, press button. When buzzer goes off a minute later remove fries from oil. There were people who couldn't do this consistently. My point is there is an entire chapter about how intelligence doesn't only affect jobs requiring degrees, it affects every jobs productivity, along with motivation and energy. It affects people's spending at home. Balancing their budget and saving money.
The book and especially should be noted the race chapter is statistical average. When I was 30, working research and development, there was a Nigerian Chemist. This man was smarter than any of the white people who worked there. He had spent 5 years making a material for a foam take out tray that would not melt in the microwave when you reheated your food at home. The project had failed 5 times. He couldn't understand why it kept failing. they mixed the chemicals, extruded the foam sheets. But when they tried to form the foam sheets into trays every time after a week it was deems "unformable". The projects scrapped and he had to start over. Change the formula and try again. The 5th try again unformable. Only this time I was told to help the guy forming the tray. The entire week it kept failing and I kept making suggestions. The guy forming the trays said no that won't work and wouldn't try. So it was deemed unformable and the project scrapped.. The following Monday I came in 15 minutes early, ran to the machine, warmed it up, and ran the sheet through with my idea for the settings. first try failed. Adjusted the settings more, second try perfect trays. I made 50 trays really quick. My boss came out and asked what I was doing. I said I was making the unformable trays. There was something I wanted to try the previous week, but was only the helper. My boss told me to trim out the trays and put them on the Nigerian Chemist's desk. I did this. The guy who kept ruining the project and couldn't form the trays was also black, and an alcoholic, who I believe was only still working there for a diversity quota. It didn't bother me, but I'm pretty sure it had affected the Nigerian Chemist. He seemed depressed every time his project failed. I know it affected his raises. He may have been fired eventually. Five years of failure. The company had spent around 3 million dollars on his projects, only to have them fail. On materials, payroll, flying engineers and technicians to different factories to make the foam. Putting everyone in hotels. Shutting down part of production for 2 months each time so we could use a foam extruder. Having to switch the extruder back to regular foam settings. Having to clean the different types of foam out before returning to regular production.
@@BrettonFerguson YES! You're absolutely correct! I found the "non-racial" topics fascinating. I didn't get the sense that these researchers were trying to prove that Blacks were "dumber" than Whites, of anything like that.
@@BrettonFerguson institutionalized poverty is the main problem, especially when it’s multigenerational as it has long been in the US.
It has been firmly proven that when people make enough to meet their needs with a little left over that IQ scores go up. Literally everything improves across the board.
I think that the reason “liberals” harp on the race card is that they’re part of a well orchestrated strategy akin to Good Cop, Bad Cop. But the rub is that both sides playing off each other are bad cops. They only want people talking about this in racial terms because they know it works very effectively to keep the majority of people thinking that black people are of lesser value. The doting liberals, the very type that Malcolm X disparaged, get to keep their pets this way and the bigots get to keep their hate.
I wish there was 1% of the caution and hand-wringing over viral gain-of-function research as there is over IQ research. 🙄
I’m pretty sure being a vaccine conspiracist puts you pretty low on the bell curve
Why?
I'm white and have no remarkable intellectual talents and i'm not offended by that. I'm just glad someone is smart enough to make my life better.
IQ is only part of it. Time preference and impulse control also impact greatly what one is able to do in life.
@@pete5691definitely, as do social and emotional IQ in a broad sense, self awareness, emotional regulation beyond mere impulse control, ability to interpret and act on those emotions or to read others, etc. Some of these can be trained as well, impulse control included and they can be greatly affected by environmental factors. Like Red food coloring being linked to ADHD.
@@fromthefire4176 The three i mentioned are the basic outline. Yes they can be refined further. They can also be shaped by our parents but again their genetics and behaviors determines ours.
I did the big brother thing and got a very smart 9 yr old ADHD kid assigned to me. He knew he was high IQ. Over the years I often told him that his good brain was like a powerful car, that needed a good driver to get anywhere. I think he understood. He just graduated HS with honors, and entered the Air Force with a big bonus!
The book that exposed, that to some people feelings are more important than facts.
Just to be clear, it was the book's vociferous critics who exposed that.
just to be clear the author did not say the differences were caused by genetics...
That's because it's been broadly criticized for selective use of data, focusing on studies that support its thesis while disregarding a vast array of research suggesting the significant impact of environmental and socio-economic factors on intelligence. This approach not only skews the analysis but fundamentally undermines its scientific integrity. But people tend to believe whatever makes them feel good
@@diztrustful Whether there is a genetic component to intelligence or not, it's better to focus on matters that can be controlled. Like don't drink water contaminated with lead, make sure young kids are not deficient in the nutrition required for fully developing the brain.
@@hybridh9702 he didn't have to say it. it's obvious, it's self-evident. genetics somehow control everything about us EXCEPT intelligence? nobody is stupid enough to actually believe this. it's politics, it's diplomacy, it's deception. every honest person knows intelligence is largely genetic, as are most other traits a person can have. and the people most upset by The Bell Curve understood this as well, that's why they were so upset in the first place. they knew they couldn't argue against it with facts. an emotional freakout, censorship, collusion, these are the tools you can use to combat facts. these are the tools you resort to when you know facts aren't on your side.
Regarding whether the author was a 'racist' or not, Sir Isaac Newton was fanatical about alchemy and theology, but no-one questions his science or his methods in the areas where he got it right, or his motivations for doing so.
The kind of "people" screeching about racism have no understanding of principles or work separated from the author. It's why they commonly think it's a contradiction that a right wing person enjoys something a left winger has produced.
Alchemy was the chemistry of Newton's day, and theology was the main province of all major western collegiate education up until the early 20th century and Newton was rigorous in both. It's not about whether they study something others find trivial or silly or too abstract for practicality, it's about rigorous methodology and sound reasoning and Newton had both in spades.
@@eellss333 Im going to respond with a copy and paste from another post i made on this topic, actually, im going to slightly alter it to fit your post better.
Its kind of a shame people didnt pay more attention to the peer review and their criticisms of the studies and reasoning as to why the studies and conclusion failed said peer reviews.
And i do want to address your last sentence quickly.
Ive never heard this from anyone, ever and i think you might be getting the criticism wrong. Hey, i could be wrong myself, but ive never seen anyone say what you're suggesting but i have seen people (myself included) speak on right wingers and art.
One thing ive regularly had to address is right wingers crying about left wing politics or social issues in art, movies, books, etc. They will generally think this is a new "problem" and (falsely) think the stuff they like or could cite, is void of these left wing ideals. There are a couple other similar criticisms from right wingers ive seen, but are not as common as that one. The above criticism is something you will find by the thousands on basically every single movie trailer or review on youtube, you can think of.
And of course the criticism here is not "omg, its a contradiction for a right winger to like the art of a left winger", its about the fictional reality created by the right winger that is at the core of their criticism.
Actually people contrastes newton, this is science
Alchemy is real. Humans have developed methods for transmuting elements into other elements by changing the nucleus.
I was a graduate student in a top sociology program when the The Bell Curve came out. I had done comparative politics in my undergraduate studies and focused on East Asia. However, I had no sociology classes before entering the graduate program, so I was naïve.
There was a particular theory seminar required for all Ph.D. students, and during the seminar, each of the eight students was required to review one work or author and lead a class discussion.
I approached the professor with whom I was on good terms and told him I would review the Bell Curve. He said, “No way.” It was at a state university, so the first amendment still applied, and my proposal met the requirements laid out in the syllabus. I said I am not backing down. It was an important work worthy of critical discussion. We agreed that I could write a one-page summary of the book and hand that one page out. I could not discuss it. I took the compromise, knowing that there was no stopping what would happen once on the table. I remember that table clearly and that day as if yesterday.
By the time I reviewed it, I had little illusion that there much interest in honest intellectual inquiry among the students. It was a quantitative-focused graduate program, but students and many professors were selectively interested in an empirical understanding of the world.
So my day to present came, and I handed out the summary. Immediately there was agitation. The other Ph.D. students explained what the authors said and were angry. I pointed out that I did not see what they were upset about in the book. When I asked them if they had read any part of the book, they said, “No.” But they were righteously indignant that I had read the book.
One person said the book should not be allowed to be read. So I asked, “Should it be allowed to be sold?” A couple of them said, “No.” So I asked each in the seminar one by one if they agreed with that statement that it should not be allowed to be read. They all said they did.
That day I realized there was no future for me working with colleagues that absolutely did not accept the concepts of liberty and free speech. From that cohort, some of us left the academic career track. More disturbing is that some of those in that seminar are now tenured professors at major universities.
If you have a mind and any personal integrity, read the book with honest skepticism as you should any book and make your critical interpretations.
In my view, it is one of the few, and perhaps best, works of science in the social sciences in the last 50 years. I have not seen any evidence presented that it is not. Of course, it is difficult in its implications, but a responsible citizen would do well to see what it says, then work on solving the complex problem it presents.
Thank you for having the courage and integrity to discus The Bell Curve and the authors for doing the hard work to produce it.
Thick in pages thin in content. Essentially, you didn't read the book, otherwise you would discuss its ideas, not your experience with controversy surrounding it. Get a life. you fraud.
I don’t know too much on the context of your situation let alone the book but I do know that politics or opinions have invaded our pursuit of knowledge for longer than we should’ve allowed and it’s magnificent that your willing to read AND even discuss it even if others would crucified you for just reading a damn book made by a well educated author. It is a shame that someone like you, someone who is willing to understand and dissect most things ISN’T continuing your studies and sharing the knowledge you would accumulate, but the destruction of knowledge, no matter how hard we try accumulate, preserve and make accessible is some what doomed to time and our preferences.
Because If I believe in something whole heartedly and my people do as much as I, then you come with evidence that what I believe is false, I’m likely to attempt every method to prevent the spread of that knowledge, burn every page you have on it, degrade, discredit and shame your evidence on the basis of it doesn’t correlate with what I believe my world revolves around and makes sense to me than it’s wrong, it’s evil, it’s inaccurate, over supported and biased and I can’t allow such blasphemy to be spread, after all, I’m right, I’m justified in my opinion, I believe with my gut and soul this is wrong, so, it is! no matter what! (All agree, and those that don’t, will, if it pleases them or not)
Either way, I hope you have a good day and aren’t too discouraged to keep learning, documenting and don’t mind my comment being lacking in knowledge and understanding, because I’d be lying if I’m a bit out of my depth speaking about such complex concepts, A.K.A please don’t bully me, I’m not smart enough for this.😭
@Ziplokk Great decision. We don't need anymore Nazis.
@Ziplokk I would still recommend advanced training. Notwithstanding the problems I encountered above, my training has served me well in my career and made my life richer. In addition, being around people that did not agree with me or were even hostile to other views that were not their own, while tiresome, did make me a better thinker. What you say is true of many, but there is also occasional brilliance in the academy.
@@theyoungfool.1895 Thank you for your response and encouragement.
I have gone on to continue to learn and teach occasionally, so I was not wholly discouraged. I am now in my late 50s and have returned to medical school to pursue a different career and new study area. I have always loved learning and doing something useful with what I learn. I hope you can find that too.
Do not worry about being bullied; state what you think, listen to good feedback or criticism and work on learning to ignore the rest. It is the ever-persistent challenge, to use an old American idiom, of distinguishing between shite and Shinola.
The greatest thinkers of every age were wrong about most things they held to be true. You will be in good company if you make mistakes and are wrong about many things.
Lex asked whether a scientist should concern himself with the nature of his research and the content of his messaging?
For the sake of science,a scientist should only concern himself with doing good science. Always amenable to opposing findings,regardless of personal cost .
In reality, not only do scientists have to worry about hostile reception of their work, but more importantly, they need to weigh the risks of not getting published altogether,or worse yet, not getting funded in the first place.
Science today has been fatally captured by very powerful governmental and corporate interests, motivated almost entirely on advancing their own interests at the expense of the common good.
Long gone is the golden age of independent citizen scientists advancing the field in the pursuit of truth.
I was reminded of this book when Larry Summers was drummed out of Harvard for his comments about the lack of women in math and engineering (to a less extent science and medicine). Not because of the reasons why this might be the case but the literal mass hysteria that followed it.
People like to think of the scientists are these perfectly logical, dispassionate and rational beings... Nah!
Not that this would even get published in 2022, but can you imagine the twitter-storm it it were?!
This book would get published 2022.
But it wouldn't get trough the peer review.
Since it is a load of BS.
@@MegaBanne What a wonderful critical appraisal with a host of examples to validate your opinion. A true academically sound analysis.
Well given the damage sone by Larry summers to the US since then , fuck em
The funny thing is women flipping out on Larry Summers basically proves his point
The book messed up gender differences. It used children aged 9-14, but almost every study showed boys behind in the younger ages and a growing advantage after 15.
Richard Haier is such a great and articulate guest. I have never heard of him before, but he is just fantastic.
His interview on Jordan Peterson's channel was great too.
He reminded me instantly of the many great professors I had, back before The Great Dumbening of the universities. Those I see elsewhere nearly all have that blank, satisfied, well-fed and religious look to their faces which betrays a lack of intellect.
@@dixonpinfold2582 did you have a stroke cause no one can read that.
What's fantastic about him?
@@Repetoire ...asks the dude who packed four writing errors into a 13-word sentence.🙄 Actually, difficulty reading can indicate you've had a stroke yourself.
When reading another man’s writings, there is not one, but two places biases can interact and color the subject in print. The obvious, and most identified, being the mind of the writer. The second being the mind of the reader. And this second place, will never be identified, except by a person who has reflected enough to catch a glimpse of their own. I can prove it, by example of my own. A life time of dealing with my brother, and his narcissistic abuse, has had it’s effect on me. If I opened a text from him, no matter how pleasantly it might be worded. I can only hear it in my head, in a negative and hateful manner. I wrote this hoping that others might recognize, and learn something about themselves, they otherwise may be oblivious to. The only way to remove your own personal bias from a subject, is to be aware of it.
In the north of Ireland there was a test called the 11+. You took this test at age 11 and it often determined the course of your life. If you passed you went to a grammar school, and then usually on to university after that. If you failed you went to a comprehensive school, and were done with education by age 16. For the two years leading up to this exam, we did nothing but train for it. 100 mensa-style puzzle questions, that you had 40 minutes to answer. We learned all the quick methods for breaking down a question and answering it. There wasn't a sentence to be written on the entire thing. All multiple choice answers. Your capacity to train to do lateral thinking puzzles, and your ability to be tested under pressure at a young age, determined the future of your education. Savage.
Normally the test consists of 3 parts...math, verbal, and problem solving. Much like an SAT test. The SAT is an excellent predictor of how well a student can perform in school. The SAT is heavily g-loaded, more than some versions of IQ tests. The test does not directly measure effort, and effort also is a good predictor of academic success.
I took the 11+ exam in sunny silly Sussx on the south coast of Plde England .. still a load of $£it, though... :-)
@@BassGoBomb you had to pay to take it?
@@billjames4771 my sister is one of many who failed the 11+. She has excelled at everything else since.
I passed because I had good nerves and was trained to solve these specific problems. This ultimately worked against me though. I never learned the mental discipline that's required for real academic success. A much more relevant, and accessible, skill than training to solve mensa style puzzles. There is something deeply flawed with this whole approach. If you tell an 11 year old child that their abilities are limited, then this has every likelihood of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just as if you tell a child who scores well they are the cream of the crop. When in fact all they've actually done is retain a few methods for quickly solving puzzles.
I find it unbelievable that people don't won't to even consider the possibility that we are not all created equal, individually or racially. It seems to me to be common sense that some groups would have different traits than others. Whether that be physical or mental.
Your phraseology is rather telling. It is most revealing about your character that you think persons are unequal if they possess differing IQ scores. Equality and the moral and ethical inviolability of human beings have nothing to do with intelligence quotient.
Your phraseology is rather telling. It is most revealing about your character that you think persons are unequal if they possess differing IQ scores. Equality and the moral and ethical inviolability of human beings have nothing to do with intelligence quotient.
@@jeremybumpermanpub7144 I think you're missing my point.
Thousands of yrs ago Africans had food and good weather so there's not much thinking going into feeding ones self of shelter cause weather not cold,but whites in say Europe had to hunt and travel and food was hard to come by and weather was alot more difficult to deal with so their iq had to be higher to survive it's that simple imo ! That's why their a difference in iq ! So races are better at somethings than others just fact.
The author Charles Murray is still around, have him on the show.
Pretty sure youtube would not allow it
Yes, living people would make good guests.
Yea why not.
@@schwarg forget them...
Nothing has given me reason to think Lex has the guts for such a thing. He's nicey-nice.
You can't fix stupid. No matter what, where, who, when, or why. You can only educate those who have a desire to learn.
A desire sounds very environmental. Don't use ambiguous language like this. Yes, you can't fix stupid. Because it's a PHYSICAL TRAIT the person afflicted with it cannot change. They may desire to change but they cannot change.
I never liked school and the older I get I realize I had good reasons, it's mostly a propaganda outlet
Lex your ability to oh so carefully step through your questions made me think of a man dancing in a minefield
Great analogy haha
More like the night fox in oceans 12
That's a brilliant way to put it.
It’s easy when your naturally unbiased and respectful.
I think they touched on the problem, and it's that there are several problems, none with the book. 1. There ARE some people with bad intent who would gladly misuse the findings to say "those people are inherently lower and unfixable" and thus don't deserve better. 2. Some people are so (understandably) horrified by that, they would create an atmosphere that prevents any chance of that misuse, even if it prevents understanding and fixing a problem and helping people. That's a terrible approach, but they see the people in (1) above and think "what's the choice?" 3. People don't live in a vacuum -- poverty messes with gene expression and development. So poor kids in the US are less well nourished, exposed to more stress, exposed to more toxins including lead, provided fewer resources, judged more by stupid standardized tests, given fewer chances, etc. If we bury our heads out of (again, understandable) fear of bad faith arguments, we won't fix anything.
Why are people poor? Do you not think that low intelligence is a cause of poverty? Ignorant or dishonest folks confuse cause and effect. Poverty is an effect of having low intelligence, not the cause of it.
@@billjames4771 , generalization expresses real ignorance, thus.
@@sailorr4287 so what are you generalizing about?
@seph3803 Far more likely is cultural effects and parental attitudes toward work. If it was IQ based, and had a genetic racial component, than how come 2nd and 3rd generation Asians end up performing worse than 1st generation? By the time an immigrant has had grandchildren, their grandkids will end up performing worse *if they don't inherit the wealth of the grandparents*
Everyone is aware of this phenomena, and how "Americanization" of immigrants from Asia, Nigeria, Iran, et al, ultimately lowers economic performance.
And if you want to really get specific, and I realize you aren't that intelligent Seph, so this may go over your head, but in Japan, there is a group of people called the Barakumin. They are genetically identical to Japanese and you can only tell them by where they live and their family name. The Barakumin were historically associated with work that was deemed disease ridden or dark, leather work, undertakers, butchers, executioners, etc. Over the centuries, the Barakumin were discriminated against. And guess what? These genetically identical Japanese people have lower IQs, lower economic performance, commit more crimes, are more violent. Shocking, I know?
In fact, the Barukumin in Japan have an IQ gap with mainstream Japanese about as large as the gap between Black and White median scores in the US.
But I'm sure their poverty has everything to do with their genetics, and nothing at all to do with the fact that Japanese companies trace your ancestry and won't even hire you if you have Barakumin lineage.
I really wish people with conservative mentality had a better ability to reason about these things, but ya know, maybe it's genetic IQ?
@johndrumpf9888 stop making stuff up. In modern times nobody cares about barakumin. They used to also discriminate against korean lineage in Japan but koreans actually have higher iq than Japan. It's cultural discrimination.
I remember reading an article, which was written in the 1950s, that 100 years earlier (1850s) most people were living on farms, and people who had an IQ of less than 80 could be employed in a useful way, they did not even had to know to read and write. Today (1950s) most of those people can not be employed.
and you cant simply give them welfare money bc otherwise they will keep breeding.
I honestly only found out about that from Jordan Peterson's talks on IQ back around 2017. It is a *SHOCKING* stat and one that most people will not even remotely talk about.
Also because our world is requiring higher IQs, not less, it maybe the case the actual cutoff is higher, maybe not by much (And thank god if its not much or at all!) but it is still something that is VERY concerning. And yet we seem hell bent to not only do nothing but make it worse.
10% of the us population has an iQ at or less than 83. The army determined that these people are not competent enough to perform menial tasks. They are too dumb to work. 33 million Americans.
@@CmoIsDaNam3i the world does not really require higher iqs. Humans just need to get along better. Also human hybris about their intelligence will be crushed by the abilities of ai. Even the most intelligent human ist still a pretty mentally restricted animal.
@@MaxMustermann-zr6kf So let me ask you this. Do you think anyone of any intelligence can do high level programming? And by high level I mean complex.
America is heading in a very dangerous direction by moving away from the emphasis on merit. A capitalistic democracy absolutely depends on allowing the very best to succeed. The overall driving force that enabled America's incredible economic success and dominance has been merit based empowerment. The reason the Soviet Union failed is because decision-making was based on bureaucratic cronyism. We need the very best to be the best and to have the most influence.
Unfortunately equal opportunity is being targeted by these same merit based people
So Lex believes in censorship, especially self-censorship, for scientists because uncensored results might lead to social issues and personal ones. Do we conclude that pursuing truth itself then is less important than how people might feel about that truth? What are the consequences for society if so? Interesting and surprising stuff from an AI scientist.
Dude he Is saying that dumb fucks can use and interpret studies in a way that gives them reasons to be racist and do racist shit. Is then worth It? What kind of progress could that study bring? This Is what he Is saying.
You do you man.
The Russian inside him.
"Surprising from an AI scientists." 6 months old, checks out. You obviously wrote this before ChatGPT went woke.
People from Nagasaki and Hiroshima would like to have a word with you and your high horse.
I give you credit for doing this interview. In a way the politicization of our schools started with this book. I have met teachers who are under constant pressure to increase test scores and they are shocked to even consider that they would only be 10% responsible for the actual results. They are never taught this information and find it almost an insult that their influence on a child is limited.
Seems a good way to encourage teachers not to fulfill their mandate, "oh it's his genes not my poor education methods".
Damn Lex you got balls! Keep it up fantastic stimulating discussions I love your content!
How sad is it that just talking about things now takes balls.
What the hell are you on about? He’s literally making an argument for why we should ignore reality. He’s a coward.
@@Wowreally42 worse than that. He’s arguing that it shouldn’t be allowed within the frame of discourse.
I agree: figuring out why some people have better memories than others would be very helpful.
Just ordered the book - can’t wait to read it
How are you finding it?
On Amazon, probably ! @@th4330
The irony is that you don’t know how to read.
I also bought it as well as the narrative life of fedrick Douglas which I highly recommend I used to read it online now I’m getting the actual book cause it’s absolutely amazing !
It is a mistake to believe that what makes a teacher better is just their level of education or from which university it was received.
I used to be an educator. I also educated my own children pre-college mostly. I believe one thing that is universally true, which is high IQ children are much much easier to teach. They are also more intellectually inquisitive.
Ethnicity has no meaning, but if you have brilliant parents, they have smart kids. The psychologists seemed to use the wrong grouping then claim all groupings are false.
@@darrinito Ethnicity has no meaning, means you cannot define it, it is a slang term attributed to whatever you want. For example, you cannot state the favorite color of Jews. You cannot state the favorite pasta of Italians. Only slang grossly illdefined generalities can be applied to grossly illdefined ethnic groups. You might say well Koreans value education more than Mexican Americans. Well, we don't know what Koreans in Korea do, we just have some sense of academics of Koreans in America.
@@darrinito Ethnicity is in propaganda speak called a loaded word, a word with high emotional impact but no definite meaning. You disprove that not by making idiot analogies to your mother in law and other things but by starting with defining every ethnicity in America exactly. For example, do you define a Southerner as a person that likes black eyes peas, root beer, okras, chicken, frog legs, pecans, corn bread, corn dogs, biscuits and gravy, and chitlins and grits?
@@darrinito Mentally insane. Loser.
All Southerners, a well-defined ethnic group, eat okra. Anyone who does not is not a Southerner. That is what you just said, and yes, it is illiterate vomit. Ethnicity only works at the gross generality level with endless exceptions. Now, even there two groups can identify as different, but eh, getting into specifics is still hard. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the Gods. Maybe the holidays. Maybe the language. Maybe the region they live in. And maybe hundreds of other things. This is why social policy based on ethnicity does not work. You know, speaking as an exceptionally smart German to a local dolt.
Resources are finite. People are not equal, even in royalty. Forcing equality by means of discriminatory distribution of wealth is a waste of resources.
A wise man once said "There's no fixing this, just get the hell away"."
Dilbert?
The most important point of the book is that the differences amongst individuals is greater than the differences between the groups so whether or not a group is or isn't more intelligent it doesn't matter when it comes to the individual and that's just science
The most important point the book skips over is that IQ test scores improve the more people train. If you want to score astronomically high, just learn the IQ puzzles, it only takes a few months, and then you can join Mensa, because your IQ will be 180 every time they test you. Because it depends on training, the IQ test cannot be used to differentiate scores among groups of people the way the Bell Curve does it, because any difference in scores is meaningless. Unlike, say, comparing a child's score before and after lead-exposure, or a group of children, which is meaningful, because it is looking at the effect of a factor. This is why people jump all over the Bell Curve, it is using a concept which is not serious, which is a scientific myth, the concept of 'general g', and then drawing the stupidest and most shopworn sociological conclusions about different groups of people, conclusions which were already proven false decades ago.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 so ur premise is that white toddlers train more than non-white toddlers, but not more than asian toddlers? interesting, i was unaware that so much IQ training was going on with the elementary school kids across the world.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Your argument would make sense if some of the groups studied spent time practicing IQ tests while others didn't. That wasn't the case, though.
@@candidlens All mathematical education trains for IQ tests. All reading trains for IQ tests. All puzzle solving trains for IQ tests. All internal logical thinking trains for IQ tests. This is why IQ scores go up by about 20 points every 50 years, so that if you look at people from the 1920s, their scores would average around 65 on today's IQ tests.
This means IQ is not stable enough as a measurement to use the way it is used in "The Bell Curve". It can be used to test for lead-poisoning, or to check for the effect of some factor, it is better than average grades for that, because it is less subjective. But to use it to compare groups of people, or even individuals, is as ridiculous as using the scores on a calculus test.
This is why "The Bell Curve" is as scientific as phrenology, and that's why Herrstein and Murray are frauds.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 OK, but is there any evidence that the average person in a given racial group spends any more time doing mathematical education or problem-solving-puzzles etc. compared to the average person of any other group? The average person of the groups I know of spends almost no time doing those things yet the magnitude of difference in results remains constant.
I hope you're not suggesting that the average white person spends more time doing puzzles etc. than the average black person. Only if certain groups did these more than others would your argument hold water. Even if
there is somehow a change in the mean over time, it doesn't explain the consistent difference between groups relative the mean.
If they had used this book to help craft public policy, we wouldn't currently be in the dire straits we find ourselves in.
And if frogs had wings ...
Ideology rules. Tramples empirical evidence routinely.
I question the value of a liberal arts education for my grandson, the way my parents would NEVER have done so for me.
I always classify hypothetical if's as opinions.
And there wouldn't be the outrage about under performing blacks in society. Much of the reason for the underachievement is genetic and not simply the fault of white people.
We have to prioritize not offending people
Well the authors said they wanted more progressive public policy and more socialism. They said it. Talk is so cheap. The book was an advertisement for cheap talk and apparently...abusive "science".
I read this book in HS, my desk was near the teachers desk and his bookshelf. At the time I had no idea it was controversial, it was just a really interesting read and I learned a lot from it.
Looking back I realize how based my teacher was. Probably wouldn’t even be allowed to have it on his bookshelf today.
Some things are just self-evident.
You’re the reason we can’t discuss these things.
If you are referring to anecdotal experiences, that is not a good way to go about this
13:00 to 15:00.. What an intellectual powerhouse. Thanks for the great interview Lex.
Oh my God I feel like an elderly man now when somebody has to explain what Nightline was and that Ted Koppel was the host. In my mind some of the methodology used in the bell curve has been superseded by the Flynn effect. The effects are socioeconomical with parents being over harsh on their children worried that they won't succeed in society. In an ironic twist I'm a white person but I also had a mother that was like that because she grew up in the depression era. What it is it's a mother who's very quick to correct any small language infraction from fear of her childhood being wrongly left behind.
I very much want to read this book to see if it addresses my own kooky theory: "Different groups of people KNOW what they need to know.....and they know only what they need to know." If that makes sense 😉 reading through these comments and people talking about meant to tests and training for the tests......what about the reality that so many of the problems we have to solve today....are problems that we created. There are areas of the world that do not have these problems. Or at least to their perception they aren't situations that demand a solution. Hence "not a problem, not something that I should increase my knowledge of it in order to better understand and then attempt to modify"
Black Man here: PharmD, 8 Years US Army (68R, 68W) and CCNA 💪
there is a difference between Africans and Afro-Americans
So what, the book talks about the average of black population. Of course there's genius black but that is not the majority
@@jmkylaryzathe same could apply for any other race
You are proving the bell curve ....talking about average IQ , not individual.....
There was such a fuss about this book that I had to buy a copy around 2000. I read it...i survived.
It is total bullshit though just fyi, go watch Shaun’s multi hour debunking of all the nonsense in it.
Nah bruh we in hell
No harm in reading it other than wasting your time. It’s been thoroughly debunked.
@@eldenfindley186 no it hasnt
@@eldenfindley186 Your comment has been thoroughly debunked.
As I've gotten older I've given up on trying, and eventually pretending, to ignore facts. It's tiresome and life is short. Now, I simply take what I know largely to be true of certain groups and act accordingly, just as I do with anything else in life. It serves me well and usually keeps me away from danger and stress. - WW
What “facts” are you ignoring? The book literally says they don’t have the answer.
@@jjj-bl8yf
The fact that liking basketball and rap music disproportionally increases your likeliness to commit crime and have a low IQ.
@@jjj-bl8yf If you think in terms of probability you can make decisions based on the evidence provided. That said there are no "facts" that can be applied on the individual level.
@@shin-ishikiri-no or the group level for that matter.
@@jjj-bl8yfyou’re delusional.
Nice episode, Lex. To bring up this book again with historical perspective. Nice job.
Yes, he also missed the studu was done in the 1960s when racism still existed, meaning black people and women wouldnt be smarter based on standardized testing.
@@mattk8810 "when racism still existed"
🤣
Why do you think they created affirmative action. An artificial leveling of the playing fiekd. But it still wont stop the one side from scoring more goals.
So you're not against Affirmative Action?
@@NanakiRowan Affirmative action is evil.
Props to these two for having this discussion. Seriously though how do you talk about this and not infuriate most of the planet?
The people who watch this channel are part of the group with the higher IQ
By not misrepresenting the data and recognising that different cultures in different environments have different IQs (closer to 100) than the others.
This “science” is eugenics. The Nazis answered this question pretty damn hard and we only had to drop a couple million bombs until they’d piss off
@@megapromo3771correction, the people that watch this channel assume they're a part of the higher iq demographic.
Easily. It is not really controversial for most of the planet. It's pretty mainstream psychology.
how do you get mad about results of an honest factual study just because you don't like the results
I think on top of the controversial topic, a major issue many had with the book, especially in the psychology community, was Murrary's "and so." He went on to connect the work to his political views, using it as a justification for stripping back social programs. Basically, "the IQ distribution is this, the conclusion is that, and so we should cut programs because their socioeconomic level is largely a product of intelligence rather than opportunity."
But if the programs aren't going to be effective then isn't the money better spent elsewhere?
@@veritasmenscounselling He wasn't only implying the programs with the specific goal of raising IQ were a waste of time and money, but that head-start programs in general would likely prove fruitless and that his findings cast doubt on a wide array of social safety-net schemes. I should probably apologize for the novel I wrote, but you did ask the question. Also, please excuse any typos, I typed this on my break, so my time was limited.
The problems with his interpretation and conclusions are three-fold: 1) It was based on preliminary research with few attempts at replication, and so it was not comprehensive enough to discount confounding "third" variables (which he-himself acknowledged); 2) Not taking into account the affects of epigenetics; 3) The nature of IQ testing and the Flynn Effect.
So, first, there has been nowhere close to the research required to sufficiently account for the confounding variables also correlated with IQ and race, and scant replication of that which has taken place. Meta-analyses can attempt to smooth out the wrinkles, so to speak, but not if there are fundamental flaws throughout the subdiscipline approach so far. I'm not talking about the IQs results themselves, but the conclusions drawn from those IQs, which correlated variables are emphasized (and there are always a number of confounding variables). My own thesis was on the so-called "Replication Crisis" in psychology in which keystone research is being brought into question as more and more fail the most important scientific test in any field: replication. Psychological research can be extremely expensive and messy to recreate and human behaviour is difficult to predict. In can be done, but the farther you go back, the more often you find studies whose impact got a lot of press, made it into textbooks, but failed replication (if even tried).
Another important concept in its infancy at the time of the _Bell Curve's_ release was "epigenetics." Epigenetics involves those systems related to modulating genetic expression, such as the proteins that wrap up the DNA strand unspooling to allow transcription, codons that allows alleles to be activated or silenced, and countless other mechanisms that we're only just coming to terms with in recent years. These systems are highly influenced, not just by your environment, but the environment of recent generations. They're designed to allow rapid, intergenerational adaptation that responds faster than the thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of years required for purely genetic evolution to take place through mutation of one's genome. Now, finally, is the issue with the malleability of IQ results. There is a phenomena referred to as the "Flynn Effect." The 100 point average has to be updated generation after generation because each new group, as they come of age, are often up to 10 IQ points higher on the scale than their parents. What used to be 100 last generation, is now 90 so that they can keep the average score at 100 for the new people coming of age. The reason for this is not fully understood. The reported, seemingly fixed IQ scores of minority groups refers to _relative_ scores. ALL groups are increasing in intelligence - at least in comparison to their parents' IQ scores. This implies either a flaw in the test or fluidity in IQs that should at least be taken into consideration before making rash decisions about who does and does not deserve government help.
Frankly, when taking into consideration the known impact of poverty on IQ and the negative impacts of intergenerational trauma due to epigenetics, whether or not one has been raised in a stable middle-class home _this_ generation, it is not at all surprising that a group who spent 300 years in slavery, destitution, and subjugation still carry those effects with them. To leave you with one last fact: research has demonstrated that African American men who have stereotypically "black names" and have to write their names on their tests will, on average, score ten points lower than those who are only required to place a code number on the test. These tests were multiple choice and scored by computers, so the only discriminatory effect was the negative impact their own awareness of black stereotypes had on the self-confidence. Psychology is complicated and while more research may prove Murrary correct, to draw conclusions and base on policy positions on what's contained within the scant research so far is highly, professionally unethical. It makes me think he had a conclusion from the get-go and worked backwards from there.
@@veritasmenscounsellingut A.) social programs are hardly effective generally speaking… the conclusion that “we tried headstart and that didn’t work so I guess black people aren’t smart like me” is a horribly flawed conclusion that I don’t even think needs talking about…
B.) IQ IS increasing… it’s increasing yearly to the extent that our great great great grandparents born in 1900 with 100 IQ’s would have IQ’s that are borderline retarded today… ostensibly from the increase in economic conditions for individuals… and since historically speaking the gov has actively harmed black people’s economic conditions in a myriad of ways would also imply that there’s gonna be empirical differences in IQ similar to the difference in time period…
C.) Murray’s political opinion, especially if it’s promoted in the book, taints his evidence and conclusions, yes??? Confirmation bias. I never hear obvious contrary positions in these interviews to challenge the interviewee. Just tacit agreement
@@silverjaiden2450 IQ WAS increasing. The Flynn Effect has now reversed. I won't speculate as to why. Further, there is a large body of evidence indicating that these social and educational programs have next to no effect on increasing IQ. The one possible counter example is to ensure that children are able to consume enough calories to avoid being malnourished.
@@dirkdiggler3974 thanks... Dirk Diggler
I recall the author of this book having a conversation with Sam Harris some years ago, now Lex is also bringing the information to the masses. Good work
im pretty sure sam brought it to the masses first, are you implying lex podcast is bigger than sams?
@@altruism8637 sam's problem is that he is not as smart, or as charismatic, as he thinks he is. He also behaves like a deeply resentful person.
@@judgeholden849 thats your opinion, which seems kind of ad hominem, but your opinions on his character doesn't discredit his ideas. Sam Harris does provide sound and cogent arguments using rationality, reasoning, science
@@altruism8637 Learn what ad hominem means. Insulting somebody is not ad hominem. Saying they are WRONG BECAUSE they are whatever insulting thing you claim would be ad hominem. Judge said nothing about whether or not Sam was right about anything. He pointed out what he saw as character flaws.
@@galenschultz3239 thats actually why i said kind of. youre ciritising him as person and not his work or arguments. also seems like you dont disagree with his arguments/claims. nice. hes admitted being slightly pessimistic. whatever hes done great work in theis world exposing the wickedness of religion
Ive always felt that fundamentally, the differences between groups of people, were relatively small when compared to the huge potential differences between individuals.
Incredible that mainstream "news" organizations contact him basically to ask that he play the villain in what is essentially a drama for their audience.
Knowing it was the BBC, it doesn't surprise me one tiny bit.
One of the conclusions of the book is that it's relatively easy to reduce the intelligence potential of children, but it's damned near impossible to *raise* one's potential.
One of the beautiful aspects of life. It’s a hell of a lot easier to make things worse than it is to make things better.
That does no chime with the modern understand of neuroscience where early childhood development is now recognized to play a fundamental role in forming neural connections in the brain that sustain the potential of said brain for the rest of the person's life.
@@secullenable Then it should be easy to support your argument, because it's not so. If a child is isolated during early childhood or if they live in a violent/abusive environment, they can be horribly stunted developmentally. There's no question about this. However, if a child gets reasonable human interaction as an infant and normal toddler/pre-school age simulation, there are zero long-term gains to be had by early schooling. The only advantage the very early schooling has is when compared to neglect.
@@MrTL3wis so in other words, the way society is going, we are actually stepping away from out true potential and dumbing down ? regardless of children ?
the foundation of the argument "IQ scores matter". Einstein could not spell because there are no rules. If Einstein was in today's schools they would have put him in special ed like myself and told his parents that he would probably never learn to read write or handle basic math and then the school system would have thrown him in the corner and taught him nothing like I. Luckily for me my dad was a disabled veteran so I went to ten years of college used a spell checker and learned how to write complex some extremely complex government automation: Law, Medical Database, Mental Health. I am also a philosopher and understand Economics, Philosophy and massive reduction of government processes through automation. I can tear apart the bible because I it was written by lawyers who clearly and obviously did not site their source "God" and they the authors made it clear to anyone with a dictionary that they did this. Which is a nice little trick let the audience know that your dogma comes from "inspiration of god" Inspiration definition: "The excitement of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity." and then allow people drop god's name in judgment based on the word's that you labeled clearly man. Anyway I am low IQ and you can judge for yourself.
While watching this with dinner I ate a fortune cookie. "Even the smartest person can learn something from the dumbest." Freaky!
@King Mob I live in the twitlight zone, but it's a tragic epic horror story.
That’s why those Chinese restauranteurs moved to America 😁
great aphorism
It makes me think of my great grandmother. I only wish I had taken more time to learn what she knew. She lived off the land. She gardened, canned, foraged, and made home products from the earth. She knew how to find water, build an outhouse, and take care of a sick child. She had not one book in her home.
You can learn what not to do.
We in Australia have problems with "FAS" fetal alcohol syndrome, which shows life long problems, for children whose mothers drink alcohol. Nutrition is paramount to healthy growth of all organisms.
Attitude of students belief in themselves can make a major impact as well.
Think his talking point towards the end of the conversation was the true gem. This needs to be investigated by neuroscientists. Read a book a while back on neoplasticity, There's much we still don't understand. Especially in regards to learning, Could be as simple as understanding how different parts of the brain communicate and maybe improving those connections. additional Andrew Hubermann has posted some pretty amazing video's.
💯
Read this whole book, not just the summations. It explains sooooo much about the problems in this country.
I agree, it certainly does. And it was fascinating learning how we've failed to progress the research.
It doesn’t. The book has been thoroughly debunked. Please do your research.
@@eldenfindley186 Did you read it?
@@condorb7756 They don't need to if it was debunked properly. And even debunking is a strong term because it is a book, not a scientific article. It more about propagating a scientific idea then scientific arguments.
@@eldenfindley186 Anybody that has grown up in the hood knows these people are dumb as a box of rocks. Thats my "lived experience".
“Sometimes we are successful in having a conversation…” something poignant about that line
I remember hearing this around 25 years ago on the radio. Of course I found this incredibly interesting and controversial subject I’ve ever heard. As he says “treat each individual as an individual “
Agree with Dr. Haier about what we should do with the current data (@38:02). Neurosciences research is incredibly important - not only in terms of intelligence but also, and perhaps even more importantly, to debilitating disorders/diseases that occur (quite frequently) to people of all demographic types.
As a species we are holding ourselves back from the truth. Even on the micro/individual level, emotions cloud rational thought and hold back progress. If we could get out of our own way we would sooner have the answers to our questions and could be working on solutions to our problems instead of wasting time being upset by objective data. Being objective and being ethical at the same time is possible and also imperative to understanding nature. A doctor must withhold emotion when delivering test results or making treatment decisions. It's both an ethical and objective duty that must be done for the benefit of the patient. Nature is cold.
Wonder how many in the comment section, that has actually read 'The Bell Curve'...?
I have, and I have never read any other book, where the authors do so much to NOT be racist. Maybe give the book a try yourself, instead of just listening to what others (me included) say about it?
Read it, still garbage.
@@NanakiRowanI've been reading a lot of your comments and while I can't say I am convinced that black people are dumb your arguments still suck and your way to convinced that it's impossible for genetics to be involved eventhough we don't know so you keep saying stupid stuff cause you want to be right.
The book was not controversial in science, it was controversial outside of science.
That's simply false. It was controversial at the time. However these days it is pretty uncontroversially considered pseudoscience
@@davidnoll9581 considered by the npc mainstream
It's only controversial because of the results. If it was flipped, all of a sudden you will see these people that disparage the study be totally fine with it.
@@cretaceoussteve3527
Science does not attempt to prove the things you claim. The Null Hypothesis is literally that there are no significant differences in populations. The populations, not the observers determine the outcome unless science is subverted. What you claim to seem obvious is *completely* without evidence. You are arguing against valid science because it doesn't support your social or political beliefs, not because of any flaw in the process which you can identify. Putting together two independently verified pieces of information, i.e. test results for different populations and correlation of test results to performance in other arenas, to reach a conclusion is a proper and valid application of the scientific method.
@@cretaceoussteve3527 you can say plenty about reality. IQ exists, and racial groups differ in mean IQ levels.
I was in graduate school in the college of education when the book was released. I bought the book and poured through it. I had multiple professors who would bash the book, but when I asked if they read the book they would say “no, but I’ve read reviews.” At that time, and still educators pretend IQ isn’t real or important. I believe not using IQ on an individual level in education is one of our biggest failures.
Why?
@@froster42 consider a classroom with a wide verity of students, add ESK and special needs students. The more academic diversity in a classroom the less every student gets from the instruction. Further we give standardized tests to students. In the past we gave a test scored in bands 1-5 with five being best. If a study scored a 2 we would want to move him up to a 3, but if his IQ was used to make a decision about his performance we may find out he has a 75 IQ and his score is very good based on his ability. Or if the kid has a 110 IQ we know that he’s underperforming. If we put kids in class based on abilities they will preform better.
@@Aikidoman06 "I believe not using IQ on an individual level in education is one of our biggest failures."
Why?
@@Aikidoman06 So intellectual segregation is what you think is best?
Don't we have data on this already? IIRC it leads to "high achievers" being boosted and "low achievers" being left behind. Why is this preferred?
What about the emotional impact on children that are put into the "low achiever" category?
It also ignores the impact that material conditions play on a child's intellectual ability. How would you safeguard against disproportionate adverse effects on communities with poor material conditions? Doesn't this perpetuate the problem?
@@froster42 yes, placing in class based on ability levels. Considering this would be done by grade level it will not have a negative effect. Consider a 3rd grade in a school. Schools being geographically filled the students will generally come from neighborhoods of like demographics. So if you place students into three levels it’s still within the demographic of the school. Right now an above average kid is placed in class with average, below average, special needs and ESL students. Dividing instruction hurts them all. As for how kids feel about being in one group of the other; I think once they realize they can’t read and do grade level work, or that the won’t graduate or can’t function after school is far more hurtful.