That was one of the takeaways, but I was referencing how in "The Bell Curve" they did the proper regressions from the best available longitudinal studies. Did the regressions to compare apples to apples, etc. It looked good and I initially thought the criticism was formed in not liking what they found. The book, "The Missmeasure of Man" …
That was one of the takeaways, but I was referencing how in "The Bell Curve" they did the proper regressions from the best available longitudinal studies. Did the regressions to compare apples to apples, etc. It looked good and I initially thought the criticism was formed in not liking what they found. The book, "The Missmeasure of Man" pointed out something I missed. I spent many years analyzing test data determining root cause of problems, but I am not a statistician, a subject deeper than it appears to be to a non-statistician like myself.
I don't think they lied although there is evidence that the presentation could be considered disingenuous. Perhaps it pertains to the last commentary where I opined that once you raise a flag in a hill you often sell yourself on something that can make you decide it's a hill to fire in when it isn't.
The problem here is that if you're starting from a nonsensical and hugely subjective categorisation of the data, no amount of statistical wizardry will produce valid results.
So many people in the US who appear to be "white" could also be categorised as "black" if the one-drop rule was enforced that the distinction is essentially self-referential. If you're poor, or caught breaking the law, you're so much more likely to be regarded as "black" that the stats are meaningless.
Add to that that many of those statistical tests developed by Fischer & Galton etc are increasingly regarded as unreliable precisely because of the subjective way they are used in sociology & psychology and you have a pseudoscientific mess. It's basically eugenics, and we all know where that leads.
That was one of the takeaways, but I was referencing how in "The Bell Curve" they did the proper regressions from the best available longitudinal studies. Did the regressions to compare apples to apples, etc. It looked good and I initially thought the criticism was formed in not liking what they found. The book, "The Missmeasure of Man" pointed out something I missed. I spent many years analyzing test data determining root cause of problems, but I am not a statistician, a subject deeper than it appears to be to a non-statistician like myself.
I don't think they lied although there is evidence that the presentation could be considered disingenuous. Perhaps it pertains to the last commentary where I opined that once you raise a flag in a hill you often sell yourself on something that can make you decide it's a hill to fire in when it isn't.
" they did the proper regressions"...
The problem here is that if you're starting from a nonsensical and hugely subjective categorisation of the data, no amount of statistical wizardry will produce valid results.
So many people in the US who appear to be "white" could also be categorised as "black" if the one-drop rule was enforced that the distinction is essentially self-referential. If you're poor, or caught breaking the law, you're so much more likely to be regarded as "black" that the stats are meaningless.
Add to that that many of those statistical tests developed by Fischer & Galton etc are increasingly regarded as unreliable precisely because of the subjective way they are used in sociology & psychology and you have a pseudoscientific mess. It's basically eugenics, and we all know where that leads.