Southern Poverty Law Center - Irresponsible Lying Scumbags?

[ok doser]

is there any reason to think that intelligence would not be heritable?

 

[Arthur Brain]

actually i don't - gave it a quick wiki and i do remember the controversy around Duggan, but hadn't associated it with FRC

and james dobson and focus on the family ring a bell, from twenty years back

ok, you have what you feel are legitimate reasons to call them "bonkers" - some of the controversies around them justify that


it's unfortunate that the SPLC brands them as an anti-gay hate group.

and telling that they don't also brand them as a anti-(abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography) group

You didn't know about Paul Cameron? He founded the FRC after being kicked out of the APA for deliberately fiddling research and peddling his own anti gay agenda. The FRC has been mired in controversy since foundation and hardly a place to go to for any sort of objective and corroborated truth, much like aCW's go to's: "Americans for truth" and "mass resistance". They're wingnut outfits.

 

[ok doser]

... hardly a place to go to for any sort of objective and corroborated truth...

obviously, i don't do that

 

[Arthur Brain]

is he wrong?

can you name one?



is he wrong?



again, is he wrong?

I wouldn't be able to give you an exhaustive list of males off the top of my head but then again, I can see several reasons why women's contributions wouldn't have been so widely recognized either even though it's obvious that women aren't inferior in intellect to men. You?

 

[Arthur Brain]

is there any reason to think that intelligence would not be heritable?

It very well might be but then again, where does genius come from? As before, intelligence can be suppressed or nurtured. There may be a modern day Einstein who hasn't been allowed his intellect to grow because of circumstance and environment.

 

[Arthur Brain]

obviously, i don't do that

That would be more convincing were it not for your venerating description of Fred Phelps as a "Godly man".

lain:

 

[ok doser]

... it's obvious that women aren't inferior in intellect to men.

IQ studies show disparities between genders, in categories that would be important in being successful in math, physics, etc

so, in some ways, yes, they are inferior

in other ways they're superior

not sure why this is controversial

 

[ok doser]

There may be a modern day Einstein who hasn't been allowed his intellect to grow because of circumstance and environment.

i'm sure that's true - it's just as true that there's a whole slew of inner city kids who aren't able to reach their potential for the same reasons

i used to work with a few of them

 

[Arthur Brain]

IQ studies show disparities between genders, in categories that would be important in being successful in math, physics, etc

so, in some ways, yes, they are inferior

in other ways they're superior

not sure why this is controversial

Cite?

There's plenty women who are proficient in maths, physics etc so gender doesn't play a part. There may be reasons why there's more men in the field than women overall but that's not necessarily down to intellect or acuity in the sciences.

 

[Arthur Brain]

i'm sure that's true - it's just as true that there's a whole slew of inner city kids who aren't able to reach their potential for the same reasons

i used to work with a few of them

Ok, a lack of education, poverty or responsible parenting is going to hinder growth, I doubt anybody is going to deny that and it's a problem. Mozart wouldn't have been able to write music without being taught the rudimentary basics.

There's plenty people who could - and have done - achieved their potential once the negative factors have been addressed. Unfortunately there's many where that isn't the case.

 

[ok doser]

short on time tonight, and want to stay focused on Murray and the SPLC:

....pointing out his odious views.

on what basis do you call his views "odious"?

have you read The Bell Curve?

or are you taking your cues from the Atlantic piece?

here's the assessment by Peter Beinart, the author of Atlantic piece: "Some of Murray’s views are indeed odious. Twenty-three years ago, he co-authored The Bell Curve, which argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life, that intelligence is partly genetic, and that there may be genetic differences between races"

let's take them one at a time

1. Beinart claims that Murray argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life

Murray makes a nuanced rebuttal to that, correcting the errors in the assessment given by Beinart, who appears to be working from the SPLC's smear piece. One particular that he stresses is that his conclusions are drawn from data on non-Hispanic Whites.

But regardless, is it "odious" to suggest that the data support the idea that "differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life"? That seems rather obvious to me. You don't tend to find many successful software engineers in Silicon Valley, for instance, with IQs below 100. And I doubt that many of Beinart's colleagues at The Atlantic have IQs below 100.



2. Beinart claims that Murray argued that intelligence is partly genetic

Again, this seems obvious and non-controversial, and Murray proves it using data on non-Hispanic Whites

Do you find the statement that "intelligence is partly genetic" to be odious?


3. Beinart claims that Murray argued that there may be genetic differences between races

again, this seems obvious to me, and Murray supports it using data on Ashkenazim Jews, Asians and other racial groups

do you find this argument to be "odious"?

would you agree that Murray's views are mischaracterized by Beinart as "odious"?

 

[ok doser]

Cite?

There's plenty women who are proficient in maths, physics etc so gender doesn't play a part. There may be reasons why there's more men in the field than women overall but that's not necessarily down to intellect or acuity in the sciences.

not necessarily, no

but no reason to say "doesn't play a part"

in fact I'd be surprised if it didn't play some part, if not major then at least detectable

 

[ok doser]

and I strongly encourage you to spend a bit of time reading Murray's rebuttal to the SPLC smear job:

and here's Dr. Murray's corrections to the defamation: http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murrays-splc-page-as-edited-by-charles-murray/

 

[Arthur Brain]

not necessarily, no

but no reason to say "doesn't play a part"

in fact I'd be surprised if it didn't play some part, if not major then at least detectable

Whatever "part" that is, it isn't intelligence or intellectual ability in the scientific/mathematical fields.

 

[Arthur Brain]

short on time tonight, and want to stay focused on Murray and the SPLC:

would you agree that Murray's views are mischaracterized by Beinart as "odious"?

and I strongly encourage you to spend a bit of time reading Murray's rebuttal to the SPLC smear job:

In retrospect, no, not odious. I don't think he's anything resembling a hate group such as Westboro even though I empathize with those who disagree with his conclusions.

 

[ok doser]

... I empathize with those who disagree with (Murray's) conclusions.

Which conclusions, specifically?

 

[Stripe]

It's not OK to be gay.

 

[ok doser]

It's not OK to be gay.

and for saying that, the SPLC would put you on their "extremist watch list" or charge you with belonging to a "hate group"

just as they did with Ben Carson

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which conclusions, specifically?

His and his co-authors controversial "conclusions" in relations to blacks that have been subject to learned criticism as it is:

Allegations of racism[edit]
Since the book provided statistical data supporting the assertion that blacks were, on average, less intelligent than whites, some people have feared that The Bell Curve could be used by extremists to justify genocide and hate crimes.[51][52] Much of the work referenced by The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund, which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and has been accused of promoting scientific racism.[53][54][55] Murray criticized the characterization of the Pioneer Fund as a racist organization, arguing that it has as much relationship to its founder as "Henry Ford and today's Ford Foundation."[48]:564

Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described The Bell Curve as an example of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of scientific method that have characterized the history of scientific racism:

claims that are not supported by the data given
errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
no mention of data that contradict the hypothesis
no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists.[56]
Eric Siegel published on the Scientific American blog that the book "endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race."[57] Similarly, Howard Gardner accused the authors of engaging in "scholarly brinkmanship", arguing that "Whether concerning an issue of science, policy, or rhetoric, the authors come dangerously close to embracing the most extreme positions, yet in the end shy away from doing so...Scholarly brinkmanship encourages the reader to draw the strongest conclusions, while allowing the authors to disavow this intention."[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

His throwaway comments in regards to women have already been addressed.

As before, he doesn't deserve to be an object of hate IMO and if you wanna continue talking about Murray then someone else might be interested. I've made my position clear by now.

 

[Arthur Brain]

and for saying that, the SPLC would put you on their "extremist watch list" or charge you with belonging to a "hate group"

Depends on who and the group. Westboro certainly deserve to be on the list along with any crank or organisation who promotes similar, but you seem to be more than reticent to repeat your vocal support for the founder of Westboro, why is that?

:think:

Here's an example of a highly intelligent, eloquent and thoughtful woman who thankfully escaped the plight of being part of such a vile, hate group: