Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
lol, Herrnstein and Murray didn't publish their work for peer-review.
|
You are correct. The Bell Curve was published without peer-review and the analysis of the NLSY published therein were not peer reviewed. I don't have the book in front of me, but the majority of the findings I cited regarding IQ are not drawn from the national longitudinal study of youth described in the Bell Curve, but are mentioned in The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve draws its evidence from more than 1,000 sources. Of course, the Bell Curve was not peer-reviewed. It is a book. The conclusions drawn from the NLSY by Herrnstein and Murray still stand despite this.
Regarding attacks on the book and Herrnstein and Murray: I had a professor who suggested that Hernnstein had the good fortune to die before the book was released
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Re-tests of their work have been published for peer-review, however, and illustrate the flaws in their original work nicely enough for anyone so inclined to read up on.
|
I have not read any re-tests of their work that illustrate the "flaws" in their original work nicely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
But how important do you view this "debate" anyway? Your claims presuppose that IQ is an objective measure of intelligence. You claim respect for peer-reviewed articles...what say they on the value of IQ as a valid and reliable objective measure of intelligence?
|
This is an interesting question! Many disparate sources of evidence support the construct validity of a domain general intelligence (what is normally referred to as
g, or big g). Studies of the internal structure of IQ tests, studies of the predictive validity of IQ tests, studies of the stability of IQ test over time and despite experimental intervention, the heritability of intelligence, etc. all support the construct validity of intelligence and IQ as it's measured (by something like the WISC or the WAIS). That said, the construct validity of IQ has been demonstrated in western cultures. I'm not familiar with tests of validity in non-western countries.
All that said, I don't like the conclusions drawn by authors like Herrnstein and Murray (and I'm not just talking about the one chapter everyone gets upset about). It's depressing and I don't know what the answer is, but I cannot deny the mounds of evidence supporting the construct validity of a domain general intelligence. Whatever is measured by an IQ test is stable (especially after age 10), heritable, and predicts a heck of a lot.