They used the wrong statistical analysis, applied the wrong model and came to the wrong conclusions based on flawed data, and a totally botched analysis. In other words, Herrnstein & Murry's analysis was so bad that it sucked dead budgies.
They used a 3 variable model (Armed Forces Qualifying Test, Age and SES) in which the predictors were so closely related to each other that you cannot to any conclusion about the data. This is a fairly good discussion of their analysis at http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html larry On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:25:18 -0500, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um...could you repeat that...in English? > > All I got was "Geek. Geek. Geek. Independant. Geek. Geek." > > =) > > Jerry Johnson > Web Developer > Dolan Media Company > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/05 12:26PM >>> > Moreover in terms of the stats they used, well there were a lot of > articles in various journals that examined the statistics they used > and the general conclusion was that the statistical analysis was so > flawed as to be worthless. The 3 variable model they used was so bad - > the so called independent variables were correlated beyond .50 level, > that it should have been tossed out from the start. There was no > statisical controls for uneven baselines for instance. Unfortunately > the author who was responsible for the analysis died before > publication, so the reasoning for the choice of stats cannot be > determined to any extent. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:143161 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
