Chris Rasch wrote:
My current level of understanding of econometrics and statistics is such that I
don't feel qualified to evaluate the arguments presented in the recent exchange
between Brian and Chris regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of Murry and
Herrnstein's research in The Bell
Chris Auld wrote:
Bryan Caplan wrote:
Most of these wind up being dependent variables at some point in their
book.
I'm not sure why that helps their case at all -- it's as if they've
produced a whole bunch of reduced form equations, treating age,
and, probably inappropriately, SES
On the adequacy of M/H's SES measure, I know list member Bill Dickens
has done a lot of work on this. He revised their measure to include
more information. Better if Bill summarizes, but on the whole I'd say
he concluded that M/H's SES moderately understates the importance of
SES, but
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Bryan Caplan wrote:
more information. Better if Bill summarizes, but on the whole I'd say
he concluded that M/H's SES moderately understates the importance of
SES, but intelligence still matters a great deal.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming that intelligence
Chris, could you summarize the alleged deficiencies of the Bell Curve?
-fabio
Many others have critiqued their methods, their interpretation of
the psychometric literature, and their analysis of their own
original results. You can find lengthy criticism in:
Kincheloe et al (1996) Measured
