\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Scientific American Article on Charles Murray's Bell Curve = DAS RACISSS

He's back. Recent college protests have propelled Charles Mu...
''"'''"'''"'
  04/21/17
"ItÕs worth pointing out an astonishing slip-up ...
great general tp
  04/21/17
The author is a dumb. It's like 7-year-old critiquing paren...
IronMonkey
  04/21/17
who printed this shit? its incoherent
great general tp
  04/21/17
Scientific American. The author is apparently a Ph.D.
IronMonkey
  04/21/17
The author probably realizes Murray is 100% right, but is en...
lawman8
  04/21/17
That's kinda what it seems like
IronMonkey
  04/21/17
that's why there's so much explicit focus on what Murray did...
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/21/17
I think he seems to be saying that even if there are racial ...
..,..,..,...,,,...,..,.,,.,..,.,,
  04/22/17
tcr What's lulzy about this article is: 1. He starts...
QueenLaBEEFah
  04/22/17
guy makes his living literally coaching GC on how to "p...
(O)||||||(O)
  04/21/17
oh wow
boner_police
  04/21/17
incisive
Thomas Smith, your landscaper
  04/22/17
by same author https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest...
51-49 1/2
  04/21/17
the book is more about how IQ drives performance and income....
spaceporn2525
  04/21/17
This is totally incorrect.
*A* ShiveringJenny
  04/21/17
it's a whole chapter, sure, but it's just one chapter out of...
Thomas Smith, your landscaper
  04/22/17
I literally cannot imagine a person smart enough to have a c...
the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)
  04/21/17
JFC. Look how FAR you have to stretch to find a way to call ...
Stimm So Hard I Can Fly
  04/21/17
...
spaceporn2525
  04/21/17
THE BOOK IS RACIST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WARN PEOPLE NOT TO BE ...
''"'''"'''"'
  04/21/17
Lol fucking piece of shit snake. Doesn't even try to disp...
'""'
  04/21/17
...
lawman8
  04/21/17
here's the thing, being a race realist is like being an athe...
bigeastboy
  04/21/17
...
spaceporn2525
  04/21/17
Also the heretics are frequently tortured in public
'""'
  04/21/17
CR. they even got James Watson for christ's sake.
bigeastboy
  04/21/17
...
boner_police
  04/21/17
...
SkaddenArse
  04/21/17
...
Bogart
  04/21/17
...
Stimm So Hard I Can Fly
  04/21/17
...
Insane right-wing gun nut
  04/22/17
But the basic moral tenants of Christianity are true. The le...
LTDanCaffey
  04/22/17
you mean slavery is chill? How about not planning for the f...
spaceporn2525
  04/22/17
Lol @ your impotent atheist rage. Division of church and ...
LTDanCaffey
  04/22/17
yeah christers are big on separation of church and state are...
spaceporn2525
  04/22/17
("Guy" making arguments in Philosophy 101 at TTTec...
LTDanCaffey
  04/22/17
by (((Eric Siegel)))
Buck "The Club" Paulette
  04/21/17
...
fiveish
  04/22/17
Am I the only person who has actually read this book? People...
*A* ShiveringJenny
  04/21/17
...
beckersted terrace
  04/21/17
he's counting on that fact.
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/21/17
...
fiveish
  04/22/17
Tell us your perspective.
Insane right-wing gun nut
  04/22/17
Murray's reply letter to similar criticisms: https://ww...
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/21/17
Pls delete this WHITESPLAINING immediately
...,.,.,.....,,,
  04/21/17
"Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. toward some...
~~(>' ' )>
  04/21/17
just what i said. the bell curve wasnt even about race. ra...
spaceporn2525
  04/22/17
hilarious. also by the same genius author is this explainer ...
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/21/17
"Astonishingly, this tome's hundreds of pages never act...
~~(>' ' )>
  04/21/17
what he's saying is, "criticisms of the book lack punch...
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/21/17
...
''"'''"'''"'
  04/22/17
Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, ...
prince
  04/22/17
This guy thinks the most powerful criticism of The Bell Curv...
Mance Rayder
  04/22/17
(it is)
.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,
  04/22/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:00 PM
Author: ''"'''"'''"'


He's back. Recent college protests have propelled Charles Murray into the news cycle again, and his resurging book sales show the publicity's not all bad. Attempts to fully discredit his most famous book, 1994's "The Bell Curve," have failed for more than two decades now. This is because they repeatedly miss the strongest point of attack: an indisputable—albeit encoded—endorsement of prejudice.

"The Bell Curve" (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) prevails as the flagship modern work reporting on racial differences in IQ score. Black people in the U.S. score lower on average than white people (this isn't the book's primary focus, but it's the centerpiece and main draw of attention). As much as progressives don't want to hear such a thing, this book puts it plainly: It's in the data. With the book’s standing intact, armchair sociologists at large may defend certain stereotypes by simply pointing its way. As for attempts to take the book down, most critics go after its reasoning or its sources (or the authors' associations with the more notorious sources). But those points should actually take a secondary position within a thorough rebuke. Let me clear my throat.

“The Bell Curve” 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.

And “Bell Curve” readers will apply this racial data indeed. After all, data is white hot these days—for the very reason that it drives better per-person decisions. I myself work in the big data area; I founded Predictive Analytics World, an international conference series that propels the deployment of data science across sectors. Organizations are leveraging data to better decide whom to mail, approve for a loan, investigate, incarcerate, set up on a date, or medicate. Faith in empirical, fact-based methods is growing. As 20th century techie William Deming put it, "In God we trust; all others must bring data."

Insights from data might serve you personally as well, deciding whom to trust, befriend, hire, rent to, or even marry. But there's a name for it if you were to base such decisions on a person's race or other protected class. And this label applies even if you interpret racial trends to stem entirely from environmental factors (rather than buying into the problematic claim that there's a genetic component). The practice is called prejudice.

This isn't the "PC police" talking. Although prejudice breaks taboos, stomps on eggshells, and hurts people's feelings with unfairness, that's just the beginning. Its full damage reaches much more dire extremes. Personhood and individuality are sacred. Judging by way of category is the epitome of dehumanizing. It curtails the individual's opportunities and livelihood, and contributes to what is often a self-fulfilling, systematic cycle of disadvantage for an entire group. It also curtails the prejudger's potential to wholly evaluate a person as an individual by his or her prior behavior, choices, and character. This is why the term "civil rights" has a nice ring to it and "bigotry" does not.

Strangely, "The Bell Curve" falsely promises that it will recommend specific uses for these racial trends in the form of public policies. If you weather the storm and make it through this lengthy book, you'll find that, by the end, it has never done so. In the final chapter (Chapter 22), when it finally delivers a few much-anticipated policy prescriptions, they don't relate to race in any explicit way (and how could they?). The suggested policies include simpler tax codes, decreasing government benefits that could incentivize childbearing among the low-income, and increasing competency-based immigration screening. Did the authors mean to imply that immigration screening could be based in part on race? Much to the book's disgrace, that's at least a reasonable interpretation. More so since, earlier in the book, they say, "Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence."

It’s worth pointing out an astonishing slip-up where the authors appear to have inadvertently admitted that treating black people differently is copacetic (I felt I'd caught them red-handed). Ironically, it's within a section warning the reader that a genetic interpretation of the racial trends should not mean [more] prejudgment of individuals. When suggesting a thought experiment in which the reader imagines IQ differences were known to originate entirely genetically, they suggest you ask yourself, "If it were known that the black/white difference is genetic, would I treat individual blacks differently from the way I would treat them if the differences were environmental?" This plainly implies that one may already be treating individual black people differently in the first place.

With a certain eerie silence on the matter, "The Bell Curve" spurs readers to prejudge by race. Astonishingly, this tome's hundreds of pages never actually specify what one is meant to do with the information about racial differences, and never attempt to steer readers clear of racial prejudgment. That's an egregious, reckless oversight, considering this is a pop science bestseller that comprehensively covers great numbers of subtopics and caveats, maintaining a genuinely proficient and clear writing style throughout. So we must call this book what it is: racist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127893)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:02 PM
Author: great general tp (la cam)

"ItÕs worth pointing out an astonishing slip-up where the authors appear to have inadvertently admitted that treating black people differently is copacetic (I felt I'd caught them red-handed). Ironically, it's within a section warning the reader that a genetic interpretation of the racial trends should not mean [more] prejudgment of individuals. When suggesting a thought experiment in which the reader imagines IQ differences were known to originate entirely genetically, they suggest you ask yourself, "If it were known that the black/white difference is genetic, would I treat individual blacks differently from the way I would treat them if the differences were environmental?" This plainly implies that one may already be treating individual black people differently in the first place."

What?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127907)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:06 PM
Author: IronMonkey

The author is a dumb. It's like 7-year-old critiquing parenting decisions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127943)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:07 PM
Author: great general tp (la cam)

who printed this shit? its incoherent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127950)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:08 PM
Author: IronMonkey

Scientific American.

The author is apparently a Ph.D.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127956)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:19 PM
Author: lawman8

The author probably realizes Murray is 100% right, but is engaging in tortured mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it, resulting in this incoherence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128025)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:46 PM
Author: IronMonkey

That's kinda what it seems like

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128268)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:48 PM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

that's why there's so much explicit focus on what Murray did not say.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128279)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:30 AM
Author: ..,..,..,...,,,...,..,.,,.,..,.,,


I think he seems to be saying that even if there are racial differences between the group, it is wrong to treat an individual differently based on such racial differences and not judging the individual on his/her own merits. He then takes it farther by suggesting that merely identifying these differences then enables that prejudice. And that is where I disagree. While we should not prejudge individuals based on race, knowing whether IQ differences between the races are genetic or environmental can be important for purposes of public policy - if IQ differences are genetic, then efforts to remedy those differences by changing the environment are bound to fail and are a waste of resources and vice-versa.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133274)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:57 AM
Author: QueenLaBEEFah

tcr

What's lulzy about this article is:

1. He starts off by critiquing the decades' worth of criticisms of the Bell Curve, but then largely regurgitates counter arguments I've heard before. There's nothing really new about any of it.

2. He seems to be saying that by Murray leaving it to the reader to decide what to do with the data, it leaves open the possibility that the reader uses it to reinforce prejudicial ideas or policies. Of course, this is a typical liberal straw man, because we all know libs would have been far angrier if he had suggested policies based on this data. We all can imagine what those policies would be. So libs put him in a Catch 22 where both not suggesting policies and suggesting them are an outrage.

3. His point about not judging any member of a group is a valid one, and the first argument made by almost anyone critiquing the book. But liberals conveniently forget that all they do is judge people by their race and place people into identity groups. There is an entire policy apparatus around doing just that. So if libs will agree to dismantle that apparatus, we can agree to stop critiquing that apparatus by pointing out there may be other reasons behind achievement gaps and hiring trends than "institutional racism" and the like.

4. Speaking of which, liberals replace these prejudicial policy choices he decries with claims that another whole group of "white males" are privileged and are systemically racist. How they don't see the hypocrisy in doing so is beyond me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133388)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:09 PM
Author: (O)||||||(O) (A Game of)

guy makes his living literally coaching GC on how to "prejudge" us in order to make us more addicted and dependent on miserable consumerism, but takes a moral stand against prejudging "protected classes"

lol capitalism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127959)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:32 PM
Author: boner_police

oh wow

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128135)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:05 AM
Author: Thomas Smith, your landscaper

incisive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133423)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:11 PM
Author: 51-49 1/2

by same author

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-hillary-s-campaign-is-almost-certainly-using-big-data/

How Hillary's Campaign Is (Almost Certainly) Using Big Data

The evidence suggests her campaign is using a highly targeted technique that worked for Obama—but which Trump may not be taking advantage of

By Eric Siegel on September 15, 2016

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on Reddit

Email

Print

Share via

Google+

Stumble Upon

Credit: Photo illustration by Matt Kornhaas; Hillary Clinton (left) Department of State, Donald Trump (right) Gage Skidmore Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Analytics will win votes this year. Science, as it did in 2012, is playing an important role for mass voter persuasion in the U.S. presidential race. It’s a numbers game: Predictive analytics targets campaign activities, strengthening a campaign's army of volunteers by driving its activities more optimally.

Of which presidential candidate do I speak? We have every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton's campaign is leveraging predictive analytics—as Obama’s did in 2012. Donald Trump's campaign appears to lag in such efforts.

Hillary for America is leveraging data science in a very particular way. The undertaking predicts each individual voter's response to campaign contact in order to drive millions of decisions as to which voter receives a knock on the door or a phone call. It’s an innovative, data-driven process that has changed the game for political campaigns.

Nate Silver Forecasts the Future—but Doesn't Change It

A campaign's number crunching is an undercover enterprise—but another form of quantitative prognostication is right out in the open: campaign forecasting via poll aggregation. Here, the heavyweight champion is Nate Silver, the most celebrated statistician in the US, who forecasted the election outcome correctly for each and every state in 2012. See his current 2016 forecasts here.

But an election poll does not constitute prognostic technology—it does not endeavor to calculate insights that foresee human behavior. Rather, a poll is plainly the act of voters explicitly telling you what they’re going to do. It’s a mini-election dry run. There’s a craft to aggregating polls, as Silver has mastered so adeptly, but even he admits it’s no miracle of clairvoyance. “It’s not really that complicated,” he told late night talk show host Stephen Colbert the day before the 2012 election. “There are many things that are much more complicated than looking at the polls and taking an average... right?”

Instead, true power comes in influencing the future rather than only speculating on it. Nate Silver publicly competes to win election forecasting, while Obama’s analytics team discreetly competed by way of predictive analytics to win the election itself–as Hillary for America is now doing. This is a form of of quantitative prediction that transcends forecasting the outcome to actually exert an effect on it.

The value proven in 2012 is too good to pass up for 2016. Obama for America showed that their analytics convinced more voters than traditional campaign targeting. The method also improved the campaign’s TV ad buying, making the TV ad buy 18% more effective—they could persuade 18 percent more voters with the same level of investment, which is a meaningful effect given their TV budget of $400 million.

The Evidence: Hillary for America is Using Analytics for Voter Persuasion

The specifics are well-guarded secrets, but the evidence clearly indicates that Hillary for America is deploying predictive analytics—more specifically, an advanced flavor thereof called persuasion modeling (aka uplift modeling)—as Obama for America did. Here’s the data that supports this presumption:

1) TRACTION. Daniel Porter, one of three hands-on practitioners who executed the persuasion modeling for Obama for America, and who has since co-founded the analytics firm BlueLabs (see the Q-and-A below), stands by this technical approach. “It remains clear that persuasion modeling is extraordinarily valuable for political campaigns. In fact, after the experience accrued last time around, it’s sure to be done by 2016 campaigns even more effectively than in 2012,” he told me. He says there’s also going to be better data for this work, at least on the Democratic side. “The DNC is building out further its data infrastructure about voters in battleground states.”

2) HIRES. As early as July 2015, the Hillary for America campaign posted that their “analytics team is looking for data nerds.” Shown as one of 11 campaign job categories on the campaign's website, analytics included five types of open roles. More specifically, analytics job postings enlisted staff for persuasion modeling: “helping the campaign determine which voters to target for persuasion.” The campaign's analytics director is Elan Kriegel, another co-founder of BlueLabs, who grew the campaign’s data team by pulling people from BlueLabs.

3) CONTRACTS. Hillary for America has engaged BlueLabs for analytics services—at least $50,000 worth. And Civis Analytics, another analytics company, which employs at least 27 "data whiz kids" from Obama’s 2012 campaign (Eric Schmidt is the sole investor) has received more than $3.5 million in payments from Democratic campaigns in the last two cycles.

In anticipation of his keynote presentation at Predictive Analytics World (October 23-27 in New York), "Persuasion Modeling in Presidential Campaigns and How It Applies to Business," I had the opportunity to ask Dan Porter a few questions about his work for Obama and what may currently be in play for the 2016 election.

Q: What was the most surprising discovery or insight you unearthed when applying uplift modeling for Obama for America 2012?

We discovered in 2012 that self-reported independents and non-partisans are not especially likely to be persuadable, and many voters that were affiliated with a political party actually were persuadable. However, in uplift modeling work we've undertaken at BlueLabs since 2013, this actually isn't always the case. The lesson we've learned is that constant experimentation and uplift modeling is a worthwhile endeavor, since the types of people who are persuadable can vary widely based on the particular campaign, message, mode, and timing.

Q: What are the biggest differences between applying uplift modeling for a commercial marketing campaign versus for a political campaign?

On the political side we are relying on survey as a proxy for a voter's candidate preference. It's the best proxy we have, but it still relies on self-reported intent, and requires innovative sampling design to ensure that the survey is unbiased and reaches a representative sample of the population. However, on the commercial side, in many cases, we can build and validate our uplift models off actual purchase data. This makes the problem more straightforward.

Q: What public evidence is there that Trump's campaign is or is not using predictive analytics or even uplift modeling in particular?

We really have no idea what Trump is or isn't doing. We are confident on where campaigns and organizations on the Democratic side of the spectrum are in terms of its analytics capabilities, but it's important that we continue to innovate and that we can't worry about what groups on the right are/aren't doing.

Indeed, the Trump campaign is "spurning the kind of sophisticated data operation that was a centerpiece of Barack Obama's winning White House runs." There's speculation this could not only hurt his chances in the election, but also deny the RNC—generally thought to already be behind the DNC in data and analytics—valuable data collection for future campaigns.

Advanced and analytical yet not arcane, predictive modeling for voter persuasion has launched a whole new chapter for politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127969)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:12 PM
Author: spaceporn2525

the book is more about how IQ drives performance and income. Race is just briefly mentioned, in a paragraph or two here and there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127972)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:41 PM
Author: *A* ShiveringJenny

This is totally incorrect.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128205)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:06 AM
Author: Thomas Smith, your landscaper

it's a whole chapter, sure, but it's just one chapter out of many.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133428)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:14 PM
Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)

I literally cannot imagine a person smart enough to have a college degree (at least a STEM one) being persuaded by this article.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127992)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:15 PM
Author: Stimm So Hard I Can Fly

JFC. Look how FAR you have to stretch to find a way to call the book Racist.

How can people be that deluded by their own confirmation bias.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33127997)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:16 PM
Author: spaceporn2525



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128004)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:21 PM
Author: ''"'''"'''"'


THE BOOK IS RACIST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WARN PEOPLE NOT TO BE RACIST!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128040)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:22 PM
Author: '""'

Lol fucking piece of shit snake.

Doesn't even try to dispute the scientific accuracy of the book. But the consequences! The consequences are that shitlib nonsense about systemic racism has no empirical support

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128042)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:22 PM
Author: lawman8



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128046)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:22 PM
Author: bigeastboy

here's the thing, being a race realist is like being an atheist or anti-religion. We all know that religion is bullshit, and the proof to back it up is so obvious as to be comical, but most people still claim a religion because its just easier to go along to get along. I'm not saying its right, but this is the case for probably 75%+ of people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128048)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:22 PM
Author: spaceporn2525



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128051)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:25 PM
Author: '""'

Also the heretics are frequently tortured in public

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128071)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:31 PM
Author: bigeastboy

CR. they even got James Watson for christ's sake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128124)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:30 PM
Author: boner_police



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128120)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:32 PM
Author: SkaddenArse



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128126)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:41 PM
Author: Bogart



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128213)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:42 PM
Author: Stimm So Hard I Can Fly



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128217)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:53 AM
Author: Insane right-wing gun nut



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133368)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:54 AM
Author: LTDanCaffey

But the basic moral tenants of Christianity are true. The lessons in Jesus's parables are still good insight into human nature.

The same cannot be said for Diversity, Inc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133375)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:58 AM
Author: spaceporn2525

you mean slavery is chill? How about not planning for the future? abandoning your parents? All good lessons?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133391)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:01 AM
Author: LTDanCaffey

Lol @ your impotent atheist rage.

Division of church and state, treating thy neighbor as thyself, erring on the side of forgiveness, taking care of the needy (as an individual responsibility, not govt) are all as valuable today as they were then.

Old Testament examples of slavery are not relevant to modern mainstream Christian teachings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133399)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:08 AM
Author: spaceporn2525

yeah christers are big on separation of church and state arent they. We basically needed atheists (thomas jefferson and deists) to implement that shit.

Christers are just as unforgiving as anyone else.

If we left taking care of the needy up to "individual responsibility" there would be no effective safety net.

All your points are bullshit. Stop pushing christmo crapola

Sorry you just got pwned. Think Harder next time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133442)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:12 AM
Author: LTDanCaffey

("Guy" making arguments in Philosophy 101 at TTTech)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133468)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:30 PM
Author: Buck "The Club" Paulette

by (((Eric Siegel)))

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128114)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:54 AM
Author: fiveish (aktp)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133371)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:43 PM
Author: *A* ShiveringJenny

Am I the only person who has actually read this book? People talk about this the same way they talk about the Bible-- very clear that most people who have something to say about the book have never read the full text and have no idea what they are talking about. This guy is worse than usual by trying to pull some kind of gotcha with a cherry-picked quote he can't even understand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128231)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:47 PM
Author: beckersted terrace



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128275)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:48 PM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

he's counting on that fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128286)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:53 AM
Author: fiveish (aktp)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133370)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:54 AM
Author: Insane right-wing gun nut

Tell us your perspective.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133377)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:47 PM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

Murray's reply letter to similar criticisms:

https://www.aei.org/publication/an-open-letter-to-the-virginia-tech-community/

An open letter to the Virginia Tech community

Society and Culture

Last week, the president of Virginia Tech, Tim Sands, published an “open letter to the Virginia Tech community” defending lectures delivered by deplorable people like me (I’m speaking on the themes of Coming Apart on March 25). Bravo for President Sands’s defense of intellectual freedom. But I confess that I was not entirely satisfied with his characterization of my work. So I’m writing an open letter of my own.

Dear Virginia Tech community,

Since President Sands has just published an open letter making a serious allegation against me, it seems appropriate to respond. The allegation: “Dr. Murray is well known for his controversial and largely discredited work linking measures of intelligence to heredity, and specifically to race and ethnicity — a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.”

Let me make an allegation of my own. President Sands is unfamiliar either with the actual content of The Bell Curve — the book I wrote with Richard J. Herrnstein to which he alludes — or with the state of knowledge in psychometrics.

The Bell Curve and Charles Murray

I should begin by pointing out that the topic of the The Bell Curve was not race, but, as the book’s subtitle says, “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” Our thesis was that over the last half of the 20th century, American society has become cognitively stratified. At the beginning of the penultimate chapter, Herrnstein and I summarized our message:

Predicting the course of society is chancy, but certain tendencies seem strong enough to worry about:

An increasingly isolated cognitive elite.

A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent.

A deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive distribution.

Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. [p. 509].

It is obvious that these conclusions have not been discredited in the twenty-two years since they were written. They may be more accurately described as prescient.

Now to the substance of President Sands’s allegation.

The heritability of intelligence

Richard Herrnstein and I wrote that cognitive ability as measured by IQ tests is heritable, somewhere in the range of 40% to 80% [pp. 105–110], and that heritability tends to rise as people get older. This was not a scientifically controversial statement when we wrote it; that President Sands thinks it has been discredited as of 2016 is amazing.

You needn’t take my word for it. In the wake of the uproar over The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) assembled a Task Force on Intelligence consisting of eleven of the most distinguished psychometricians in the United States. Their report, titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” was published in the February 1996 issue of the APA’s peer-reviewed journal, American Psychologist. Regarding the magnitude of heritability (represented by h2), here is the Task Force’s relevant paragraph. For purposes of readability, I have omitted the citations embedded in the original paragraph:

If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25. These overall figures are misleading, however, because most of the relevant studies have been done with children. We now know that the heritability of IQ changes with age: h2 goes up and c2 goes down from infancy to adulthood. In childhood h2 and c2 for IQ are of the order of .45 and .35; by late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies) [p. 85].

The position we took on heritability was squarely within the consensus state of knowledge. Since The Bell Curve was published, the range of estimates has narrowed somewhat, tending toward modestly higher estimates of heritability.

Intelligence and race

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones.

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones. Once again, the state of knowledge about the basics is not particularly controversial. The mean scores for all kinds of mental tests vary by ethnicity. No one familiar with the data disputes that most elemental statement. Regarding the most sensitive difference, between Blacks and Whites, Herrnstein and I followed the usual estimate of one standard deviation (15 IQ points), but pointed out that the magnitude varied depending on the test, sample, and where and how it was administered. What did the APA Task Force conclude? “Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites. The difference is largest on those tests (verbal or nonverbal) that best represent the general intelligence factor g” [p. 93].

Is the Black/White differential diminishing? In The Bell Curve, we discussed at length the evidence that the Black/White differential has narrowed [pp. 289–295], concluding that “The answer is yes with (as usual) some qualifications.” The Task Force’s treatment of the question paralleled ours, concluding with “[l]arger and more definitive studies are needed before this trend can be regarded as established” [p. 93].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by test bias? In a long discussion [pp. 280–286], Herrnstein and I presented the massive evidence that the predictive validity of mental tests is similar for Blacks and Whites and that cultural bias in the test items or their administration do not explain the Black/White differential. The Task Force’s conclusions regarding predictive validity: “Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans” [p. 93]. Regarding cultural bias and testing conditions: “Controlled studies [of these potential sources of bias] have shown, however, that none of them contributes substantially to the Black/White differential under discussion here” [p. 94].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by socioeconomic status? We pointed out that the question has two answers: Statistically controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) narrows the gap. But the gap does not narrow as SES goes up — i.e., measured in standard deviations, the differential between Blacks and Whites with high SES is not narrower than the differential between those with low SES [pp. 286–289]. Here’s the APA Task Force on this topic:

Several considerations suggest that [SES] cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES. Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that—if we exclude extreme conditions—nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores [p. 94].

The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong.

And so on. The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong. We deliberately remained well within the mainstream of what was confidently known when we wrote. None of those descriptions have changed much in the subsequent twenty-two years, except to be reinforced as more has been learned. I have no idea what countervailing evidence President Sands could have in mind.

At this point, some readers may be saying to themselves, “But wasn’t The Bell Curve the book that tried to prove blacks were genetically inferior to whites?” I gather that was President Sands’ impression as well. It has no basis in fact. Knowing that people are preoccupied with genes and race (it was always the first topic that came up when we told people we were writing a book about IQ), Herrnstein and I offered a seventeen-page discussion of genes, race, and IQ [pp. 295–311]. The first five pages were devoted to explaining the context of the issue — why, for example, the heritability of IQ among humans does not necessarily mean that differences between groups are also heritable. Four pages were devoted to the technical literature arguing that genes were implicated in the Black/White differential. Eight pages were devoted to arguments that the causes were environmental. Then we wrote:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. [p. 311].

That’s it—the sum total of every wild-eyed claim that The Bell Curve makes about genes and race. There’s nothing else. Herrnstein and I were guilty of refusing to say that the evidence justified a conclusion that the differential had to be entirely environmental. On this issue, I have a minor quibble with the APA Task Force, which wrote “There is not much direct evidence on [a genetic component], but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis” [p. 95]. Actually there was no direct evidence at all as of the mid-1990s, but the Task Force chose not to mention a considerable body of indirect evidence that did in fact support the genetic hypothesis. No matter. The Task Force did not reject the possibility of a genetic component. As of 2016, geneticists are within a few years of knowing the answer for sure, and I am content to wait for their findings.

But I cannot leave the issue of genes without mentioning how strongly Herrnstein and I rejected the importance of whether genes are involved. This passage from The Bell Curve reveals how very, very different the book is from the characterization of it that has become so widespread:

In sum: If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change. The knowledge would give you no reason to treat individuals differently than if ethnic differences were 100 percent environmental. By the same token, knowing that the differences are 100 percent environmental in origin would not suggest a single program or policy that is not already being tried. It would justify no optimism about the time it will take to narrow the existing gaps. It would not even justify confidence that genetically based differences will not be upon us within a few generations. The impulse to think that environmental sources of difference are less threatening than genetic ones is natural but illusory.

In any case, you are not going to learn tomorrow that all the cognitive differences between races are 100 percent genetic in origin, because the scientific state of knowledge, unfinished as it is, already gives ample evidence that environment is part of the story. But the evidence eventually may become unequivocal that genes are also part of the story. We are worried that the elite wisdom on this issue, for years almost hysterically in denial about that possibility, will snap too far in the other direction. It is possible to face all the facts on ethnic and race differences on intelligence and not run screaming from the room. That is the essential message [pp. 314-315].

I have been reluctant to spend so much space discussing The Bell Curve’s treatment of race and intelligence because it was such an ancillary topic in the book. Focusing on it in this letter has probably made it sound as if it was as important as President Sands’s open letter implied.

But I had to do it. For two decades, I have had to put up with misrepresentations of The Bell Curve. It is annoying. After so long, when so many of the book’s main arguments have been so dramatically vindicated by events, and when our presentations of the meaning and role of IQ have been so steadily reinforced by subsequent research in the social sciences, not to mention developments in neuroscience and genetics, President Sands’s casual accusation that our work has been “largely discredited” was especially exasperating. The president of a distinguished university should take more care.

It is in that context that I came to the end of President Sands’s indictment, accusing me of promulgating “a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.” At that point, President Sands went beyond the kind of statement that merely reflects his unfamiliarity with The Bell Curve and/or psychometrics. He engaged in intellectual McCarthyism.

See you next week.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128273)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:54 PM
Author: ...,.,.,.....,,,

Pls delete this WHITESPLAINING immediately

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128346)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 3:05 PM
Author: ~~(>' ' )>

"Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose."

How dare you. My opposition discussions of IQ isn't self-serving. It's virtuous anti-racism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128437)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:32 AM
Author: spaceporn2525

just what i said. the bell curve wasnt even about race. race got a passing reference and the speculation was expressly guarded.

its a good book. you faggots should read it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133281)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 2:55 PM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

hilarious. also by the same genius author is this explainer about how Hillary used BIG DATA to guide her toward victory but ignoramus Donald Trump does not.

====

How Hillary's Campaign Is (Almost Certainly) Using Big Data

The evidence suggests her campaign is using a highly targeted technique that worked for Obama—but which Trump may not be taking advantage of

By Eric Siegel on September 15, 2016

Analytics will win votes this year. Science, as it did in 2012, is playing an important role for mass voter persuasion in the U.S. presidential race. It’s a numbers game: Predictive analytics targets campaign activities, strengthening a campaign's army of volunteers by driving its activities more optimally.

Of which presidential candidate do I speak? We have every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton's campaign is leveraging predictive analytics—as Obama’s did in 2012. Donald Trump's campaign appears to lag in such efforts.

Hillary for America is leveraging data science in a very particular way. The undertaking predicts each individual voter's response to campaign contact in order to drive millions of decisions as to which voter receives a knock on the door or a phone call. It’s an innovative, data-driven process that has changed the game for political campaigns.

Nate Silver Forecasts the Future—but Doesn't Change It

A campaign's number crunching is an undercover enterprise—but another form of quantitative prognostication is right out in the open: campaign forecasting via poll aggregation. Here, the heavyweight champion is Nate Silver, the most celebrated statistician in the US, who forecasted the election outcome correctly for each and every state in 2012. See his current 2016 forecasts here.

But an election poll does not constitute prognostic technology—it does not endeavor to calculate insights that foresee human behavior. Rather, a poll is plainly the act of voters explicitly telling you what they’re going to do. It’s a mini-election dry run. There’s a craft to aggregating polls, as Silver has mastered so adeptly, but even he admits it’s no miracle of clairvoyance. “It’s not really that complicated,” he told late night talk show host Stephen Colbert the day before the 2012 election. “There are many things that are much more complicated than looking at the polls and taking an average... right?”

Instead, true power comes in influencing the future rather than only speculating on it. Nate Silver publicly competes to win election forecasting, while Obama’s analytics team discreetly competed by way of predictive analytics to win the election itself–as Hillary for America is now doing. This is a form of of quantitative prediction that transcends forecasting the outcome to actually exert an effect on it.

The value proven in 2012 is too good to pass up for 2016. Obama for America showed that their analytics convinced more voters than traditional campaign targeting. The method also improved the campaign’s TV ad buying, making the TV ad buy 18% more effective—they could persuade 18 percent more voters with the same level of investment, which is a meaningful effect given their TV budget of $400 million.

The Evidence: Hillary for America is Using Analytics for Voter Persuasion

The specifics are well-guarded secrets, but the evidence clearly indicates that Hillary for America is deploying predictive analytics—more specifically, an advanced flavor thereof called persuasion modeling (aka uplift modeling)—as Obama for America did. Here’s the data that supports this presumption:

1) TRACTION. Daniel Porter, one of three hands-on practitioners who executed the persuasion modeling for Obama for America, and who has since co-founded the analytics firm BlueLabs (see the Q-and-A below), stands by this technical approach. “It remains clear that persuasion modeling is extraordinarily valuable for political campaigns. In fact, after the experience accrued last time around, it’s sure to be done by 2016 campaigns even more effectively than in 2012,” he told me. He says there’s also going to be better data for this work, at least on the Democratic side. “The DNC is building out further its data infrastructure about voters in battleground states.”

2) HIRES. As early as July 2015, the Hillary for America campaign posted that their “analytics team is looking for data nerds.” Shown as one of 11 campaign job categories on the campaign's website, analytics included five types of open roles. More specifically, analytics job postings enlisted staff for persuasion modeling: “helping the campaign determine which voters to target for persuasion.” The campaign's analytics director is Elan Kriegel, another co-founder of BlueLabs, who grew the campaign’s data team by pulling people from BlueLabs.

3) CONTRACTS. Hillary for America has engaged BlueLabs for analytics services—at least $50,000 worth. And Civis Analytics, another analytics company, which employs at least 27 "data whiz kids" from Obama’s 2012 campaign (Eric Schmidt is the sole investor) has received more than $3.5 million in payments from Democratic campaigns in the last two cycles.

In anticipation of his keynote presentation at Predictive Analytics World (October 23-27 in New York), "Persuasion Modeling in Presidential Campaigns and How It Applies to Business," I had the opportunity to ask Dan Porter a few questions about his work for Obama and what may currently be in play for the 2016 election.

Q: What was the most surprising discovery or insight you unearthed when applying uplift modeling for Obama for America 2012?

We discovered in 2012 that self-reported independents and non-partisans are not especially likely to be persuadable, and many voters that were affiliated with a political party actually were persuadable. However, in uplift modeling work we've undertaken at BlueLabs since 2013, this actually isn't always the case. The lesson we've learned is that constant experimentation and uplift modeling is a worthwhile endeavor, since the types of people who are persuadable can vary widely based on the particular campaign, message, mode, and timing.

Q: What are the biggest differences between applying uplift modeling for a commercial marketing campaign versus for a political campaign?

On the political side we are relying on survey as a proxy for a voter's candidate preference. It's the best proxy we have, but it still relies on self-reported intent, and requires innovative sampling design to ensure that the survey is unbiased and reaches a representative sample of the population. However, on the commercial side, in many cases, we can build and validate our uplift models off actual purchase data. This makes the problem more straightforward.

Q: What public evidence is there that Trump's campaign is or is not using predictive analytics or even uplift modeling in particular?

We really have no idea what Trump is or isn't doing. We are confident on where campaigns and organizations on the Democratic side of the spectrum are in terms of its analytics capabilities, but it's important that we continue to innovate and that we can't worry about what groups on the right are/aren't doing.

Indeed, the Trump campaign is "spurning the kind of sophisticated data operation that was a centerpiece of Barack Obama's winning White House runs." There's speculation this could not only hurt his chances in the election, but also deny the RNC—generally thought to already be behind the DNC in data and analytics—valuable data collection for future campaigns.

Advanced and analytical yet not arcane, predictive modeling for voter persuasion has launched a whole new chapter for politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128351)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 3:03 PM
Author: ~~(>' ' )>

"Astonishingly, this tome's hundreds of pages never actually specify what one is meant to do with the information about racial differences"

That's a weak criticism. Academia is full of people who devote their lives to study for its own sake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128423)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 21st, 2017 3:05 PM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

what he's saying is, "criticisms of the book lack punch because Murray does not endorse racist policies and therefore i must criticize Murray for not being racist."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33128433)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:43 AM
Author: ''"'''"'''"'




(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133332)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 9:59 AM
Author: prince

Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence."

to deny that is laughable. fuck you libs, you will die on this sword, i swear to baby jesus. this will be your undoing. keep clutching, though. clutch, clutch, libs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133395)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 10:16 AM
Author: Mance Rayder (/s/ Mance Rayder)

This guy thinks the most powerful criticism of The Bell Curve is that it doesn't have a trigger warning up front and disclaimer that Murray does NOT endorse prejudice in any form.

If this is the best critique of the book, it must be pretty compelling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133487)



Reply Favorite

Date: April 22nd, 2017 11:08 AM
Author: .,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,.,

(it is)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3591282&forum_id=2#33133737)