Desicritics Comments on The Bell Curve and Its Relevance to India

Comment by lieben

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 05:10:01 EST

Interessante Informationen.

Comment by lieben

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 05:10:01 EST

Interessante Informationen.

Comment by fussball

Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:47:27 EST

Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.

Comment by fussball

Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:46:54 EST

Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.

Comment by nicknguyen@yahoo.com

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:06:06 EDT

I totally agree that Indian are of IQ range from 81 to 85. That is why India is so poor with its democracy, market economy and English language heritage etc.

Comment by Ledzius

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:06:28 EDT

Prateek, the #s are the means for each country. The SDs are still assumed to be 15. Of course, these are simplified assumptions. For example, countries with more heterogeneous populations can be expected to have higher SDs. In any case, one must not read too much into the numbers, but just look for qualitative trends. And yes, it is a controversial book, with arguments and counterarguments on both sides.

Comment by Prateek

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:38:12 EDT

Some analysis by those with real domain knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms

Comment by Prateek

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:37:07 EDT

I will wait for someone else with deeper knowledge to chime in but the numbers seem to be way to disparate. 67, 81, 105? IQ tests are designed to approximate a Gaussian curve with a standard deviation of 15. Shashikant: There is a whole field of statistics dedicated to what you are asking about. Look up the wikipedia articles for sample size and confidence intervals. A "random" sample of 500 or so would probably (no pun intended) be large enough to be 95% confident. I am more interested in questioning the numbers themselves.

Comment by Ledzius

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:43:40 EDT

Shashikant, wouldn't just a bus-load of tourists from a foreign country give you a good idea of the average height of its citizens? Prateek, yes, they do go into details, and have taken the average from independent studies. In most cases, the correlations between the independent findings for any country have been pretty good (within 5 points). And no, they are not biased towards white people. East and far east Asians have the highest IQs, not whites. Hong Kong is the highest with 107. Sanjay, you are missing the point. I am talking about the population that migrates to urban areas. Obviously there are not many opportunities for quarrying, are there? They leave behind their traditional occupations and take up new ones.

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:37:50 EDT

"Or are you saying that certain castes prefer listening to loud music or are less hygienic? If that's your belief, it is not shared by me or a lot of other people here, sorry." I was waiting for you to make that allegation, which is why I gave that example. No, I'm saying that communities can form around shared activities and lifestyles. There are fishing communities, there are stone quarrying communities, there are hunting communities, there are weaving communities, etc. These activities are not handed down through the genes, anymore than birds hand down their ability to sing through genetics. These activities and skills are taught -- they are nurture and not nature, but they are handed down nonetheless. The key then to switching lifestyles is to alter one's own habits oneself, and not to instead blame one's own lifestyle activities on some grand conspiracy by society (brahmins, shylocks, etc). It's upto you to change yourself for the better, and not upto society to change you. It's personal responsibility.

Comment by Prateek

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:58:01 EDT

Do they go into detail about how IQ was measured? What sample sizes? Western IQ tests tend to be biased towards white people. I am surprised the authors came up with enough material to write an entire book without considering the many obvious flaws in their thesis. But hey, nothing sells like controversy.

Comment by Shashikant

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:21:51 EDT

I wonder how they calculate average IQ of Indians, for that matter any country except the likes of Vatican City. Even if they take a sample of 1 million people (which ,on an absolute basis, is huge), it still is 0.1% of population. I will take such numbers with liberal dose of salt and definitely not build any arguments based on it.

Comment by Ledzius

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:21:20 EDT

ss - there indeed seems to be a correlation, according to the authors. Actually primary education leads to higher IQ in adulthood (because mental stimulation at an early age improves the brain), and the level of education again is correlated to the IQ in adulthood. Of course, there are several other factors involved as well. I stress the need for primary education for this reason. The effect of this is both direct and indirect (through increased IQ). That is why I have used them interchangeably in some places.

Comment by Ledzius

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:06:04 EDT

I am not sure what your point is.. in fact, you seem to only support my view. To quote you - "If I am a person who doesn't like to listen to loud music -- and I am -- then won't I be less likely to be found living with someone who likes to play loud music? Eugenics is not the automatic determinant of everything. Often personal choice -- rational justifiable choice -- is a factor too." So in that case, aren't you automatically giving higher priority to these aspects compared to caste? Only in arranged marriages, people marry within their own community despite any lack of common interests and personal compatibility (see the arranged marriage thread). Or are you saying that certain castes prefer listening to loud music or are less hygienic? If that's your belief, it is not shared by me or a lot of other people here, sorry.

Comment by smallsquirrel

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:55:26 EDT

hmmm, I don't think there is a correlation between IQ and education, is there? Isn't IQ just your innate intelligence and not necessarily a reflection on book learning? I could be wrong. In any case, you seem to be talking about both interchangably and they are not.

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:49:35 EDT

Regarding intercaste marriages, I'd say marriage is a matter of personal choice, and not about achieving some "greater social good". Furthermore, is IQ the result of caste/ethnic dissociation, or is it the other way around -- is ethnic ("caste") dissociation based on differences in traits? There is an old saying about how "birds of a feather flock together" -- that is to say, those with similar traits will coalesce together from wider society, simply because their similar traits make them more compatible with each other. If I am a person who doesn't like to listen to loud music -- and I am -- then won't I be less likely to be found living with someone who likes to play loud music? Eugenics is not the automatic determinant of everything. Often personal choice -- rational justifiable choice -- is a factor too. If I am a clean and hygienic person, I'm not going to get married to someone who is unhygienic, just because you tell me it's for some "greater social good" -- because it isn't. Personal responsibility is for the greater social good, as well as for the one's personal good. That means that you take responsibility for the fact that you like to listen to loud music, or the fact that you have poor hygiene habits. You don't blame it on eugenics, you don't blame it on somebody else's grandfather having "oppressed" your grandfather, claiming that this is what has caused your poor habits of today. Personality responsibility is a basic prerequisite for being a human being. If you claim to be solely a product of your environment, and consequently refuse to accept responsibility for your own behaviour, then you're no better than an animal. ARE YOU LISTENING, LEFTIES AND CASTE-BAITERS?