Floyd "Kell Brock is a great champ!" LoLz @ Brock

is that what you were referring to? you think i see you as a low iq donkey cause youre black? hate to burst your racial bubble, i just think youre a donkey cause youre stupid.

 

First, I'm not black.

Second, I've already explained to your stupid ass that using tree climbing to test the intelligence of an elephant is pseudo-science.

Third, you are a dunce.

 

then why the fvck would you reference a book that claims intellectual inferiority of certain races?

doesnt matter what test you want to use to test intelligence, youre just inferior... period. mensa, tasp, meps, jeopardy, scrabble, tick tack toe, i'll squash you at all of them.

 

The Bell Curve at one time, prior to being debunked, was required reading at some US colleges and universities, but you didn't know that.
It didn't really promote the inferiority of a race as much as the superiority of a race. Standard pseudo-science stuff.

Sorry, I have never played those games.
Chess, Xiangqi, Poker, Pinochle are all I've played and it wouldn't be fair if I played any of those with you.

 

so in your little pea brain you felt that the book had something to do with me calling you a low iq primate? how exactly does that book explain your fear of an iq test?

really? put your money where your mouth is then. lets open a heads up table at the card room of your choice for whatever stakes you feel your pride is worth. i mean, surely you cant be talking out your ass about every single thing you write.

 

No, personally I don't reference pseudo-science based assumptions to rate a person's intelligence. I prefer to take it case by case. I don't fear pseudo-science, I quite easily expose it.
If you are referring to taking a standardized test, then I've taken many. I won't bore you with the results, but if you like your guess of 68 is close enough.

 

LOL he really did call him Kell Brock not once but TWICE !! Then he said Khan and Kell should meet somewhere in the middle between Bolton and Sheffield like “London” to which the crowd started laughing!!

 

Floyd was only really saying that as he was in jells hometown of Sheffield
He was hardly going to slag off the fighter that's from that city

 

what?

the bell curve is a graphical representation of basic probability and distribution patterns. maybe some racist tries to use it for racism, i dunno, but the basic idea is as sound as it gets.

 

It's also a book that propagates racial superiority.

 

you completely ignored my challenge to a heads up game of poker. you know, the game youre so good at that it wouldnt be fair to play me. just name the card room and the stakes and lets find out whos full of shiat. reality is knocking at your door, get your head out of the sand and answer.

 

so if i release a book called 1+1 = 2 but he books all about how asians are some sort of pathetic then 1+1 isn't 2?

the book is full of **** (first i've heard of it but seems a reasonable conclusion) but the bell curve is still a real thing.

 

So is the book. In fact, I think one of the authors was a statistician. It used a mixture of statistics and mumble jumble to give racists a basis to hang their hats on.

 

Thank God!
An informed reader.
That makes two of us in the thread. :rasta

 

i looked into the book. it was unnecessary of them to give their book a title that is wider than the scope of the book, but the book isn't racist at all, just 5% of the bookm can be interpreted as facts that race power groups in america do/don't want to be true(within a context, but dumb ****s don't know the meaning of the word context).

'I suspect a number of people hear the words "Bell Curve" and alarm bells go off. I didn't read it until recently because it sounded too extreme. It really isn't. In fact, it's an extremely clear and sober report on psychometric testing and the extent to which it can predict academic and occupational performance (it also shows how it correlates with criminality and other social outcomes). Herrnstein & Murray explain what psychologists mean when they refer to intelligence, and whether it is something you inherit or simply a product of your childhood environment (both are important).

Recent genetic ****yis confirms this: "Multivariate genetic ****yses indicate that general intelligence is highly heritable, and that the overlap in the cognitive processes is twice as great as the overall phenotypic overlap, with genetic correlations averaging around .80."
Plomin et al (2004) "A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase genes is associated with cognitive ability," Molecular Psychology 9, 582-586.

The book is particularly interesting in that it shows how society is becoming more stratified. They point out how 100 years ago society was less complex. The most intelligent people were more distributed over a range of occupations. Now the most intelligent men and women tend to head to colleges and progress into a narrow range of professions. They mix and have children with others from a similar background. And so, because intelligence is partly hereditary, society becomes more stratified by cognitive ability. Of course this also reflects the natural outcome of a meritocratic society, where bright children from poor families can rise up through education. And that is indeed what appears to have happened in the US.

Intelligence is also linked to a number of life outcomes, including health, welfare dependence, occupational performance and crime. This applies more at a group level than for individuals. For instance, you can't tell if an IQ of 90 is more likely to be a criminal, but as a group those with an average IQ of 90 are more likely to be involved in crime than those with an IQ of 110.

Another outcome is a countries macro-economic success. This has been backed up by recent research:

(Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people:Intelligence Volume 36, Issue 2, March-April 2008, Pages 127-142)

The most controversial section of the book are the two chapters on race. The authors point out that the research shows differences in group averages, but that this does not imply much about particular individuals (there is overlap between groups). Accordingly, they argue policies should treat people as individuals, not as members of groups (eg. affirmative action type reverse discrimination policies should be s****ped).

James Watson of course got into trouble for mentioning this, but he was correct that is what the researh shows: Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294 (easily located on the net).

In terms of layout, I think the book is a good example of how to set out a book dealing with large amounts of statistics. Each chapter begins with a summary. There is good use of graphs to illustrate what the stats show.

I think the main point the book makes is that efforts to prevent or avoid intelligence testing are misguided. Psychometric tests provide a valuable tool for predicting outcomes and making sense of the world.'

my conclusion: the bell curve is a great model and has nothing to do with the book.

the book called 'the bell curve' is questionable in it's ability to predict how racists(black or white) will spin it, but is not at all discredited, or racist.