Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + +
For practical purposes, the ability of public policy to affect IQ is probably smaller than Dick and I concluded.
Steve Sailer wrote,
Steve Sailer wrote,
:It ignited controversy by arguing that IQ scores are one of the most overlooked tools for understanding how American society is structured. [http://www.isteve.com/2003_QA_with_Charles_Murray_on_Human_Accomplishment.htm]
:It ignited controversy by arguing that IQ scores are one of the most overlooked tools for understanding how American society is structured. [http://www.isteve.com/2003_QA_with_Charles_Murray_on_Human_Accomplishment.htm]
Murray himself said:
*The reality of a cognitive elite is becoming so obvious that I wonder if even critics of the book really doubt it. The relationship of low IQ to the underclass? Ditto. Welfare reform is helping the argument along, by the way, as journalistic accounts reveal how many welfare mothers are not just uneducated, but of conspicuously low intelligence. The intractability of IQ? Dick and I said that IQ was 40 to 80 per cent heritable. The identical-twin studies continue to suggest that the ultimate figure will turn out to be in the upper half of that range. More importantly, the literature on ``nonshared environment'' has developed dramatically since Dick and I were researching The Bell Curve. Its core finding is that, whatever the role of environment may be in determining IQ, only a small portion of that role consists of influences that can be manipulated (through better child-rearing, better schools, etc.). For practical purposes, the ability of public policy to affect IQ is probably smaller than Dick and I concluded. [http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html]
==Notes==
==Notes==