Alfred Binet: This test will help kindergarteners get better help (: Lewis Terman and Henry Goddard: STERILIZE THE FEEBLE MINDED AND SEND THEM OFF TO COLONIES
Something about the matter-of-fact dry delivery of Shaun's many humorous comments fucking kills me . "Binet died in 1911, and has since spent the majority of his time spinning in his grave, due to everything else we are going to talk about today" caught me so off guard.
The Manusmriti (Hindu text) is the first text(ever) on racial hierarchy and IQs It is not only limited to ethnic groups and castes in India. It's a great text written in ancient India but heavily criticized for promotion of casteism ( but it does not promote it but rather scientifically explains it why it exists.) But if you read it you will find it's very true and explains the situation of world and various ethnicities and castes which exist. I would recommend it to anyone interested.
I think it’s telling that, even if we assume every claim that the book makes is true, it’s conclusion is “Yes, life is categorically harder and more challenging for some people, and as such it is our duty to make their life even worse” absolutely wild
Yes, it seems the policy proposals were meant to eliminate these inequalities by simply eliminating the people on the lower end of the discrepancy. Dead people can't lower population IQ, can they? The stated intentions are just a way to put lipstick on the pig that is ethnic cleansing.
When I heard they were arguing for removing welfare for single mothers as a incentive not to become one my jaw dropped. What about those who are single mothers right now??? And what about those who did not plan, want or even think it was possible for them to become single mothers? What if the father died? What if the father turned abusive after years of a happy relationship? Those aren't any fault of the mother, and could not be predicted, and the authors of the bell curve decided that those mothers should be punished for that.
@@eigilholm6979that’s because single mothers are morally corrupt women because they don’t adhere to how good Christian women behave, according to Charles’ interpretation of The Book (which is the only good interpretation). /s, obviously…
@@blackieblack You're really smart. I hope you're caught up on the latest episode of Rick and Morty. I have noticed a lot of people say it requires high IQ to understand so I recommend it for you. You know us high IQ UA-cam commenters have to help each other increase intelligence.
"Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" - Jules Henri Poincaré
Nice. And, of course, as Shaun demonstrates, *some of those aren't stones*. Some are paper mache; some aren't suitable for building... and some are just coprolite.
So true. I have not watched a movie in months now, yet I gave this Video a go and watched it completely. @Shaun: I hope you are aware of your achievement and not (like me very often) focusing too much on the things that didn't go perfectly.
Dear Shaun, Ever since discovering your famous "Harry Potter" video, I have been listening to your other works and absolutely love your takes and content. I like to sew in my free time and listening to you while crafting is very relaxing as well as informative and educational. I feel like I'm using my time much better now. So, thank you!
and you can't even calculate the sources used by multiplying, because Sargon either doesn't include them, or just uses a headlime and ignores the content.
Man, that talk on forced sterilization hit hard. I grew up in Alberta (province in Canada) and that was a reality for a lot of Albertans until the early 70s. Primary targets were Indigenous women. My mom had a friend who had been sterilized without her knowledge or consent. This shit happened, and not long ago.
@Filthy N'Wah if you get that angry and start seeing straw men everywhere calling everybody communist and blue pilled then you should get off the political side of the internet for a while
Each of our deaths diminishes we, Despite his claiming to tower over our kind. And our lad now observes For whom the bell curves; Truly, it curves for he.
The best argument against people who claim that the Bell Curve isn't racist is the fact that Murray isn't some incorporeal being who manifested out of thin air, wrote the book, and returned to the ether. He's a real person with a Twitter account, and oh boy.
So is Relativity a womanizer? Is the Photo electric effect a divorcee? Murray's personhood, beliefs, actions or even comments....Have absolutely nothing to do with data. What's more dangerous than any idea. Is a person or ideology that convinces you to not think critically. Hitler starved Denmark during WW2. Many woman unfortunately were pregnant at the time. The grandchildren of those women are 80x more likely to be morbidly obese. The finding launched investigations that uncovered the importance of many genes. It helped found the discipline of epigenetics. The policies, laws, entitlements, social engineering and programs. That are most responsible for negative environments for human development. Are almost exclusively promoted by, voted for and legislated by people.....wait for it......Who are most critical of The Bell Curve?...huh....So the group of people who claim that The Bell Curve is racist. Is the exact same group of people. Who does everything that it can to ensure poverty, drug addiction, fatherlessness, gun violence, poor schools joblessness, poor policing and hopelessness always thrives. Hmmm seems more likely to me. That the critics of The Bell Curve are the racist ones but who knows.... Maybe I just know how to think better than I am told what to think.
Being a disembodied skull with sunglasses, I'd imagine phrenology is particularly offensive to you. Would be like being judged only by your appearance.
@Mark Donald damn the actual only counter-argument used in that video is that in TBC they use at some point the correct definition of heritability, but it still omits that TBC authors never use the right definition to prove their conclusions. And on top of that, the second counter--argument is basically calling Shaun a "bigot" and a "son of a b*tch". wow, very cool, thank you.
@Mark Donald So his counter-argument is that they mention the correct definition of heritability in the bell curve and stops there as if Murray not mentioning a correct definition of heritability underpins the argument being presented here? Given the fact that that UA-camr accepted Shaun's definition as adequate, how is it that this UA-camr can, on one hand, accept that hereditability is only measurable within a discrete population ("within a group") and yet defend TBC in its attempt at using heritability across different groups. The point still stands that (regardless of whether TBC mentions the definition correctly) TBC USES the concept incorrectly in practice. I see in the comments of that video that supporters of this UA-camr like to throw around ad-hominem and strawman as cool buzzwords. This video is probably the best example of a strawman you will see as it intentionally doesn't address the actual point of Shaun mentioning heritability and instead presents a pathetically watered version of the argument that is (unsurprisingly) easily defeated.
@@xpusostomos no. That's not what regression to the mean is. Regression to the mean is a statistical thing which happens to a single population upon multiple repeated measures. People who score particularly high or low the first time are like to have a score closer to the mean the next time because of luck. It has nothing to do with college admissions.
@@SirPhysics You are talking about regression to the mean in the randomness of measurements. Regression to the mean in genetics is about the randomness of what genes you get. The children of two very tall parents will usually be shorter than the parents. The children of two very short parents will usually be taller than the parents. Because the unlikely random circumstances that led to being extremely tall or short is unlikely to reoccur. So pockets of extreme people, including extremely smart people, will see their descendents revert back to the mean. It's partly because of mixing genes back with the wider population, and partly because we all have recessive genes, and when you procreate your children won't necessarily get the extreme gene, they'll get the other one. So with regards legacy intakes to Harvard, your dad might have been a genius, that means you might be a bit above average, but it's unlikely you'll be the genius he was.
@@xpusostomos This is completely unrelated to college admissions. Legacy admissions do not exist because of some assumption that the children of people who went to Harvard are more likely to be intelligent than the general population (if that were the case, it wouldn't be institution specific). It's just nepotism. *Edit: Also, it has nothing to do with genetics. "Regression to the mean" is specifically about statistics. It's NOT a genetic thing. A parent identified as brilliant is likely to have had positive environmental factors contribute to their development in a statistically unlikely way, while their child, even if that child were a perfectly identical clone, is unlikely to have the same environmental benefit and so they will, statistically, be lower in that trait than their parent.
@@SirPhysics I never said that legacy admissions exists because of a genetic assumption, I just said it's unsurprising that most legacy admissions don't meet the standard. As for your continued ignorance about the meaning of regression towards the mean in genetics, Google is your friend, read the wikipedia article about "Regression towards the mean" and its discussion of how it works in genetics. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to refuse to learn when someone tries to help you. As for environment... it tends to be reinforcing, not regressing to the mean. Someone smart by luck, will have a lot of money and give their children an even better environment than he had. Someone dumb by luck will be a pauper and give his children an even worse upbringing. This is the opposite of regression to the mean. In any case, things like height aren't especially affected by environment. You might be an inch or two shorter if you're starving, it doesn't change a lot. The same is true for IQ, but folks like you find it hard to accept because it doesn't fit your ideology.
I felt so much relief when I realised that complex fields like Quantum Physics, computer programming, and maths were just learning basic stuff, the simple tricks that work well, why they work, and then just progressively combining and modifying those simple tricks together to solve more complex problems. I've just started learning coding, and the truth is you learn everything in an hour. The basic stuff is all it is. The advanced stuff is just learning how to combine them to achieve whatever you need, memorising the quirks of whatever language or platform you're using. Sure, it's actually extremely complex and vast, you could stick to a single subject and never learn everything there is, but once you have that basic foundation it feels so much more open. Even the best in the field are just using the same basic tools as you. I always felt very unintelligent, just completely unable to comprehend "smart" subjects like science, maths, technology. Now I feel like I could learn anything, since I really only have to learn the basics and then build on that. I think this way of thinking really helps people who have come to honestly believe they're just "dumb" and are inherently incapable of understanding anything "smart", those who are neurodivergent, struggled with school as kids, didn't have good teachers, and/or had a rough childhood that prevented them from learning how to learn. It's been said before but when it comes to learning skills, it doesn't matter where you start, what matters is how much you improve. And it's never too late to learn, you don't reach a certain age and become incapable of absorbing and internalising new information. People are surprised when old people are still actively trying to learn new things instead of stagnating and slowly rotting to death. What I'm saying is: We need to bully old people into learning Python.
also we should strap a generator onto Binét's corpse and generate some free electricity, we put so much money and effort into eugenics that it'd be nice to finally get something out of it.
Putting everything thing in a geometric context, and working backwards from a whole helped me become much more logical. Half doubling opposites and rotation concepts really helped to. Everything is a process of elimination
I think everyone has to be allowed to practice in an idiosyncratic manner using concepts that work best for them, for sure. Your environment is often telling you that's a bad thing and it can cause you a lot of grief
If you listen to Shaun at 1.25 times the speed, you don't miss anything and you only need 80% of the time. If you listen to him at 1.50 times the speed, he sounds verry angry. At double the speed he becomes the Anti-Shapiro
I've become so used to watching anything other than comedy and music sped up, that I had to speed up shaun past 2x to deal with his slow speaking. Great information though.
Yeah I don’t speed up everybody, but I’ve gotten used to speeding James tullos up to 1.25 to sound just a touch faster than normal bc he talks slow, so it’s funny to me that Shaun speaks only a hair faster than James at 1.0, when Shaun is at 1.25 😂
I genuinely love how he gets so annoyed at Richard Lynn's study: "It's almost criminal, and if it's not a crime it should be." More people need to be this angry about scientific dishonesty!
@Rudi Winkler Why? Shaun's not wrong. Two things I'd like to point out is that a number of arguments used in the video you link are emotional ones, and a lot of the sources used to try and disprove Shaun's points in those videos come from people who are either ridiculed or ignored academically because they're on the same level as Richard Lynn, and some of the sources used were from people who directly worked with him. In other words, the guy trying to debunk Shaun's video did exactly what Murray did, pick the first convenient source at hand and use it without seeing if it was intellectually honest. At least I hope that's what he did, because the alternative is that he knew exactly what he was doing.
@@Agilaz89 I've seen the videos so I'll summarize for the ones that are no longer available. Somebody tried to refute Shaun by using other writers from Mankind Quarterly, the same discredited association that published people like Richard Lynn, and they used discredited academics who did equally poor studies, or who had worked directly with Richard Lynn to help him with his earlier works. It was actually hard to find a single source that isn't discredited or tied into a fake academic paper, and the only one I saw was one where the user directly lied about the results.
@@Teadon86 No, it was making the point that Richard Lynn and his colleagues lied. They lie about the results, and that's why they're discredited. Looking purely at race and IQ correlations tells us little, unless you think you can tell us why it plays a part when ethnic children in a similar environment to white children perform on a similar level, or why disadvantaged white children perform on a similar level to disadvantaged ethnic children. This is something briefly mentioned in the video, but it seems you didn't get that far. Your third paragraph is entirely wrong because you're acting as if Shaun is saying what he believes when he's presenting the arguments of the Bell Curve and their counterarguments when he's not. His use of Phrenology (a word you don't seem to know despite seeming to believe in it and it being used in the video) is also correct.
Until Quinton reviews brought it up i had no idea "choclate rain" by Tay Zonday namedropped the bellcurve "The bell curve blames the baby's DNA Chocolate Rain But test scores are how much the parents make Chocolate Rain"
@@fullmetaflak Lol is "systemic racism" also the reason for literally all black-white differences in living standards dissolving once you control for IQ?
During my autism assessment-*shudder*-I was required to take an IQ test. The test contained questions such as “Which of the following movies did Brad Pitt appear in?,” and despite the assessment taking place in my home country of Canada, the test was designed in Texas. As a result, it included a pronunciation section (the college student administering that portion of the test said “PRONOUNCE-iation”) whose answers were given in American English, and I later verified that many of the answers conflicted with the official pronunciation in Canada. The majority of the test consisted of general knowledge questions, so that shit’s still going on.
Ugh. The most ironic part is that IQ-based elitists are generally the same type of people who think celeb culture and Brad Pitt movies are stupid and useless and only consumed by stupid and useless people.
@@max-ud1xb On the other hand the movies Brad Pitt is in tend to be quite a bit better than the ones other "main" celebrities from that period were doing. I mean with stuff like Fight Club or Ingluorious Basterds
@@mrniceguywinkyface1524 oh he cheated, but measuring IQ once and once only is daft; it's demonstrable that the same person could get different results depending on external factors
By the way, Binét spent much of his life post Simon-Binét Test working with Simon (his close scientific partner) to improve the test. He didn't just quit when he released the test, he spent incredible amounts of time honing it. Towards the end of his life, when word got to him that his test was revised to be used for eugenics, he was very angry and called the tests "bastardized." They had the fucking gall to add his name to a test that was the absolute antithesis of what he stood for. I spent grades 1-12 in special education, so, over those years, I met and became good friends a lot of people who struggled with schoolwork. I can't even BEGIN to fathom a way to explain to you how much more there was to these people than their "incompetence" because they weren't good at what society deems what intelligence is. I sometimes think about my time in elementary school and miss the kids who enriched me so heavily. A lot of people just aren't well equiped for learning book smarts. With that context of my life, I think it's obvious as to why I consider Binét a personal hero. He was a trailblazer who led not only the path to helping kids with academic needs, but also ensuring that they would be seen as the humans they are; fostering understanding for them and their troubles.
Well, that's stupid. If the test measures for ability, then it can be used for eugenics (with the assumption that genes account for part of the score, which they obviously do). If it doesn't, then it's invalid.
@@Bridge2110 He was commissioned by the French government. He stressed time and time again that it was _not_ at all a good way to measure intelligence, and that there were an incredible amount of variables that no test could possibly take into account. It worked well enough to identify struggling children, but using it to determine who is "lesser" and wipe out their genes is a GIGANTIC step that, even if eugenics is justifiable, would create insane amounts of errors. Also, much of the Stanford-Binét test was designed for the express purpose of eugenics, so much was changed in order to create "proof' that minorities are "lesser" (i.e. discriminate). That's why Binét called the tests "bastardized".
@@None-Trick_Pony If the test could find struggling children, then the eugenic idea that requires finding struggling children could use the test to do that. Now, if you want to say that test wasn't a good measure of intelligence, that's beside the point. Really, I'm just questioning your logic here. If a test is designed to find those who aren't doing well, and people use it to do just that, and then act on those people, that isn't the test being bad or bastardized.
@@Bridge2110 I get what you're saying, but how good it is matters as the big problem here is a matter of scope. Binét's tests were tailor-made for kids. The bastardized tests were distributed to test people of all ages, race, ethnicities, cultures, etc. Those tests were designed to discriminate against non-whites. These tests were bastardized because they were made mostly to prove "Nordic superiority" and then exclude everybody else. The Stanford-Binét Test included questions on arithmatic, literature, etc. Those test general knowledge, not intelligence. Now remember that when the test came out, racial segregation was still everywhere in the US (where the test was distributed), so non-whites got extremely poor educations, furthering the uselessness of the test. The Stanford-Binét Test and its descendants were bastardized and not valid for eugenics because, unlike the Simon-Binét Test, they didn't test intelligence. They tested how good your education was. The Simon-Binét Test was already sketchy in terms of determining intelligence, taking it and editing it so it included general knowledge questions made it completely unusable to those without an agenda. Therefore they were bastardized. The Simon-Binét Test tested how capable you were in school, the Stanford-Binét Test tested how good your education was (i.e. whether you were white or not). That's bastardizing the test.
On rewatch I've now realised: if programs like Head Start are ultimately wasteful because it's pointless to try and increase a child's intelligence beyond their genetic limit, then why should the money be redirected to gifted children? Why would we try to increase their intelligence beyond its genetic limit? Any temporary benefits to the gifted will surely just fade over time, and the money would be better spent elsewhere, like educating old men in proper application of stats.
Because education doesn't increase intelligence you answered your own question You can compare physical ability to intelligence Height = Intelligence Training = Education And what is the end goal? Achievement Olympic medals, championships = Patents, scientific breakthroughs, research papers In order to win Olympic medals, for most sports at an Elite level height is a BIG DEAL, especially if you get rid of all weight classes. The average Olympic male is 6 foot tall, thats 90th percentile heightwise. And if you got rid of weight classes this would average would shoot up even more. Likewise when you look at intellectual achievements you would see one common thing, most of the most productive smart guys all have high IQ or perform well on things that correlate with high IQ. The average STEM professor has 130-140 IQ thats a 98-99.6 percentile IQ So it makes a lot more sense to focus resources in training the gifted, Because no matter how much you train a 5'6" guy in boxing he is not going to stand a chance against a 6'6" boxer You could give the 5'6" the best nutritionists, the best personal chefs, freddie roach himself he is still going to get beat by the 6'6" guy Likewise you give resources to a 80IQ guy, and he won't be able to hold a candle against a 140 iq guy ----------------------------------- I hope this analogy makes sense In order to get Scientific Achievement you need Intelligence + Education But if you don't have the intelligence in the first place, no amount of education will enable Achievement Likewise In order to get Physical Achievements you need Height + Training If you don't have height in the first place, no amount of training will enable achievement
@@xblade11230 first of all, using the book's own logic your sports analogy doesn't work - their hyper focus on intelligence in the job market, success in the economy etc. means that even if you did focus on the gifted by their logic the effects would still fade over time. It's all wasted effort. But the larger point that I was actually (and sarcastically) making is that this isn't how anything works at all. In case you didn't watch the video, IQ does not equal intelligence and intelligence does not equal success. I would be willing to bet that STEM professors score high on IQ tests because they're trained in maths and critical thinking, practiced in language skills, and well-used to an academic environment, not to mention passionate about logic and science, not just because they're smart. And besides, the real goal behind money spent on programs like Head Start is not stellar academic achievement, it's to bring kids who are currently struggling because of disadvantage up to an academic minimum for the chance of future opportunity. Shaun doesn't really say it out loud, but H&M have a very clear "fuck the poor" attitude and aren't afraid to use dodgy logic to try and justify it. So my point was that perhaps the real people deserving of our help are the doddering old men who don't understand how the world works.
@@allnaturalfigjam310 >the gifted by their logic the effects would still fade over time. And the same applies to training, the minute you to stop training your skill will gradually fade over time. Thats why head start doesn't last, because its just "extra" training and the minute they stop they go back to normal And yes Scientists are pretty damn comparable to olympic athletes in that they represent the highest percentile of skill in their craft. Stem has one of the highest drop out rates, and already self selects for the strongest students with the students that know that they are weak opting for easier subjects. And only a tiny handful will go back for masters, and out of those people only a handful will go for a PHD. ------------------------------------------- >IQ does not equal intelligence and intelligence does not equal success. And I have never made this statement IQ is a proxy for intelligence, but it is not actually measuring intelligence. Imagine if we COULDN'T measure height, We can still predict someone's height with proxies For example if we knew a persons max dunk height we could reliably guess someone's height with some degree of accuracy. This is what an IQ test is, we can't test intelligence, but we have an IQ test that gives you a number that correlates with intelligence. And this is why one of the most important things about a IQ test is its only valid if you are unfamiliar with IQ tests. So if you remove jump training from the dunk test, suddenly your guesses on what someone's actual height becomes more accurate. -------------------------------------- >I would be willing to bet that STEM professors score high on IQ tests because they're trained in maths and critical thinking Except they scored in the 140's as CHILDREN, and were never informed about their IQ scores. We have many long term IQ scientific studies of kids taking IQ tests and then tracking them down as adults to get updates. Oh and we have twin studies, with twins reared apart with IQ heritability at 80%, Twins reared together is 82% heritability, Fraternal twins is like 60%, Siblings is 40%, And adopted siblings is 0%
@@xblade11230 Are you... Liking your own comments? Dude that is thirsty. I'm not having this discussion if you're going to claim something so ridiculous as a 0% correlation of IQ between adopted siblings. Seriously, I know you're probably exaggerating but it would take you literally 10 seconds to Google that. Or maybe just watch the video - watch it on 2x speed if you like, I know it's long but there's some good stuff in there.
@@allnaturalfigjam310 it's not correlation it's heritability r^2 , there's an entire wiki page on it Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population. Studies of human heritability often utilize adoption study designs, often with identical twins who have been separated early in life and raised in different environments. Such individuals have identical genotypes and can be used to separate the effects of genotype and environment. A limit of this design is the common prenatal environment and the relatively low numbers of twins reared apart. A second and more common design is the twin study in which the similarity of identical and fraternal twins is used to estimate heritability. These studies can be limited by the fact that identical twins are not completely genetically identical, potentially resulting in an underestimation of heritability. Heritability for traits in humans is most frequently estimated by comparing resemblances between twins. "The advantage of twin studies, is that the total variance can be split up into genetic, shared or common environmental, and unique environmental components, enabling an accurate estimation of heritability".Fraternal or dizygotic (DZ) twins on average share half their genes (assuming there is no assortative mating for the trait), and so identical or monozygotic (MZ) twins on average are twice as genetically similar as DZ twins. A crude estimate of heritability, then, is approximately twice the difference in correlation between MZ and DZ twins, i.e. Falconer's formula H2=2(r(MZ)-r(DZ)).
@@alexsmith2910 A fun word to describe the phenomenon that you mention is called the "bullshit asymmetry principle". The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than it is to produce it.
If people need some cheering up after a heavy subject like this, here’s another fun correlation: the amount of babies born in Denmark for many years was highly correlated with the amount of pairs of storks ☺️
Foppington's Law Once bigotry or self-loathing permeates a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls. - Natalie Wynn
The Manusmriti (Hindu text) is the first text(ever) on racial hierarchy and IQs It is not only limited to ethnic groups and castes in India. It's a great text written in ancient India but heavily criticized for promotion of casteism ( but it does not promote it but rather scientifically explains it why it exists.) But if you read it you will find it's very true and explains the situation of world and various ethnicities and castes which exist. I would recommend it to anyone interested.
This video sent me down the de-radicalization process about a year ago. I'm lucky to have had enough decency to be upset by the assertions of so called "race realists", but I'm also lucky to have had a place to go to truly see how baseless their claims are, a place that set me on a larger journey of de-radicalization. Thank you.
Look at Lasker et al 2019 to see direct evidence of these "baseless" claims. It's good that you were de-radicalized in theory, but I get the sense that all you mean by that is not that you changed your prescriptive beliefs, but just what you accept as fact, in which case, this video not being a good faith analysis of the science at all, is a shame.
@@Bridge2110 apologies, but why would the video be disingenuous for stating it is fallacious of the book to source IQ tests given in languages the testers could not understand?
*Me on twitter* "Oh nice, Shaun's uploaded a video. I know he's mentioned working on this one a lot, so I presume it'll be a good 45 minutes or so." *Opens feature length film*
This Lyn character really went to apartheid-era KZN and administered an English IQ test🤦🏾♀️ I’m Zulu. I’m a very lucky South African who grew up in an urban Joburg environment. I went to a good English speaking school and my mother made sure English was my first language by limiting speaking Zulu in our house until I started going to an English speaking school. When I go visit family friends in KZN, we hardly _ever_ speak English. When we go visit family in Soweto, we hardly ever speak English. Their English is poor, and I’m talking about my born-free generation. (Black people born in the post-apartheid South Africa). I cannot imagine them doing well with an English-language IQ test, never mind how well their parents would have done during the 1980’s apartheid-SA.
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam You understand that saying that doesn't prove you're not racist, right? The problem is the method and ideology, not who you think is on top of the made-up biological hierarchy.
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam - you seem to care a lot about who is and isn't though. It would put quite a dampener on your accusations if you ended up being one, no?
Coming back I still would like to argue with eugenicists about the usefulness of intelligence. The Human niche has only happened once. Crab has happened multiple times. The new measure should be crab quotient
intelligence has been shown to be related to many things we care about, such as income, school performance, and even longevity, so I think we should stick with it.
1:33:07 "'It is proposed therefore to round this figure up to 70'... why?" Such a small moment but also somehow manages to show just how batshit crazy some of the statistical analysis is in these papers.
I'm impressed by the boldness of it. It's not accidentally screwing up like the misunderstanding around heritability, it's not weaselly screwing up like using skewed factor analysis or p-hacking to make the data say what you want, you just... straight change the number. And then tell everyone that's exactly what you did. Incredible.
how about not being ableist? especially given the eugenics and denigration and marginalization of people with actual/perceived lower intellectual abilities... don't accept nazi framework, and use ableist slurs as insults?
@nihilismful first of all, you might wanna check if you're right before starting to explain things to random person on the internet - I might be the one with more knowledge... (but not native English speaker so ignore the mistakes) Now - a. you don't need to intend it to be ableist (same for every other bigotry) b. it doesn't matter if it's "outdated" when it's used, connotations are there, we all know. People alive today have/d close ones institutionalized with those diagnosis (all officially abandoned in 70ies, afair). People with actual or perceived lack of intellectual or other abilities are bullied with those words today. Those are never said in endearing way. So it's exactly the same as for r-word, but st**id also, when the principle is to not insult people on basis of their abilities, you avoid all of them, be it stronger or milder "case" ie c. don't use ppl's (lack of) abilities as an insult & indication someone is bad/wrong. It's always backhanded insult to anyone who's struggling. They know, they hear you. Decent people are being denigrated that way. so d. By continuing to use ableist slurs you're contributing to their stigmatisation and marginalisation. They are not seen as equally human beings! In these pandemic times there were news about decisions to let those people die, ffs. So many people is ok with that - hence eugenics/nazi mention. Out thoughts, language, attitudes, and consequent (in)action are interdependent. So maybe rethink this defense of ableism, learn more about the topic, and start replacing those words with somethig more creative? *these are *not my ideas*, not up for debate.
@@al.the. If you're trying to say that impugning somebody's intelligence is always ableist, that's a fucking... uh... well I can't say how I feel without upsetting you. Ideas can be unintelligent, as the people who espouse them can be. Nazism is both evil AND stupid. You have to have some way of categorising the validity of ideas and people or else you will never achieve any intellectual progress.
al the al with all due respect , you are being a bit of a wokescold right there .. Some ideas should insulted and mocked because otherwise not doing so gives them neutral validity
Shaun while I’m watching alone: The regression samples were inaccurate because... Shaun when my parents walk in the room: Measured the size of their genitalia and the distance of their ejaculate.
It is really a miracle how people were upset at a book that recommends forced sterilization of people who don't get a high enough number on an arbitrary test.
@jameslacoste9383 Correct, reading books like the "The Mismeasurement of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould does actually educate you on cognitive psychology as opposed to the book this video is titled after, which is propaganda.
Is it just me or is this perhaps the best made amatuer presentation on youtube. I've not seen anything this good that was made by a youtuber rather than a production company. Its witty, its smart, well executed. I mean its as long a 2 feature length movies on a science debate that involves statistical analysis and yet its rivetting. I cant say well done enough to Shaun. This is a masterpiece.
@@jlrinc1420 No problem, i love that series. it gets better and better. And it's really well researched as you get to the later videos he talks about what he read to make the videos. I learned a lot about the right and conservatism in general watching that. That series is must see for all bread-tube watchers imo. Also he recently did a video about the anti-racists protest. It's very good, i've never heard this take on it and it completly changed my thinking on protests. ua-cam.com/video/6BB0Q1qHpAw/v-deo.html&ab_channel=InnuendoStudios
@@icecoldpierre Will check it out. I love his take that its better not to engage them. You cant win or change their mind. They wont look at your links and I wont look at their so he's right just dont engage. Its a waste of time.
Me, as a college professor: "Oh, neat, a video about the grading scale? Not sure why that's a video." *clicks* "Jesus, why's it over two hours?" *less than a minute in* "Oh. Oh no."
The bit at the end where Shaun shows how all these civil intellectual dispensers of truth are funded by Nazis is like the bit at the end of each scooby doo episode where they take off the masks and it turns out the friendly guy from earlier is actually the monster because he wants more money
That was the great thing about Scoob and the gang, by the end it was always revealed that the scary monster of the story was just a person. It was never a real ghost or vampire or frankenstein's monster or whatever, it was just man's inhumanity to man.
This is the best response to the Bell Curve that I've ever listened to, in large part due to the careful ways that you explained the statistical and methodological background to Herrnstein and Murray's proposals. My thanks also go to the people who helped you out with the text and sourcing references. Academic work can be a challenge to explain to a lay audience, and I think that those listeners who stuck through the entirety of your video now have an improved toolkit available to critically assess other works of academic and scientific racism. (And I, as a resident of the Ivory Tower of Academia, am so grateful for your work! I know from experience how difficult it is to explain some of this stuff in a way that is neither condescending nor full of technical jargon. Again, thank you for this!)
@thesatanic6 You mean some right wingers claim that? Let's just say I rather believe Shaun than another guy whos vid has a comment about how Shaun is "anti-white" upvoted more than hundred times, by a guy with a marble bust as avatar. Such people tend to make shit up to serve their narative. Seeing Aydin Paladin in the comments, again upvoted more than hundred times, certainly doesn't look too good either.
Except it was called normalizing the data for congruence. In fact the raw data showed a greater difference between white and black. They included both in the book and explained it.
I have watched this video maybe 5 times over the years and "Crucially here, nothing is actually happening genetically on the earring front" (42:25) is a line that never fails to make me giggle
As Joe Biden said: "poor kids can be as smart as white kids". That's all you need to know to understand the thinking behind a book like the Bell Curve.
@@Nai-qk4vp well he will keep the rich rich, including the people running the party and who make up all the major media outlets and those who have called the shots on eductating the populace, that is all that matters.
But seriously, Shaun uses plain language and lays out his case in a meticulous and logical manner. If I believed jay had actually watched the video, I'd love for him to identify either the "Yeah but" OR the "pseudo-intellectualism" he claims the video contains.
I'm reading A People's History of the United States, and in the first chapter the author refers to a text on Christopher Columbus by historian Samuel Morison. I think his statement on that work is applicable here: "One can lie outright about the past. Or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusions. Morison does neither. He refuses to lie about Columbus. He does not omit the story of mass murder, indeed he describes it with the harshest word one can use: genocide. But he does something else - he mentions the truth quickly and goes on to other things more important to him. Outright lying or quiet omission takes the risk of discovery which, when made, might arouse the reader to rebel against the writer. To state the facts, however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader with a certain infections calm: yes, mass murder took place, but it's not that important - it should weigh very little in our final judgements, it should affect very little what we do in the world."
I remember I had a professor who said the week after a test: “That test was too hard. The average was 50%, and there wasn’t even a pretend bell curve. It was almost a strait line.” A literal university-level physics test doesn’t always give a bell curve. NOT EVERYTHING COMES IN BELL CURVES AND ASSUMING THEY DO OR SHOULD IS PROBABLY NOT GREAT ACADEMIC PRACTICE.
Yeah, I recall multiple teachers at my secondary school openly admitting that too many people did poorly/well on a test so they changed how they graded this test. When I was working on A-levels, I had a teacher cut a question from a quiz because he'd graded it wrong, which meant that I got a lower grade cause I'd answered it correctly (this upset me cause I did poorly in that class and every point counted). I had a teacher give me an extra grade (4/15) out of pity to at least push my final grade up to be 4/15 overall as well. The grading system in general is rigged and teachers are fully aware. Tests are bullshit.
I had a teacher like that. Very smart man, but obsessed with making everything a bell curve to a fault. He was a good man however, considering he hated The Bell Curve more than he loved making bell curves.
It is literally academic science? Almost all social sciences that study population with statistics will judge how valid their findings are based on whether it fits a normality curve.
oh man, having someone so thoroughly dismantle such an insidious and icky argument as that present in the bell curve and then say "righty ho! That's all from me today" is really delightful.
@@marcomartins3563you people are cowards. just admit you're racist instead of misusing the scientific process. You're making a mockery of the very thing that brought us to the moon.
@@marcomartins3563 Basing intelligence of race makes no sense. Why dont we do the same thing with liver size or eye colour? they are both as relevant as skin colour. Or why dont we talk about red head realism and tell everyone the truth that they are dumber because of a completely unrelated trait to intelligance. As the video said there is often greater variation in racial groups than between them. The only reason i can think it racism and purely environmental factors which can be traced back to racism.
I clicked on this video thinking it was going to be about how grading on a curve was bad. I don’t know whether to be disappointed that I wrong or disappointed that racist pseudoscience is alive and well enough for a 2 & half hour discussion of its stupidity.
@@Sealwithwificonnection potential for intelligence is largely determined by genes, that potential can be hampered or nurtured. The problem is when those who have been nurtured claim that those who have been hampered were simply of low potential to begin with.
@@Sealwithwificonnection No one is saying that genetics does not have correlation with intelligence. What is being said is that race and skin color have nothing to do with it. Also, measurements we use for intelligence are so narrow and screwed to be almost meaningless.
You're not being intellectually honest, genes aren't irrelevant to socio economic success and life outcomes. Jordan Peterson agrees that IQ is almost completely genetic, and he's well read and credible. Mentally disabled people prove that what traits we inherit, determine how we cognitively function. Aspergers is a heritable trait, that wrecks the Human psyche. Sucks the alt right and other closet nazis are so involved in IQ discussions. They completely ruined the topic for politically neutral readers/viewers.
@@halaldunya918 "Jordan Peterson...credible" Meh The dude is a grifter. When he appeared on Tv he didn't have a skeptical approach which should be typical of academics, he has always adopted polemical positions making clear he made up his mind to appeal to his audience. The problem is that many times he has quoted studies "that prove X and disprove Y" but in reality when you go search those very papers he quotes, the studies themselves say that more data and studies are needed as with current tools is impossible to establish a causative relations, even if evidences are *pointing* toward a certain direction A serious academics would say something "as of right now studies seems to show X rather than Y", instead of saying "X is definitive, Y is wrong"; moreover in social sciences when causative effects are more trickier to be established ;)
I think chess is one of the best examples of how the appearance of intelligence is massively swayed by time. Certain people perform better in certain time controls, even at the highest levels of chess. Though Magnus Carlson and other great players have unified the Blitz (3 min games) and Classical (30+ min games) Championships, there have been many times when the reigning Blitz and Classical champions are different players because they have different strengths. If you only had them play against each other in one time control, one player would seem to have the edge, giving a false illusion of the gap.
Chess is already a brilliant example of how environmental factors can determine intelligence due to the best player of our time outclassing those of 50 years ago. Have humans gotten smarter over that small period of time? No, not enough mutations in that period of time have happened to make it that stark of a difference. What’s actually happened is that the resources that have been made allow for those amazing at chess to excel even further.
@@isaacburrows8405 plus, now we have chess engines that can analyze your every move and give you detailed explanations on why a certain move is optimal or why a certian move is bad or terrible. suddenly training for chess gets way easier because we have the internet and you can play with anyone who is online and willing, rather than only the people you can physically be in the same room as. and the number of games you can analyze have increased substantially as well
Man, thanks. I've been dealing with this feeling all my life. The feeling that the people I don't agree with are deep down right (especially in controversial issues) and that deep down I'm wrong. For some reason, I've always considered that somehow their points are difficult to reply to if the issues we're discussing are sensitive. One day I watched a minidocumentary about "political correctness" where they talked about the bell curve (the book). One of my first thoughts was that "how would I handle an argument made from this book?", and also "what if they are right? what if people don't like the book because of political correctness and not because it's wrong? what if everything about racism and discrimination is justified? what if discrimination against me is justified because of this?" I started imagining myself debating Murray and shutting his mouth with "facts and logic" but I didn't have the time to do the research about the book so in the end this feeling that Murray would simply shut me up with his ideas and stronger arguments remained. The feeling that even if I 'wasted' my time with this I would end up discovering he was right. Discovering your channel and watching your videos has shown me that these right-wing loons aren't as smart and correct as they think they are and that in reality proving that they are more clowns than anything else isn't that difficult (although it requires time and research in order to make it understandable and coherent for us your viewers) and that their points aren't really that strong and that I shouldn't be taking them as seriously, to begin with. You have done this with the Bell Curve as well, in an entertaining and easy to understand manner. Again, thanks very much man, keep uploading to your channel.
Deep down, you are wrong. Your intuition was correct, and this video you have just watched is propaganda. medium.com/@houstoneuler/the-cherry-picked-science-in-voxs-charles-murray-article-bd534a9c4476
@@lollll9932 a lot of things can be considered propaganda, doesn't make them good or bad automatically. Also why not respond to something in the video instead of posting an article responding to someone completely different?
It's good not being an example of Dunning-Krüger, but you shouldn't be the complete opposite (imposter syndrome) either and continually doubt yourself to that degree. It's very easy to appear convincing even when someone knows that they know nothing about a subject (especially if they don't have any moral or ethic to reign them in or they've a 'the end justifies the means'-mentality), so there's no reason that you should believe them just because they want you to. I hope you gain some more self esteem and confidence in yourself and your abilities! :)
Well, 抜けている形を選択する just means essentially "choose what fills the blank" which you can infer with 0 Japanese; and since Japanese rips off the Chinese writing system if you can read numbers its gonna be trivial. His earlier chess position is a simple mate in 2 starting with 1. Ra6. I guess that makes me a weeb and a nerd. Thank god none of his IQ questions involved naming celebrities.
Me: Hmmm I don't really feel like watching a 2 hour movie, it's too much of a time commitment Shaun: *releases a 2 1/2 hour long video* Me: Yeah I can commit to this
@Andy Rodriguez My agenda is truth. I'm tired of discrimination against whites, Asians, and Jews because blacks and Hispanics don't as well in certain areas.
@@chrimony I hope you are aware that ancient Egyptians were dark with extremely curly hair according to ancient Greek historians so more likely what you call subsaharan Africans than arabs
I scored 148 on a IQ test when I was 9 in Florida. I was held back that year. I get irritated when people tell me I'm smart because I said something insightful. I'm a bus driver.
@@jaceking5938 I'm told I'm smart all the time. I'm not sad that I'm a bus driver. IQ test used properly is to improve the education of the child, not to qualify you for anything. I could have been educated properly. I could have been a more "useful". As of now the world doesn't seem interested in elevating people to their potential, only profiting from the promise.
@@marketwindfall1927 where are you from? Nothing he wrote is/was difficult to comprehend for English speakers regardless of that person's education level.
What makes me laugh at this whole thing is that going to school is expensive, and for a lot of kids it means leaving their family with one less income to support them. It instantly kills their argument of some cognitive ruling class. It's all just money, baby.
How did they get the money in the first place? By being smarter, and thus their children wont just inherit their money but genes for IQ too, which predict life outcomes better than just simply "money"
@@hihello8771 You think you get more money from being smarter? So my grandfather fought in WW2 as a young man and then devoted the rest of his life to less fortunate inner city kids. He was poor as hell but very intelligent by all standards (he held several degrees and was always being asked to speak at charity functions, etc.). My mother was also brilliant and gravitated towards art and singing. She met my father who is an engineer and had me. My family had four kids and several hardships which I won't get into that depleted my father's wealth and caused us to have to fend for ourselves. As a result, most of us took careers that pay decently well, but weren't allowed to pursue the height of our ambitions. This is the story of a white kid from the suburbs. This isn't even factoring in any form of societal oppression. You're not the only American who thinks like you. You see people praising rich people all the time for being "money savvy" for turning 300 million into a billion or something like that. Could you turn 30 dollars into 100? You can? OH WOW! Well, if you can do that, you can turn 300 million into a billion or more and it's actually much easier because the richer you are, the better financial products and vehicles you have access to. I work in finance and wealth management people won't even talk to someone who isn't already holding 30k plus liquid, and for the average American that may as well be a million. Long story short (too late). Talk to more intelligent people. Most are not wealthy. I find that most wealthy people (not all) at least tend to be educated, but lack any kind of raw intelligence. This country is merely setup to cater to them. I've met some disgusting brilliant people who are socially inept as well, and that limits their upward mobility too! A beautiful, charming person can easily marry into money. Is that genetic material going to produce Einstein? I hope I've helped to dispel some of your fantasies about wealth with this long diatribe. Thanks for reading it if you did.
@@hihello8771 The majority of wealthy people inherited at least part of their wealth and access. If you haven't noticed, high IQ isn't that heritable. There's some remarkably dumb people with wealth and power. They themselves don't realize it, the narcissism that comes with having money/power makes them think they're brilliant. Money and connections are _extremely_ easy to pass on to one's heirs...but not intellectual capacity.
@@AuspexAO lmao pure anecdotal evidence. Yet i thought the left was about objective evidence? Heritability remains high. Not even siblings of the same household come out the same... your blank slate theory has been long debunked.
I've decided to dedicate my life to proving that the correlation between cheese consumption and death by bedsheets share a common cause. The truth has been hidden for far too long!
I think I cracked it. Going to bed with a full stomach of food (cheese) can make you spend more time in REM (rapid-eye-movement) while asleep which is where the most vivid dreams happen. With that now extended period of time in REM, you’re more likely to have nightmares and wrap yourself in your sheets for comfort, occasionally to death
@@onelovelylilidiot4959 a fascinating hypothesis. Unfortunately I lack both the funds and friends to gain willing test subjects. As such I am forced to expirement upon myself. I have already eaten a pound of cheese and am prepared for bed.
What bugs me about all this is that we already have to deal with groups of people that are biologically, objectively incapable of performing certain tasks without help and affirmative policies. Do these people want to cut benefits from the disabled and the elderly too? I mean, I know the answer, but how they can justify to themselves that they aren't eugenicist fascists is beyond me.
@Cole S "affirmative policies are intended to rectify historical institutional discrimination" that's what racism is my dude, historical institutional discrimination. But let's not get hung up on that yet, next you say: "If the disparities between groups are the result of their inherent biology, it's perfectly ethical [...] to end affirmative policies" so, you really want to cut benefits from the disabled and elderly? I'm confused. Also, "for the sake of it"? People from underprivileged groups having more acess to opportunities is one hell of a goal, we should strive for that in a society.
@Cole S uh, affirmative policies can also apply to the groups I mentioned. Disabled and old people can benefit from them, as they have a harder time finding jobs because of prejudice, and some of them need education too. Welfare is included in my criticism, because it is also something the folks in the book want to cut. "Wasting society's resources" wow man, maybe want to rephrase that, no? No one is a waste of resources, if more children can have bigger opportunities in life than the ones assigned by their "genes", it's worth the effort. If there are successful black people in literally every field, it means that they have the potential, so why deny them the chance? Also you seem pretty convinced that IQ differences are caused by genetics, despite the clearly biased and not enough evidence. I can only laugh at the "check your privilege" line, just because I didnt mention women and lgbt people doesn't mean I think only racism is a problem. I said racism because this IQ bullshit is focused on race. You don't know anything about my race, gender or sexual orientation, what privilege do you think I have?
@@xpusostomos Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. Diseases are natural, vaccines are not. Hopefully you know which of those two is good for you
All it takes is a little tuning of your recommendations and you can basically pretend like much of the most popular content on youtube simply doesn't exist. :)
I mean, you have books like The Art of War and ones written by The Situation from the Jersey shore. A platform is just a means to access your content, not always defining what that content is.
I actually winced at 1:08:42 when he brought up the passage saying that "the African black population has not been subjected to the historical legacy of American black slavery and discrimination" Where the fuck did they think the AFRICAN-American slaves came from? And how the fuck did they think the slaves got to America? Because something tells me that wherever the AFRICAN-American slaves came from, they didn't exactly go willingly, and I feel like the place they left behind might suffer a bit after losing a large number of its able-bodied males at the hands of an oppressive colonial regime 🧐
@S E P. Well, it depends on what province or nation they were enslaved in, much like here in America. Slaves might be "treated better" in one state, but treated like crap in another. Same rule applies essentially to any place where slavery was prevalent. Either way, they're still slaves, which is awful in its own right.
@KampKarl true but the scale wasn't nearly as high until thr transatlantic slave trade became a thing where various African powers did sell slaves but many were forcibly stolen from their homes by European powers.
@KampKarl I didn't say it was unique to Europeans to do slavery I'm explaining the impact also and many but mot all just many times the trans-saharen slave trade wasn't necessariy always tied to skin tone, many times many of these slaves managed to get high positions of power and even take over the government however American slavery was simply tied to the colour of your skin and was a much more brutal affair. I do not deny the Arab slave trade wasn't bad as it was, hell many castrated the men alot of the time but to the scale of the European slave trade where 12 or 12.8 million slaves were taken either sold to Europeans or forcibly captured from there homes were shipped across the Atlantic compared that to 7.2 million slaves taken from the trans saharen trade in the years mid 5th to 20th century does seem to show it was not nearly as driven. Plus the trans Atlantic slave trade by far has a more devastating effects amongst the black communities within the Americas. Also the Europeans or mainly the British banned the slave trade in 1807 but slavery itself still existed until 1838 when it was officially banned and had full emancipation, in France however they banned it a few times earlier infact in the homeland but their colonies like Hati still practiced it and Napoleon brought it back, it took the mid to late 1800s to actually ban slavery officially.
They were using "African black" to mean black people born and raised in African countries and to differentiate them from black US citizens. They were using (specifically black) Africans to bolster their racist idea that black Americans are just "naturally stupid." "African black" is pretty clearly an attempt to mean...black people in Africa. And also that apparently all black people are just stupid. This comment and most of the responses make me wonder what people were listening to.
I'm only halfway but I hope you're going to quote Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” That's one of the most beautiful summaries of how environment determines an emergence of intelligence more than anything else
@MeebleMeeble bzzt, incorrect, man with one study. Your paper came out in PLOS Biology in 2011 attempting to reclaim Morton as an accurate skull-measurer and to demonstrate that Gould's criticisms were largely without merit and that his own analysis contained errors. This paper received coverage in mainstream sites, such as the New York Times and Wired, and does appear to be the primary piece of evidence 'debunking' The Mismeasure of Man that gets referred to nowadays. However, the PLOS Biology paper itself made a number of errors, both conceptual and factual. These have been pointed out in a number of articles, and indeed even in comments left on the original article. A brief selection: Firstly: "Gould’s argument for Morton’s unconscious racial bias is based on a comparison between two sets of measurements using two different materials. In his 1839 Crania Americana, Morton used “pepper seeds,” but he switched technique to using lead BB shot for the measurements presented in his later works, especially the 1844 Crania Aegyptiaca. Morton made this switch because the pepper seeds were light, variable in size, and easily compressed, and as a result his measurements were highly variable. It is important to note that Gould agrees with Morton about the superiority of the shot measurements. Gould calls these measurements “objective, accurate, and repeatable” [2]. After tabulating and reanalyzing Morton’s data, Gould was struck by a systematic difference between the two sets of measurements. The mean cranial capacity for Africans, Americans, and Caucasians had all increased between 1839 and 1844, as is shown in Fig 1. However, they did not change by the same amounts. The African skulls have a much larger increase in mean cranial capacity than the Americans and Caucasians. If this difference were the result either of lack of precision or of a systematic measurement error, the change should be approximately the same for the different races, but it was not. Gould thought that the best explanation for the more dramatic change in the African mean was unconscious manipulation on Morton’s part in 1839, when technique made that manipulation possible. Why, then, do Lewis et al. think Morton has been vindicated? Their 2011 paper reports on the remeasurement of about half the skulls in Morton’s original set. They found that Morton’s shot measurements were mostly accurate, and that such errors as existed did not support a charge of bias. They also considered Gould’s other criticism of Morton’s methods and analysis, which they also judged to be mostly without merit (we are here only concerned with the measurement issue; for detailed discussions of all the claims in dispute, see [4,5]). They concluded that “Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould” [3]. We take no issue with Lewis et al.’s remeasurements, but argue that these measurements are not and cannot be evidence for their conclusion. Although Lewis et al. found Morton’s shot-based measurements to be accurate, Gould already accepted this. Indeed, Gould had to assume that Morton’s shot measurements were accurate, as he relied on them in his own analysis. Gould never made, nor did he ever claim to make, nor did he have any reason to make any measurements himself. Gould’s argument depends on the difference between the two sets of measurements. Thus, as a matter of logic, there is no way that the results of Lewis et al.’s remeasurement program could be used to adjudicate the issue of who was biased. The many commentators who cite as a major failing of Gould’s that he “never bothered to measure the skulls himself” [6] have also, though perhaps more understandably, missed the point. PLOS Biology invited the authors of [3] to respond to this Formal Comment. They provided the following statement: “We decline to respond as the issues raised are well covered in our original paper, which we encourage interested readers to consult.”
Secondly: "the Lewis et al. article received significant attention in the popular media. But many of the claims made by Lewis et al. in their article are misleading in important ways, and, as we make clear, much of the media attention focused on the most misleading aspects. It is impossible, reading Lewis et al., not to be led to the conclusion that Gould’s work was badly flawed, and that Morton’s was broadly correct. This is, for the reasons we suggest below, not the case. But the kind of sloppiness that Lewis et al. engaged in has real consequences -- e.g., members of the White Supremacist website “StormFront” immediately trumpeted Lewis et al.’s results as proving that Gould was “a fraud,” and took them to be broadly supportive of their explicitly racist agenda,2 a view apparently shared by many in related communities.3 Their discussion of the remeasurement takes up a significant portion of their paper, and much, indeed most, of the media coverage focused on this aspect of their work. We argue that this re-measurement was completely irrelevant to an evaluation of Gould’s published analysis of Morton; the exercise was pointless, and there was no legitimate reason to feature the results of that work. The space Lewis et al. devote to their re-measurement of the skulls, as well as the media attention it garnered, form part of a larger pattern of a reframing of Gould’s criticisms of Morton that is, again, at best misleading. Gould never claimed that Morton’s shot-based measurements, which is what Lewis et al. compared their new measurements to, were unreliable. Rather, Gould explicitly stated that he assumes “as Morton contends, that measurements with shot were objective and invariably repeatable to within 100 3” (Gould, 1978 507). In his The Mismeasure of Man, Gould is even more straightforward, and states simply that after Morton switched to lead shot, Morton “achieved consistent results that never varied by more than a single inch for the same skull” (Gould, 1981 53). Gould did not “bother” to re-measure the skulls, because Gould explicitly stated that, once Morton developed a method that made the unconscious “fudging” of the results difficult, the results became reliable. For Gould what was of interest was the difference in the kinds of results obtained when a less reliable method (seed) was used, and those obtained when a more reliable method (lead shot) was used; Gould hypothesized that the less reliable method permitted more room for unconscious bias to influence the results (Gould, 1978 505). recall that Gould explicitly stated that the shot-based measurements, unlike the seed-based measurements, were trustworthy; Gould simply never claimed that the shot-based measurements were subject to manipulation via unconscious bias at all. Gould did not claim that, once Morton switched to shot, Morton “physically mismeasured some skulls” -- he in fact states the exact opposite of this. Lewis et al. are here falsifying (their word) a claim that Gould never made...While it is important to publish negative results, framing those results in ways that suggest that they refute other people’s claims, when they do no such thing, is at least misleading, if not dishonest.
Thirdly: Despite what they say, Lewis et al. have not falsified Gould’s claim. Gould’s argument was that the differences between Morton’s seed‐based and shot‐based measurements reveal Morton’s racially biased measurements. Showing that Morton’s shot‐based measurements are reliable is very impressive, but cannot support the claim that Morton’s work reveals racial bias. Indeed, Gould accepts the reliability of Morton’s shot‐based measurements, since he has no other way of determining differences with the seed‐based measurements.4 Importantly, this piece does confirm that there are some errors in Gould's analysis (I recommend reading the whole article here), but makes points such as: At least with respect to the Peruvians, it seems clear that Gould’s accusation that Morton manipulated subsamples, even unconsciously, does not stand up to scrutiny...While Gould’s accusations against Morton fail here, there is a subtlety to Gould’s argument that hasn’t yet been brought out and that remains correct. Although Lewis et al. focus on Gould’s discussion of sample size, Gould also discusses the problematic ways that Morton determines which samples to include in racial means. For example, Morton included small‐headed Inca Peruvians in the American mean, but excluded small‐headed Hindus from the Caucasian mean. This allowed Morton’s American sample to appear smaller and Caucasian sample to appear bigger than it might have been otherwise. Gould’s criticism can be made even more generally. Morton already saw differences in cranial capacity among the families and sub‐families in his samples. These differences should have led him to be much more cautious about reporting means for each race, since there is much variation within races, and relatively small differences between the racial aggregates. Thus while Lewis et al. are correct in their specific critiques of Gould, Gould’s more general critique is important and correct. even if Morton’s original numbers didn’t conform to racial stereotypes in quite the way Gould thought, Gould’s overall and most important point is correct. There is little difference in mean cranial capacity between the races, and Morton did not see this. Gould makes a substantial mistake in his exclusion of all Native Americans that weren’t in Morton’s 1839 sample. There is no principled reason to do this. Moreover, even without this exclusion, Gould’s point is preserved. Native Americans are no longer abnormally low in mean cranial capacity. In the final analysis, Gould’s charge that Morton’s analyses exhibit racial bias seems well‐justified. Gould made some analytical errors which were uncovered by Lewis et al., but his two most important claims-that there is evidence that Morton’s seed‐based measurements exhibit racial bias and that there are no significant differences in mean cranial capacities across races in Morton’s collection-are sound...
Gould’s analysis and critique of Morton has been widely discussed and widely used as an illustration of implicit bias in science; it ought to remain so. I will finally point readers to this article by Simon Whitten, which deals with both the PLOS Biology paper and a naturally crappy Quillette article. medium dot com/@simonjwhitten/has-stephen-jay-goulds-the-mismeasure-of-man-really-been-discredited-f38ab6e50086 Incidentally, the Morton section is only a small portion of The Mismeasure of Man! And these pitiful. easily defeated complaints are the best asspained internet racists can muster. This is why racial science isn't taken seriously. It isn't the Jews, it isn't the communist conspiracy, it's because it's bullshit. Sorry, loser.
RoseEyed the Hbomb one? It’s ok, basically a review of a (extremely good and fascinating) game that you should play. There’s been some better UA-cam vids on it though even if those creators aren’t necessarily affiliated with breadtube.
Watching again, and it's painful seeing the 3.4k dislikes. I majored in genetics, and this is such an outstanding resource for understanding so many disparate techniques, concepts, and ideas in biology. Knowing that most of those dislikes are reactionary-- it just hurts to know how much more power people could have in explaining their world, given an understanding of the material presented here. Edit: I made a very long response to the objections to this in the replies.
I actually disliked the video BECAUSE I think there wasn't a very good focus on the target audience. The people who would generally be tempted to watch the video is aware of 90% the things discussed [correlation vs. causation and a wide range of topics]. Effectively a lot of the video is a waste of time. A "Cliff-notes" version of the video jumping into an analysis of the more problematic claims of the bell curve would have been more appreciated.
@@erutherford Some things need to be explored in depth. The history and context of the book is just as problematic as the things it says and that deserves attention too. I don't know who you think the target audience is meant to be?
@@erutherford who would be tempted to watch a 2 1/2 hour video, but be expecting a cliffnotes version of the situation? pretty sure the target audience of Shaun's content is people who like videos with great attention to detail and in-depth research. that's how all of his content is, so maybe you just aren't familiar with the channel? i already knew a lot of this information but the way it's presented here is both good for educating others and helped put some history into perspective that i previously wasn't familiar with. there's nothing wrong with the video just because it wasn't for you. if you don't want to watch a video this long, you're not the target audience, honestly.
no whats painful is that this guy is a quack and convincing people by using pseudo-intellectualism. He straw mans the entire book and uses emotion to manipulate the viewer, hes just far more clever than your average leftist so it "seems" like he is being straightforward. How is straw manning an old iq test and then generalizing all iq tests based on ones from 100 years ago "valid genetics"? Ridiculous to suggest this video is good
This is definitely going to get buried but it’s worth adding that - when the tests were administered to black South African school children under apartheid - the Bantu Education Act was still in practice. The Bantu Education Act’s primary purpose was to segregate schooling based on race (creating the exact same schools in KwaZulu Natal that were given the tests) and - most essentially - provide a completely different education to each school based on their race. Black students - quite literally - were not working from the same academic curriculum that white students were. They were being directed to the unskilled labour market, only learning basic arithmetic, gardening, sewing and Christian Studies, while white children were learning complex mathematics, science, etc. That’s not even going into the fact that many black students weren’t even being taught in their home language, but instead were instead exclusively taught in Afrikaans, making their already subpar education even more incomprehensible. All of this culminated in the student Soweto Uprising protests of 1976. Just the cherry on top of the bullshit results that were spawned from those studies.
This is extremely important. Far too often South Africa gets touted around by racists as proof that white people are more civilised than black people and they just completely ignore the history of structural destruction of black people
Tara Lang I can imagine, we have ridiculous volumes of apartheid history that foreigners will never know, sadly. The practice itself was only “officially” ended in 1980, which is ridiculously recently when you consider that we now have black kids whose parents’ entire education and designated living space were designed to turn them into unskilled farmhands.
SANITY IS FOR THE WEAK My dude, you wouldn’t have asked that if you’d actually watched the video we’re commenting on rn. Shaun speaks rather slowly, so I can understand why a 2 hour 39 minute long video might seem daunting, but you’re welcome to tap those top three dots in the upper right-hand corner of your screen, go to “playback speed” and hit 1.5 or 2x speed. Happy learning, buddy.
If I ever submit a paper with incredibly sketchy sources, but claim that I will be proven “retroactively right” in a couple decades, I hope they throw me out on my ass.
32 Sargons, oof. Gonna be a challenge to try and finish this within the current decade but I'll try my best. EDIT: It took just over 3 days, but it was worth it. Surprisingly interesting the whole way through for a video of this length.
In addition to Shaun's explanation that eugenics weren't a unique measure by Nazi Germany and a lot of it has been inspired by what Americans did before the Nazis, I can recommend the book 'Hitler's American Model' that goes much into detail on this matter. Great video, Shaun
The Native American genocide inspired Hitler, and many American companies and public figures profited from and admired the Nazis, like Henry Ford and the Bush family.
@thesatanic6 I've already seen that video and it's bad. You actually believe a video that is 10 minutes long debunks the entirety of Shaun's video? Shaun's video is three hours long. AH makes only 3 weak arguments that are fallacious. What Shaun said in his livestream regarding how he presents Murray isn't bad either, because what he presents of Murray is still true. I actually wanted to make a post detailing what's wrong about AH's video, but after paragraphs and paragraphs I realized I have too much shit to do for university, and that people who think a 10 minute video could debunk Shaun's work are imbeciles anyway that want to cling on to their right wing race realist fairy tales to find reasons to mistreat minorities. So yeah, go fuck yourself in short.
The unintentional humour of the automated subtitles’ struggles to try to spell “Herrnstein and Murray” and the many and varied ways it makes the attempt gets me every time.
@@MrLukeKK It's not even thinking IQ doesn't matter. It's a critique of the bell curve. This guy is so married to a book this old he dismisses an almost three-hour long video. The parts that he could have watched are literally historical analyses with sources.
Back in elementary school my teachers gave me a test to figure out why I was struggling in class. (I'm in college now so my memory of what was in it is a little fuzzy) But I recall it had me reading things and solving things within varying time frames. After that, I was given additional material and help understanding my courses (basically tutoring) I was also given extra time. From what I understand. I was processing things slower then the other students. I did eventually understand the material given and retained it well, but not in the time the classes provided. The same went for when I took exams. I was allowed extra time because retreaving information took longer for me. For a long time, I was a little self conscious about it cause at my school there was always a stigma that needing help like this ment that you were "nitwitted" and I recall my friends at the time making terrible jokes about it. I was too scared to speak out cause I was too afraid of them perceiving me as anything but neurotypical. But I'm older now, and now it's wrong to think this way. Their is nothing wrong with needing help in school or being mentally handicapped. People process things differentl, that's just the facts. All schools should do their best to accommodate all students of varying processing abilities. I became one of the school's most improved students and since then I've been excelling relatively well. Now I dont even need tutoring or additional assistance. So in that regard, I'm happy the test I took in elementary school helped to adjust my schooling so I wasn't left behind.
ApexKnight You’d be interested to know that SJ Gould, in the book Shaun quotes (Mismeasure of Man), stated that some schools are using Binet’s “IQ” test as he originally intended: to identify kids with learning disabilities so they could get extra help. Gould said his own son was diagnosed that way.
I wasn’t evaluated for ADHD until I was in my 20s (often goes undiagnosed in young girls) and, all my life, I seriously struggled in math. Even in HS, I had to retake geometry 3 times because I kept failing it despite an honest effort to learn. What I didn’t know then was that the reason I struggled so much in math was related to my learning disability, because of my ADHD, I struggle with my working memory, meaning that, even though I had good comprehension of the overarching concepts, when it came to stuff as simple as holding the solution to one operation in my head and carrying that number into the next operation. I’d make basic errors. Forget the number and write down another one etc. It also didn’t help that I’ve got dyslexia w/numbers and mixed up their order a lot. My teachers tended to assume this was some sort of carelessness/ mental laziness and would scold me saying that when they checked my work they saw I was doing everything right except checking that I had the right numbers plugged into the equation. “Careless mistakes” they’d say. And it really messed with my self-esteem- I was a clever kid, but couldn’t see myself as such because I made such basic errors and was falling behind kids 3 years younger than me in math. It wasn’t until I took a remedial math course for a gen ed credit in college that I realized I’m not inherently bad at math. Something about having more freedom, with the teacher being less didactic about what “showing our work” should look like and being able to use a calculator allowed me to get a system in place that worked with how my brain works. It’s sounds silly, but being able to check my basic arithmetic on the calculator...not because I wasn’t able to do mental math, but because I didn’t have to rely on my working memory to do “42-35, hold that sum in my head, plug it into the next equation” I could just reference the calculator to see that I had the number right and being allowed to take my time, put every step onto paper, and write out all my intermediary sums...so basically, if I have to preform multiple operations I need to write down the answer each operation gets me to, do the next operation on that number etc. I’ve just got break it down into smaller steps and write out everything. I’m still slow going with math, but, for the first time, I saw that I am very capable of doing well in it. I got an A+ in that class and actually really came to enjoy math for the first time ever! It’s just when I was initially taught math, the strategies we were taught weren’t tailored to people like me who have a tendency to swap digits in numbers, forget where I am when counting etc. it just kinda assumed that wouldn’t be an issue for people. Even for people w/o learning disabilities, our brains have differences...for instance, some of us are visual learners etc. and if anything’s relevant to test kids for it’s probably that, you know “what methods of conveying information click best for this kid and how can we make sure that that’s being accommodated for?” And slow≠ not smart. Being slower at something can be valuable- it can mean you’re being more thoughtful and thorough. How do you distinguish a student who is simply slower at doing the work in this subject from a student who is struggling to comprehend and needs more attention? That’s a more interesting question to me than general intelligence.
Shaun, I just watched the entire video. This video is yet another thorough debunking of The Bell Curve. I wrote a debunking of that book in college and graduate school over 20 years ago, using some of the same sources as you (e.g. Inequality by Design, and Intelligence, Genes, and Success). It's great to see a resource like this become available to the newer, social media generation. Thank you for the time and effort you put into bringing this masterful work to the public.
@@clsisman Ay man, phrasing anything along the lines of "people like you usually aren't on the side of people like me, maybe you people are alright" isn't very cool. I know the ok boomer thing is big now, and you don't have any ill will, but it's comes off as ageist, and in a video breaking down the fallacies of discrimination we should remember to not see people as out group vs in group
@MeebleMeeble Wow you really like copy+pasting your bs all over. Anyway, about the stude where people were raised in middle-class background: there are things that affect people that are not only controlled for by a middle-class life. There is a stereotype that asians are smart. People usually like things they perceive themselves to be good at. Therefore an asian, who is told that they are supposed to be smart, will likely be drawn to other things correlated with higher intelligence(with limited proof of them being tied to actually increasing intelligence.) We live in a culture where most people have different expectations for different ethnic groups. These expectations shape us, regardless of if people grow up in similar homes, whether we realize it ourselves or not.
This video is really eye opening. I think it says a lot about bigoted people when, even if you accept their bullshit and say they're completely right and that some races are inferior, their solution is to discard them and let them suffer. I know Shaun talked about this but it's exactly what I was thinking. Even if it's true, why would you not help these people? When we see an old woman struggling with her groceries, our solution isn't to push her over and help the strong able-bodied man in front of her. Why the hell is the solution to this problem "fuck them"? Of course I think the answer is obvious. Because they don't actually want to help other races. They want a reason to dislike them and they want a reason to treat them poorly. It makes them feel better to fuck with statistics and "scientifically" show that they're correct because otherwise they'd be hating people for no reason, like an asshole. Anyways awesome video! I can't believe I watched the whole thing and actually understood the concepts in the book. When you first read those excerpts I thought "this sounds like a complicated topic that might have a point". After you explained it all, I thought "this sounds like it was written in the 1940s". No wonder the scientists of that era were so angry. It's disgusting.
beautifully written response, especially " When we see an old woman struggling with her groceries, our solution isn't to push her over and help the strong able-bodied man in front of her. Why the hell is the solution to this problem "fuck them"? Of course I think the answer is obvious." They are true demons and anti-human!
I'm a black South African and this is the same conclusion I came to as a 12 year old back when we first watched interviews of apartheid leaders. I'd get nauseated by their holier than thou attitude. A total lack of humanity
This actually reminded me of what people say about homeless people. "We shouldn't give them help/protection because they're all mentally ill" -- first of all, not true, second of all... Why do people with mental illness not deserve a bed and food?
People help the old lady because it's an easy to solve problem. The issues of helping an entire group of people are mind boggling complex. Even trying to discuss what the best outcome is and how to get there has a whole hurdle of philosophical issues. Then execution of a plan that works not only in the short term but also in the long term requires vast amounts of cooperation and diligence. Generally things as a trend have been getting better for everyone in a realistic sense even if the gap of wealth has increased.
And all full of brainrot, it’s disheartening to literally go on a reporting spree for a single person dragging the replies to 100+ and being explicitly racist in every other comment
Listening about how biased the different African test results were gave me so much second hand embarrassment. I've never gotten this much of this one emotion from a video before.
Yeah. As soon as Shaun said, “surely they wouldn’t base their statistics on the results of a racist and segregationist white supremacist state, would they?” I immediately thought, “…They took the scores from South Africa, didn’t they.”
The differences are actually larger when the tests are completely language and culture neutral. The Bell Curve isn't perfect, but it's science is far better than that presented here. Almost right away Shaun blatantly misrepresents cranial capacity studies, equating them with phrenology. He even has the audacity to use Gould as a source when Gould was shown to have deliberately lied about what the study showed to support his far-left politics. Using that disgraced liar as a source establishes early on the level of honesty one can expect from this video.
@@hideousruin Where is your evidence for any of your claims? Not only could I find no evidence Gould was a fraud or a far-leftist (unless center-left means far-left in your view) but the sources I did find suggest the opposite. Gould is very beloved by scientists; if he were a plagiarist or fraud, it would be known instantly and his reputation would be in shambles. I would also like a citation on your original claim, since anyone can just make a contrarian statement with no proof.
@@MrBrendanRizzo There isn't any. He's butthurt that all of his talking points are worthless and wrong, so he's attempting to poison the well so the debunks suddenly don't "matter" anymore.
It's worth noting perhaps that in the college admissions scandal, the rich people who were caught are in a way not actually *that* rich - they’re sort of the affluent class actor and celebrity types. The actual rich - or should I say wealthy - people don’t get involved in scandals like that because they can donate a wing to the college and ensure their offspring gets admittance. So even the 1% is nothing compared to the 0.0001%.
I always thought about this when the scandals were going on. A lot of those people were new rich, celebrities with acclaim but maybe not much capital. It’s sad that so many of them got fucked while the much larger variety of legal bribery and acceptance based on lineage is still alive and well.
@@billiecruz4399 systemic exploitation will never be solved, this is a guarantee. You need a centralized organisation with hierarchy to achieve anything in any economy. And those with sufficient intellectual capacity and drive will also include ambitious people with little moral consideration. This is inescapable feature of our life.
Shaun hasn't posted in, like, three months then drops a 2.5 hour video? *I'm here for it.* EDIT: Since this comment has received so many likes, I'd like to broadcast HUGE thanks to Shaun. I first heard of the Bell Curve from Sam Harris. I cowed to this myth because: 1) it was legitimized through Sam Harris who appeared to have understood it, and 2) Murray seemed to discuss his methodology clearly. I, as an African American with a familiarity with research, was ready to accept (and briefly did accept) the claim if the research pointed toward it. There was a problem though. Every single time right wingers used the Bell Curve and other race "science" to support their claim, I spotted deep methodological flaws, misapplication of statistics, and other severe faults in logic (I was in a few active right ring groups to hear if the opposing positions had much merit). I studied statistics in university, and I actually scored in the top 3% of the U.S. for my major, which was research intensive. But after an unbroken and uncontested streak of junk science and misapplication from race realists, some of which cited the Bell Curve, I decided to look into the Bell Curve myself (with my research background), and I was legitimately stunned by how misled I was from Harris, Murray, and me with my unwarranted trust. Shaun, this was immensely helpful in combatting a pernicious little right wing myth that's at the core of race realism and debunking a book pedestaled by pseudo-intellectual racists. TL;DR: Sam Harris is trash for not vetting and understanding the Bell Curve before inviting Murray on to discuss it as if his book is some compelling set of facts that the Left resists out of some misguided infantilism. Murray is trash for [insert 2 hour 40 minute video]. I'm trash for not spotting and questioning that narrative, and I've dedicated a lot of my time enlightening others to redeem myself. Shaun is NOT trash, and he is as cool as *buried bones* for dedicating a 2 hour 40 minute video to critically: 1) discrediting this labyrinthine network of malicious misreporting and 2) debunking a self-congratulating tome of junk science that proposes a truly fucking despicable bit of conservative and rightwing policy.
i mean like, a nearly three hour documentary would take many more months to create usually with a huge team at the presenter’s disposal, we should probably thank Shaun for all the time, effort, and hard work he put into this as well as any people who worked alongside him
When I was in high school I was really insecure and so paid $20 or whatever to do an IQ test so it could tell me I was smart. I actually ended up getting a pretty high score, but it was mostly math and had a lot of trigonometry and pre-calculus on there, which even at the time bothered me. Like, I'd just got done doing this in school within the last year or so, so of course I was good at it and could do it quickly. If this was supposed to be a test of one's unchanging, innate cognitive ability, shouldn't it be on something more universal or psychological and less like rote math problems you wouldn't even know if you were a few years younger than I was? Adding to that, math doesn't at all come naturally to me, so outside that specific school environment where I was doing it every day, the same test would probably determine that I dropped 20 points since I was in high school just because I forgot how exactly to order sines and cosines. At the time, I dismissed it because I figured I'm not an expert so how could I understand. In retrospect I definitely wasted $20 lol but it was an interesting experience I guess
A real IQ test is administered by a licensed psychologist and takes several hours to complete. It is nothing like a $20 multiple choice test. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale is the typical standard.
@Jacqueline A no, Shaun didn't use a modern academic book to debunk anything. He miss represented the arguments and ignored modern research and twin studies that completely validate the book.
@Jacqueline A to give you an example of how dishonest Shaun is. He literally cherry picked a random interview for the definition of hereditary traits. When the part he was criticisizing had the academic definition right next to it. He literally had to ignore it and go find something in a random interview.
You're studying psychometrics? Where are you doing your PhD, if you don't mind me asking? I go to the same school that the late Rushton used to teach at. :)
@MeebleMeeble Asians outperform white students in USA because US immigration policy only allowed rich Asians for ages until relatively recently, and children growing up in wealthy homes are more likely to perform well in academic tests. It has far more to do with environmental factors than race
-IQ test questions are prone to cultural, and pop-cultural bias. -While also genetic, Intelligence has significant environmental factors when accounting for adoptive families. -Tests were conducted in English when the participants are residents of African countries that do not speak English as their primary language. -A significant number of the tests cited were conducted in African countries that were ruled by white-supremacist governments (South Africa and Belgian Congo) that has a tendency of under-funding education and medical care for their black-majority citizens.
Minnesota twin study iirc, adopting children had no effect on their IQ and their IQ was similar to the biological parents. "environmental" factors do not necessarily mean "cultural(i.e. sociological)" people tend to misinterpret these things, when it usually means "non-internal but biologically affecting" factors. Culturally fair IQ tests were created, regardless of 'The Bell Curve" by itself, the IQ is relatively the same in those countries regardless.
- All twin studies roundly contradict your claim. - The authors could have omitted any racial element and the claims would stand. 99%+ of the book is not about racial differences. The authors accurately predicted the cognitive elite we see in Silicon Valley and east coast cities. Things have only gotten more separate because cognitive ability is far more important now that it was when they published. - All of us, including you, have met individuals who are smarter and the reverse in our lives. Pretending this isn't a thing is a childish way to avoid reality. Many people are smarter than me and it's not their fault or mine. This video is one, long-winded obscurantist gish-gallop completely avoiding the basic claims of the book. The nincompoop amazingly avoids the fact that ALL intelligence researchers, INCLUDING FLYNN, agree with the foundational claims of The Bell Curve, that it's not controversial, and that G continues to be the best predictor of very many things.
@@benhaylock7097 The ability to perform cognitively does not at all disprove IQ as a measurement. It is common sense that someone who is stressed, tired, distracted, or hungry would be unable to perform ideally on an IQ test. This can be controlled for in an individual or accounted for in a population. It does not invalidate the measurement itself.
@@CrusteanParliament "- All twin studies roundly contradict your claim." Source? When I put "All twin studies" into Google I don't get any studies. "- The authors accurately predicted the cognitive elite we see in Silicon Valley and east coast cities." Source? What is a cognitive elite? Who observed it? How did they demonstrate its existence? What is the significance of the authors of the The Bell Curve predicting this phenomenon? "Things have only gotten more separate because cognitive ability is far more important now that it was when they published." Source? How do we quantify "cognitive ability?" How do we quantify "important?" "- All of us, including you, have met individuals who are smarter and the reverse in our lives." What if I disagree? What bearing does this have on the argument? "Pretending this isn't a thing is a childish way to avoid reality." This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing. "This video is one, long-winded obscurantist gish-gallop completely avoiding the basic claims of the book." This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing. "The nincompoop amazingly avoids the fact that" This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing. "ALL intelligence researchers, INCLUDING FLYNN, agree with the foundational claims of The Bell Curve," Source? Quote? Anything? "All intelligence researchers" also turns up no studies. "that it's not controversial" I'm not going to ask for a source here because I easily found sources that indicate this is simply false. A work is automatically controversial if many people say it is. *Wikipedia: "The book has been, and remains, highly controversial"* *American Enterprise Institute: "October marks the 20th anniversary of “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,” the extraordinarily influential and controversial book"* _Jacoby, Russell, and Naomi Glauberman. The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions. Times Books, 1998._ These sources are iffy: Wikipedia is Wikipedia, the American Enterprise Institute openly labels itself a "think tank," and The Bell Curve Debate was published in 1998. I expect better sources from you. "G continues to be the best predictor of very many things." Can you explain what specifically G is? If not, how can you know enough to make this claim? Is there a source? What does your claim mean - G is the best predictor of what specifically, compared to what, by whom? I am giving you an IQ score of 30 for this comment because I want to. I guess that means you're just irredeemably, genetically stupid? Sorry!
So basically the authors think the economy will be better and society healthier if there is an uneducated underclass of peasants ruled by wealthy, educated elites? Someone has never read European History, especially 19th century European history. The peasants have never exactly appreciated being subjected to arbitrary oppression and doomed to perpetual poverty, which is why they rebelled _constantly_ and the lords had to go around killing a bunch of them every once in a while to keep the others obedient. Things didn’t actually get better for most people until some of these rebellions succeeded and the reforms stuck, allowing for socialist policies to be implemented through democracy after the kings were out of the way.
also the black plague caused there to be such a lack of workers that the workers that were left were now more valuable and less replaceable therefore had the ability to demand higher wage and better treatment. Just a fun fact
I think what they're saying is that society already organizes itself like just that, all the intelligent people rising to the top and ruling society. What the book advocates is that we stop trying to reverse it with social policy.
@@bunnyben5607 I don't think they merely want to stop trying to reverse it, the policies outlined are clearly meant to actively increase the stratification. And it is all disingenuous since they called that outcome "apocalyptic" early in the book.
Now describe successful sub saharan african societies and native american societies... human sacrifice daily, cannibalism, trading women for beads and beaver pelts. Much better system, indeed. In all seriousness, the USA was better on every metric, intelligence, high school test scores, crime and poverty metrics BEFORE 1969. Why is that? We've spent 1 trillion on the war on poverty starting about that time. Perhaps increasing the birth rates of the poor hasn't been the best idea, and so we need to ask ourselves if the problem is genetic.
For some reason people think equality means everyone is the same when it really means everyone is a human and should be treated with respect and dignity and have human rights
"Equal opportunity" ostensibly means equal access to resources, education, safety, work opportunities, political power, etc. But people usually just use it to mean "poor people deserve to be poor and rich people deserve to be rich"
@@bravetherainbow Exactly. Conservative worldviews typically believe that present hierarchies and injustices are due to everyone being "in their proper place." It's why reactionaries get so damn mad about reform. They see any benefit going to the "undeserving" in their eyes as a disruption of the natural order. Exact same brain-space that would have them arguing in favor of divine right monarchy a few centuries ago.
I'm very late to this party, but I wanted to jump in regarding their second defense of their regression analysis that you discuss at 1:53:15. What they are referring to is called multicollinearity, and it is indeed a problem in regression analysis. However, as you can probably expect by now, the way they discuss multicollinearity is very much misrepresenting the issue. When doing regression analysis, you can add in as many independent variables as you want, and the regression will indicate how strongly those variables tie in. However, if you were analyzing crime patterns for example, if you included average weekly temperature as well as ice cream sales, you will find both are positively correlated with crime rates. But you can look at this simply and say "well that makes sense as warmer weather will also increase ice cream sales, hence those 2 variables are correlated and one must be removed." But it isn't always the case where the link is very apparent, and that would be very much true in this intelligence study. So their process SHOULD have been to include as many potential variables as they can think of in their analysis and then run VIF tests for those variables to see which are correlated with each other. Then they would simply remove the variable they think is less directly involved and include their reasons why in the justification. Their decision to not even bother testing other variables is like going to your doctor because your arm hurts and they amputate it so it won't hurt anymore. You should always be overzealous with your independent variable selection and then use regression analysis testing to make corrections. In fact, you will see most academic papers with regression analysis will share and discuss multiple iterations of a model in their paper before presenting the final model as they have to correct for multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation. This is something even introductory statistics students learn, so I think it's reasonable to say their book wasn't written for scholarly reasons or with good intentions for that matter.
Nice job stretching the video to 10 minutes.
Yeah, if he just left the outro out he cold have easily made a 7 minute video.
@@skepticmonkey6923 there's a few parts where he essentially repeats himself, if those were left out it easily could have hit just under five minutes.
@@amcat8015 very true, and also if the video just skipped past the bit about the bell curve I reckon 3 minutes at the most
@@alexfarmer7778 if he stopped using weird words he could cut it down to 1 minute
I think it was well worth it though
Alfred Binet: This test will help kindergarteners get better help (:
Lewis Terman and Henry Goddard: STERILIZE THE FEEBLE MINDED AND SEND THEM OFF TO COLONIES
Adam Merrill *alfred Binet
Ryan Japan thanks
That makes me so sad :(
Adam Merrill your welcome
You mean world history in a nutshell. Dicks always ruin things people create with good intentions.
Something about the matter-of-fact dry delivery of Shaun's many humorous comments fucking kills me .
"Binet died in 1911, and has since spent the majority of his time spinning in his grave, due to everything else we are going to talk about today" caught me so off guard.
Dry, droll commentary is best read in whatever dialect this is. (Liverpoolian? Apologies for my ignorance.)
Liverpudlian
😂😂
The Manusmriti (Hindu text) is the first text(ever) on racial hierarchy and IQs
It is not only limited to ethnic groups and castes in India.
It's a great text written in ancient India but heavily criticized for promotion of casteism ( but it does not promote it but rather scientifically explains it why it exists.)
But if you read it you will find it's very true and explains the situation of world and various ethnicities and castes which exist.
I would recommend it to anyone interested.
..........,
I think it’s telling that, even if we assume every claim that the book makes is true, it’s conclusion is “Yes, life is categorically harder and more challenging for some people, and as such it is our duty to make their life even worse” absolutely wild
Yes, it seems the policy proposals were meant to eliminate these inequalities by simply eliminating the people on the lower end of the discrepancy. Dead people can't lower population IQ, can they? The stated intentions are just a way to put lipstick on the pig that is ethnic cleansing.
A bit of topic but I have to say I love your profile picture it also fits your username
When I heard they were arguing for removing welfare for single mothers as a incentive not to become one my jaw dropped. What about those who are single mothers right now??? And what about those who did not plan, want or even think it was possible for them to become single mothers? What if the father died? What if the father turned abusive after years of a happy relationship? Those aren't any fault of the mother, and could not be predicted, and the authors of the bell curve decided that those mothers should be punished for that.
@@eigilholm6979that’s because single mothers are morally corrupt women because they don’t adhere to how good Christian women behave, according to Charles’ interpretation of The Book (which is the only good interpretation).
/s, obviously…
The naked evil of conservative politics
I trust Shaun's opinion on phrenology, he is a skull after all.
Marcus Byrd I mean aren’t we all skulls on the inside
The real skulls were the friends we made along the way.
@@blackieblack
NOOOOPE!
@@blackieblack You're really smart. I hope you're caught up on the latest episode of Rick and Morty. I have noticed a lot of people say it requires high IQ to understand so I recommend it for you. You know us high IQ UA-cam commenters have to help each other increase intelligence.
@@blackieblack Play with star wars collectibles one must not
"Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" - Jules Henri Poincaré
thank you woomy
Ooh, nice quote.
Nice. And, of course, as Shaun demonstrates, *some of those aren't stones*. Some are paper mache; some aren't suitable for building... and some are just coprolite.
Replying to save this quote lol
@@SuperMan-ux5ew Just keep a Word doc on your desktop titled "Good Quotes," that's what I do and this one is certainly going in it!
Me: *scrolling through Netflix* I don't think I can commit to a movie right now
Also me: watches a Shaun video the length of a feature film
So true. I have not watched a movie in months now, yet I gave this Video a go and watched it completely.
@Shaun: I hope you are aware of your achievement and not (like me very often) focusing too much on the things that didn't go perfectly.
@@devendrabutthurt just like your friend Shaun
@Internet Explorer RationalWiki has him pegged as another alt-right weirdo.
@Internet Explorer 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
What are you doing here? Do you really think you can recruit from *this audience?*
saame
Dear Shaun,
Ever since discovering your famous "Harry Potter" video, I have been listening to your other works and absolutely love your takes and content. I like to sew in my free time and listening to you while crafting is very relaxing as well as informative and educational. I feel like I'm using my time much better now.
So, thank you!
@@n48_art sorry, english isn't my first language but thanks for pointing it out!
@@n48_art Shaun's video about Harry Potter has 3.5 million views. I recommend watching it! :)
Literally sewing while listening to this. Crafty Shaun Crew!
his voice is so relaxing that even though the subject matter is horrendous I weirdly enjoy listening to him lol
I do the same thing but with mining in world of Warcraft. Shaun has made me very rich in that game
This video is almost 31 Sargons long.
I calculated It, now I know Sargon is about 5 minutes long, that was probably intentional.
and you can't even calculate the sources used by multiplying, because Sargon either doesn't include them, or just uses a headlime and ignores the content.
@Stanley Fisher To paraphrase the best line from a recent movie "I pity his wife if he thinks 5 minutes is an eternity."
It's 31.95 Sargons, to be exact
@@irisofrosebloom8741 so 31950 milliSargon. Something about saying milliSargon makes me happy.
Man, that talk on forced sterilization hit hard. I grew up in Alberta (province in Canada) and that was a reality for a lot of Albertans until the early 70s. Primary targets were Indigenous women. My mom had a friend who had been sterilized without her knowledge or consent. This shit happened, and not long ago.
The communists used to sterilise undesirables as recently as the 80s here.
@ancalyme that’s such a general statement lol
@Filthy N'Wah what are you on about? I just said that the statement was very non specific which it was
@Filthy N'Wah if you get that angry and start seeing straw men everywhere calling everybody communist and blue pilled then you should get off the political side of the internet for a while
@Filthy N'Wah just stop embarrassing urself. Cringe.
For Whom the Bell Curves?
For all the lives lost due to hierarchical thinking influencing and bending data.
this comment deserves a gold sticker
it curves for THEE
For the racists.
Each of our deaths diminishes we,
Despite his claiming to tower over our kind.
And our lad now observes
For whom the bell curves;
Truly, it curves for he.
The best argument against people who claim that the Bell Curve isn't racist is the fact that Murray isn't some incorporeal being who manifested out of thin air, wrote the book, and returned to the ether. He's a real person with a Twitter account, and oh boy.
Do I even dare to look...
i just looked and that is so unfortunate
Real bile to be honest
So is Relativity a womanizer? Is the Photo electric effect a divorcee? Murray's personhood, beliefs, actions or even comments....Have absolutely nothing to do with data. What's more dangerous than any idea. Is a person or ideology that convinces you to not think critically. Hitler starved Denmark during WW2. Many woman unfortunately were pregnant at the time. The grandchildren of those women are 80x more likely to be morbidly obese. The finding launched investigations that uncovered the importance of many genes. It helped found the discipline of epigenetics. The policies, laws, entitlements, social engineering and programs. That are most responsible for negative environments for human development. Are almost exclusively promoted by, voted for and legislated by people.....wait for it......Who are most critical of The Bell Curve?...huh....So the group of people who claim that The Bell Curve is racist. Is the exact same group of people. Who does everything that it can to ensure poverty, drug addiction, fatherlessness, gun violence, poor schools joblessness, poor policing and hopelessness always thrives. Hmmm seems more likely to me. That the critics of The Bell Curve are the racist ones but who knows.... Maybe I just know how to think better than I am told what to think.
To borrow a phrase from another great LeftTube channel: "Maybe Charles Murray shouldn't be taken seriously by anybody about anything."
Being a disembodied skull with sunglasses, I'd imagine phrenology is particularly offensive to you. Would be like being judged only by your appearance.
Polybius it would be exactly being judged by their appearance
“Huh, Shaun hasn’t posted in a really long time...”
*sees this*
“I understand completely”
"Because god has punished me for my hubris, and my work is never finished."
-Brian David Gilbert
@Mark Donald don't worry, their ad-homs will defeat his counter..
Same lmao
@Mark Donald damn the actual only counter-argument used in that video is that in TBC they use at some point the correct definition of heritability, but it still omits that TBC authors never use the right definition to prove their conclusions. And on top of that, the second counter--argument is basically calling Shaun a "bigot" and a "son of a b*tch". wow, very cool, thank you.
@Mark Donald So his counter-argument is that they mention the correct definition of heritability in the bell curve and stops there as if Murray not mentioning a correct definition of heritability underpins the argument being presented here? Given the fact that that UA-camr accepted Shaun's definition as adequate, how is it that this UA-camr can, on one hand, accept that hereditability is only measurable within a discrete population ("within a group") and yet defend TBC in its attempt at using heritability across different groups. The point still stands that (regardless of whether TBC mentions the definition correctly) TBC USES the concept incorrectly in practice.
I see in the comments of that video that supporters of this UA-camr like to throw around ad-hominem and strawman as cool buzzwords. This video is probably the best example of a strawman you will see as it intentionally doesn't address the actual point of Shaun mentioning heritability and instead presents a pathetically watered version of the argument that is (unsurprisingly) easily defeated.
This really hits different after that report that nearly 75% of Harvard's legacy students don't meet the academic standards to be admitted.
Ironically the reason is genetic. It's called "reversion to the mean". People tend to move half way towards the mean in a later generation.
@@xpusostomos no. That's not what regression to the mean is. Regression to the mean is a statistical thing which happens to a single population upon multiple repeated measures. People who score particularly high or low the first time are like to have a score closer to the mean the next time because of luck. It has nothing to do with college admissions.
@@SirPhysics You are talking about regression to the mean in the randomness of measurements. Regression to the mean in genetics is about the randomness of what genes you get. The children of two very tall parents will usually be shorter than the parents. The children of two very short parents will usually be taller than the parents. Because the unlikely random circumstances that led to being extremely tall or short is unlikely to reoccur. So pockets of extreme people, including extremely smart people, will see their descendents revert back to the mean. It's partly because of mixing genes back with the wider population, and partly because we all have recessive genes, and when you procreate your children won't necessarily get the extreme gene, they'll get the other one. So with regards legacy intakes to Harvard, your dad might have been a genius, that means you might be a bit above average, but it's unlikely you'll be the genius he was.
@@xpusostomos This is completely unrelated to college admissions. Legacy admissions do not exist because of some assumption that the children of people who went to Harvard are more likely to be intelligent than the general population (if that were the case, it wouldn't be institution specific). It's just nepotism.
*Edit: Also, it has nothing to do with genetics. "Regression to the mean" is specifically about statistics. It's NOT a genetic thing. A parent identified as brilliant is likely to have had positive environmental factors contribute to their development in a statistically unlikely way, while their child, even if that child were a perfectly identical clone, is unlikely to have the same environmental benefit and so they will, statistically, be lower in that trait than their parent.
@@SirPhysics I never said that legacy admissions exists because of a genetic assumption, I just said it's unsurprising that most legacy admissions don't meet the standard. As for your continued ignorance about the meaning of regression towards the mean in genetics, Google is your friend, read the wikipedia article about "Regression towards the mean" and its discussion of how it works in genetics. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another thing to refuse to learn when someone tries to help you. As for environment... it tends to be reinforcing, not regressing to the mean. Someone smart by luck, will have a lot of money and give their children an even better environment than he had. Someone dumb by luck will be a pauper and give his children an even worse upbringing. This is the opposite of regression to the mean. In any case, things like height aren't especially affected by environment. You might be an inch or two shorter if you're starving, it doesn't change a lot. The same is true for IQ, but folks like you find it hard to accept because it doesn't fit your ideology.
I felt so much relief when I realised that complex fields like Quantum Physics, computer programming, and maths were just learning basic stuff, the simple tricks that work well, why they work, and then just progressively combining and modifying those simple tricks together to solve more complex problems.
I've just started learning coding, and the truth is you learn everything in an hour. The basic stuff is all it is. The advanced stuff is just learning how to combine them to achieve whatever you need, memorising the quirks of whatever language or platform you're using.
Sure, it's actually extremely complex and vast, you could stick to a single subject and never learn everything there is, but once you have that basic foundation it feels so much more open. Even the best in the field are just using the same basic tools as you.
I always felt very unintelligent, just completely unable to comprehend "smart" subjects like science, maths, technology. Now I feel like I could learn anything, since I really only have to learn the basics and then build on that. I think this way of thinking really helps people who have come to honestly believe they're just "dumb" and are inherently incapable of understanding anything "smart", those who are neurodivergent, struggled with school as kids, didn't have good teachers, and/or had a rough childhood that prevented them from learning how to learn.
It's been said before but when it comes to learning skills, it doesn't matter where you start, what matters is how much you improve. And it's never too late to learn, you don't reach a certain age and become incapable of absorbing and internalising new information. People are surprised when old people are still actively trying to learn new things instead of stagnating and slowly rotting to death.
What I'm saying is: We need to bully old people into learning Python.
also we should strap a generator onto Binét's corpse and generate some free electricity, we put so much money and effort into eugenics that it'd be nice to finally get something out of it.
Exactly!!!!!!!
Putting everything thing in a geometric context, and working backwards from a whole helped me become much more logical. Half doubling opposites and rotation concepts really helped to. Everything is a process of elimination
I think everyone has to be allowed to practice in an idiosyncratic manner using concepts that work best for them, for sure. Your environment is often telling you that's a bad thing and it can cause you a lot of grief
10/10 comment. 11/10 conclusion. you have my vote!
If you listen to Shaun at 1.25 times the speed, you don't miss anything and you only need 80% of the time. If you listen to him at 1.50 times the speed, he sounds verry angry. At double the speed he becomes the Anti-Shapiro
And if you listen to it at .75 he sounds like he's having a really hard time reading or that he's reading real slow for the listener.
I've become so used to watching anything other than comedy and music sped up, that I had to speed up shaun past 2x to deal with his slow speaking.
Great information though.
*pulls up the Javascript console and pushes the speed up to 4x*
ENGAGE ANTI-SHAPIRO POWAAAAAAAAA
Gotta go _fast!_ *cue Sanic theme"
Yeah I don’t speed up everybody, but I’ve gotten used to speeding James tullos up to 1.25 to sound just a touch faster than normal bc he talks slow, so it’s funny to me that Shaun speaks only a hair faster than James at 1.0, when Shaun is at 1.25 😂
I genuinely love how he gets so annoyed at Richard Lynn's study: "It's almost criminal, and if it's not a crime it should be." More people need to be this angry about scientific dishonesty!
@Rudi Winkler Why? Shaun's not wrong. Two things I'd like to point out is that a number of arguments used in the video you link are emotional ones, and a lot of the sources used to try and disprove Shaun's points in those videos come from people who are either ridiculed or ignored academically because they're on the same level as Richard Lynn, and some of the sources used were from people who directly worked with him.
In other words, the guy trying to debunk Shaun's video did exactly what Murray did, pick the first convenient source at hand and use it without seeing if it was intellectually honest. At least I hope that's what he did, because the alternative is that he knew exactly what he was doing.
@Rudi Winkler all your linked videos are either private, or deleted...
@@Agilaz89 I've seen the videos so I'll summarize for the ones that are no longer available. Somebody tried to refute Shaun by using other writers from Mankind Quarterly, the same discredited association that published people like Richard Lynn, and they used discredited academics who did equally poor studies, or who had worked directly with Richard Lynn to help him with his earlier works. It was actually hard to find a single source that isn't discredited or tied into a fake academic paper, and the only one I saw was one where the user directly lied about the results.
@@Teadon86 No, it was making the point that Richard Lynn and his colleagues lied. They lie about the results, and that's why they're discredited.
Looking purely at race and IQ correlations tells us little, unless you think you can tell us why it plays a part when ethnic children in a similar environment to white children perform on a similar level, or why disadvantaged white children perform on a similar level to disadvantaged ethnic children. This is something briefly mentioned in the video, but it seems you didn't get that far.
Your third paragraph is entirely wrong because you're acting as if Shaun is saying what he believes when he's presenting the arguments of the Bell Curve and their counterarguments when he's not. His use of Phrenology (a word you don't seem to know despite seeming to believe in it and it being used in the video) is also correct.
@@Teadon86 Never got a notification for this reply, but the videos sources demonstrate that they do perform at a similar level.
Until Quinton reviews brought it up i had no idea "choclate rain" by Tay Zonday namedropped the bellcurve
"The bell curve blames the baby's DNA
Chocolate Rain
But test scores are how much the parents make
Chocolate Rain"
i had no idea until i read your comment
Holy shit I never noticed chocolate rain was so woke 😅
For a meme song, it’s really clever
Yup. Memes aside it's actually a pretty succinct list describing how pervasive systemic racism is.
@@fullmetaflak Lol is "systemic racism" also the reason for literally all black-white differences in living standards dissolving once you control for IQ?
During my autism assessment-*shudder*-I was required to take an IQ test. The test contained questions such as “Which of the following movies did Brad Pitt appear in?,” and despite the assessment taking place in my home country of Canada, the test was designed in Texas. As a result, it included a pronunciation section (the college student administering that portion of the test said “PRONOUNCE-iation”) whose answers were given in American English, and I later verified that many of the answers conflicted with the official pronunciation in Canada. The majority of the test consisted of general knowledge questions, so that shit’s still going on.
U shouldve been tested with WAIS-R, not some texas "american scientists" trash
I'm lucky my autism assessment didn't have an IQ test. Jeez.
Ugh. The most ironic part is that IQ-based elitists are generally the same type of people who think celeb culture and Brad Pitt movies are stupid and useless and only consumed by stupid and useless people.
Funny, if I was going to design an intelligence test, being able to remember facts about celebrities is something I'd take away points for.
@@max-ud1xb On the other hand the movies Brad Pitt is in tend to be quite a bit better than the ones other "main" celebrities from that period were doing. I mean with stuff like Fight Club or Ingluorious Basterds
For mobile users
6:15 Intelligence
17:18 The Bell Curve
30:03 General Intelligence
57:21 IQ Tests
1:41:15 IQ vs Environment
2:02:34 Politics
Thanks!
Gracias
Nice
@roger barron note that you talk without even possibly having watched through the video, stable soldier mindset you got there fam
roger barron What? The video is over 2hrs long and has only been out for 35minutes, how would you know that?
Shaun: The Movie is here, finally
Fake Blood The Sheep and of the Dead better watch out, because this is the definitive Shaun movie.
Uno: the movie
this is also my first reaction!
Good thing it's December and I brought my peanuts.
Wait, I recognize that fursona. Do I follow you on Twitter?
Mate of mine increased his "IQ" by 17 points in a year and a half by practicing on IQ test papers just so he could get into MENSA.
IQ tests don't measure your intelligence, they measure how good you are at taking IQ tests
@@jhonatanhernandez3568 false. IQ tests are prett self explanatory in how they measure each intellectual facet
@@jhonatanhernandez3568 This actually does make sense
Yeah you're not supposed to take it more than once, he basically just cheated.
@@mrniceguywinkyface1524 oh he cheated, but measuring IQ once and once only is daft; it's demonstrable that the same person could get different results depending on external factors
By the way, Binét spent much of his life post Simon-Binét Test working with Simon (his close scientific partner) to improve the test. He didn't just quit when he released the test, he spent incredible amounts of time honing it. Towards the end of his life, when word got to him that his test was revised to be used for eugenics, he was very angry and called the tests "bastardized." They had the fucking gall to add his name to a test that was the absolute antithesis of what he stood for.
I spent grades 1-12 in special education, so, over those years, I met and became good friends a lot of people who struggled with schoolwork. I can't even BEGIN to fathom a way to explain to you how much more there was to these people than their "incompetence" because they weren't good at what society deems what intelligence is. I sometimes think about my time in elementary school and miss the kids who enriched me so heavily. A lot of people just aren't well equiped for learning book smarts.
With that context of my life, I think it's obvious as to why I consider Binét a personal hero. He was a trailblazer who led not only the path to helping kids with academic needs, but also ensuring that they would be seen as the humans they are; fostering understanding for them and their troubles.
Well, that's stupid. If the test measures for ability, then it can be used for eugenics (with the assumption that genes account for part of the score, which they obviously do). If it doesn't, then it's invalid.
@@Bridge2110 He was commissioned by the French government. He stressed time and time again that it was _not_ at all a good way to measure intelligence, and that there were an incredible amount of variables that no test could possibly take into account. It worked well enough to identify struggling children, but using it to determine who is "lesser" and wipe out their genes is a GIGANTIC step that, even if eugenics is justifiable, would create insane amounts of errors. Also, much of the Stanford-Binét test was designed for the express purpose of eugenics, so much was changed in order to create "proof' that minorities are "lesser" (i.e. discriminate). That's why Binét called the tests "bastardized".
@@None-Trick_Pony If the test could find struggling children, then the eugenic idea that requires finding struggling children could use the test to do that. Now, if you want to say that test wasn't a good measure of intelligence, that's beside the point. Really, I'm just questioning your logic here. If a test is designed to find those who aren't doing well, and people use it to do just that, and then act on those people, that isn't the test being bad or bastardized.
@@Bridge2110 I get what you're saying, but how good it is matters as the big problem here is a matter of scope. Binét's tests were tailor-made for kids. The bastardized tests were distributed to test people of all ages, race, ethnicities, cultures, etc. Those tests were designed to discriminate against non-whites. These tests were bastardized because they were made mostly to prove "Nordic superiority" and then exclude everybody else. The Stanford-Binét Test included questions on arithmatic, literature, etc. Those test general knowledge, not intelligence. Now remember that when the test came out, racial segregation was still everywhere in the US (where the test was distributed), so non-whites got extremely poor educations, furthering the uselessness of the test. The Stanford-Binét Test and its descendants were bastardized and not valid for eugenics because, unlike the Simon-Binét Test, they didn't test intelligence. They tested how good your education was. The Simon-Binét Test was already sketchy in terms of determining intelligence, taking it and editing it so it included general knowledge questions made it completely unusable to those without an agenda. Therefore they were bastardized.
The Simon-Binét Test tested how capable you were in school, the Stanford-Binét Test tested how good your education was (i.e. whether you were white or not). That's bastardizing the test.
@@Bridge2110 So your saying there's nothing wrong with sterilizing minorities, and the poor? that's what the eugenicists were doing.
On rewatch I've now realised: if programs like Head Start are ultimately wasteful because it's pointless to try and increase a child's intelligence beyond their genetic limit, then why should the money be redirected to gifted children? Why would we try to increase their intelligence beyond its genetic limit? Any temporary benefits to the gifted will surely just fade over time, and the money would be better spent elsewhere, like educating old men in proper application of stats.
Because education doesn't increase intelligence you answered your own question
You can compare physical ability to intelligence
Height = Intelligence
Training = Education
And what is the end goal? Achievement
Olympic medals, championships = Patents, scientific breakthroughs, research papers
In order to win Olympic medals, for most sports at an Elite level height is a BIG DEAL, especially if you get rid of all weight classes.
The average Olympic male is 6 foot tall, thats 90th percentile heightwise. And if you got rid of weight classes this would average would shoot up even more.
Likewise when you look at intellectual achievements you would see one common thing, most of the most productive smart guys all have high IQ or perform well on things that correlate with high IQ. The average STEM professor has 130-140 IQ thats a 98-99.6 percentile IQ
So it makes a lot more sense to focus resources in training the gifted,
Because no matter how much you train a 5'6" guy in boxing he is not going to stand a chance against a 6'6" boxer
You could give the 5'6" the best nutritionists, the best personal chefs, freddie roach himself he is still going to get beat by the 6'6" guy
Likewise you give resources to a 80IQ guy, and he won't be able to hold a candle against a 140 iq guy
-----------------------------------
I hope this analogy makes sense
In order to get Scientific Achievement you need Intelligence + Education
But if you don't have the intelligence in the first place, no amount of education will enable Achievement
Likewise
In order to get Physical Achievements you need Height + Training
If you don't have height in the first place, no amount of training will enable achievement
@@xblade11230 first of all, using the book's own logic your sports analogy doesn't work - their hyper focus on intelligence in the job market, success in the economy etc. means that even if you did focus on the gifted by their logic the effects would still fade over time. It's all wasted effort.
But the larger point that I was actually (and sarcastically) making is that this isn't how anything works at all. In case you didn't watch the video, IQ does not equal intelligence and intelligence does not equal success. I would be willing to bet that STEM professors score high on IQ tests because they're trained in maths and critical thinking, practiced in language skills, and well-used to an academic environment, not to mention passionate about logic and science, not just because they're smart. And besides, the real goal behind money spent on programs like Head Start is not stellar academic achievement, it's to bring kids who are currently struggling because of disadvantage up to an academic minimum for the chance of future opportunity. Shaun doesn't really say it out loud, but H&M have a very clear "fuck the poor" attitude and aren't afraid to use dodgy logic to try and justify it. So my point was that perhaps the real people deserving of our help are the doddering old men who don't understand how the world works.
@@allnaturalfigjam310 >the gifted by their logic the effects would still fade over time.
And the same applies to training, the minute you to stop training your skill will gradually fade over time.
Thats why head start doesn't last, because its just "extra" training and the minute they stop they go back to normal
And yes Scientists are pretty damn comparable to olympic athletes in that they represent the highest percentile of skill in their craft.
Stem has one of the highest drop out rates, and already self selects for the strongest students with the students that know that they are weak opting for easier subjects. And only a tiny handful will go back for masters, and out of those people only a handful will go for a PHD.
-------------------------------------------
>IQ does not equal intelligence and intelligence does not equal success.
And I have never made this statement
IQ is a proxy for intelligence, but it is not actually measuring intelligence.
Imagine if we COULDN'T measure height, We can still predict someone's height with proxies
For example if we knew a persons max dunk height we could reliably guess someone's height with some degree of accuracy.
This is what an IQ test is, we can't test intelligence, but we have an IQ test that gives you a number that correlates with intelligence.
And this is why one of the most important things about a IQ test is its only valid if you are unfamiliar with IQ tests.
So if you remove jump training from the dunk test, suddenly your guesses on what someone's actual height becomes more accurate.
--------------------------------------
>I would be willing to bet that STEM professors score high on IQ tests because they're trained in maths and critical thinking
Except they scored in the 140's as CHILDREN, and were never informed about their IQ scores. We have many long term IQ scientific studies of kids taking IQ tests and then tracking them down as adults to get updates.
Oh and we have twin studies, with twins reared apart with IQ heritability at 80%, Twins reared together is 82% heritability, Fraternal twins is like 60%, Siblings is 40%, And adopted siblings is 0%
@@xblade11230 Are you... Liking your own comments? Dude that is thirsty. I'm not having this discussion if you're going to claim something so ridiculous as a 0% correlation of IQ between adopted siblings. Seriously, I know you're probably exaggerating but it would take you literally 10 seconds to Google that. Or maybe just watch the video - watch it on 2x speed if you like, I know it's long but there's some good stuff in there.
@@allnaturalfigjam310 it's not correlation it's heritability r^2 , there's an entire wiki page on it
Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population.
Studies of human heritability often utilize adoption study designs, often with identical twins who have been separated early in life and raised in different environments. Such individuals have identical genotypes and can be used to separate the effects of genotype and environment. A limit of this design is the common prenatal environment and the relatively low numbers of twins reared apart. A second and more common design is the twin study in which the similarity of identical and fraternal twins is used to estimate heritability. These studies can be limited by the fact that identical twins are not completely genetically identical, potentially resulting in an underestimation of heritability.
Heritability for traits in humans is most frequently estimated by comparing resemblances between twins. "The advantage of twin studies, is that the total variance can be split up into genetic, shared or common environmental, and unique environmental components, enabling an accurate estimation of heritability".Fraternal or dizygotic (DZ) twins on average share half their genes (assuming there is no assortative mating for the trait), and so identical or monozygotic (MZ) twins on average are twice as genetically similar as DZ twins. A crude estimate of heritability, then, is approximately twice the difference in correlation between MZ and DZ twins, i.e. Falconer's formula H2=2(r(MZ)-r(DZ)).
😳What if we kissed while watching The Shaun Movie?😳
And we were both boys 😬😬😳😳😳😳😬😬
Now *this* is a slice of fried gold
We’d end up banging it out... To the whole playlist
I mean, if you insist 😘
Jimmy L 😏
This video is two minutes longer than the bell curve audio book
A debunking sadly would be. Due to how explanations work take longer.
@@alexsmith2910 A fun word to describe the phenomenon that you mention is called the "bullshit asymmetry principle". The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than it is to produce it.
@@jeremyoz2137 Thank you for this new acquired knowledge
Could we get an audiobook version of the Bell Curve just read by Shaun in a fully sarcastic voice?
Is this true!? OMG, I want it to be true!
If people need some cheering up after a heavy subject like this, here’s another fun correlation: the amount of babies born in Denmark for many years was highly correlated with the amount of pairs of storks ☺️
Duh, how did you think the babies got there? We’ve known this for decades, ever since the release of Yoshi’s Island in 1995.
aawwwww
Made me feel a lot better. Thank you.
keep denmark white. Ethnics dont care for wildlife like europeans do
@@hihello8771 The Nazis lost. Get over it.
Determining people’s intelligence based on how far they say they can shoot a load is as “bro Science” as Science can get.
Sounds like something a 13yo would come up with.
“Nah bro, there’s totally a statistically significant correlation here! The *p* is stored in the balls!”
@@fluffynator6222 Hey, I can understand why - judging by these standards, when I was 13 I was a fucking *GENIUS*!!!
@@alexroselle This joke deserves more likes than it has!
My iq increases dramatically if i edge
i've watched this video maybe 20 times now and "multiple stab wounds shown to shorten life expectancy" still gets me every time
TWENTY EIGHT STAB WOUNDS
Source: ua-cam.com/video/cQ7J7UjsRqg/v-deo.html
You watched a 2 hour 40 minute video 20 times?
@@TheStoenk It makes good background noise for busy work. Source: I’m doing that right now
@@pantheon6920 Phew... I thought I was the only weirdo doing that but seeing your upvotes I'm glad that I'm not the only one.
So you’re saying that skull shape doesn’t mean decide wether or not you are morally allowed to have sex? Weird
@Charles R. Law just get one of those upholstered headboards that's cushioned lol
ua-cam.com/video/KHYMnrcqhz0/v-deo.html
Foppington's Law
Once bigotry or self-loathing permeates a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls. - Natalie Wynn
@aG a IDK to whom your comment is addressed, but I live in North St. Louis. It's very black. So I don't really see your point.
The Manusmriti (Hindu text) is the first text(ever) on racial hierarchy and IQs
It is not only limited to ethnic groups and castes in India.
It's a great text written in ancient India but heavily criticized for promotion of casteism ( but it does not promote it but rather scientifically explains it why it exists.)
But if you read it you will find it's very true and explains the situation of world and various ethnicities and castes which exist.
I would recommend it to anyone interested.
This video sent me down the de-radicalization process about a year ago. I'm lucky to have had enough decency to be upset by the assertions of so called "race realists", but I'm also lucky to have had a place to go to truly see how baseless their claims are, a place that set me on a larger journey of de-radicalization. Thank you.
PS:
Some may still call me a radical, but at least now I'm on the good side.
Look at Lasker et al 2019 to see direct evidence of these "baseless" claims. It's good that you were de-radicalized in theory, but I get the sense that all you mean by that is not that you changed your prescriptive beliefs, but just what you accept as fact, in which case, this video not being a good faith analysis of the science at all, is a shame.
Thomas Bridgewater so many words and yet nothing said.
@@nutboy93 "This video is disingenuous, and here is evidence of the basic claim" is me saying nothing?
@@Bridge2110 apologies, but why would the video be disingenuous for stating it is fallacious of the book to source IQ tests given in languages the testers could not understand?
*Me on twitter*
"Oh nice, Shaun's uploaded a video. I know he's mentioned working on this one a lot, so I presume it'll be a good 45 minutes or so."
*Opens feature length film*
Hey now, Feature Length starts at 90 minutes. This is way longer. This is like a Peter Jackson movie.
This Lyn character really went to apartheid-era KZN and administered an English IQ test🤦🏾♀️
I’m Zulu. I’m a very lucky South African who grew up in an urban Joburg environment. I went to a good English speaking school and my mother made sure English was my first language by limiting speaking Zulu in our house until I started going to an English speaking school.
When I go visit family friends in KZN, we hardly _ever_ speak English. When we go visit family in Soweto, we hardly ever speak English. Their English is poor, and I’m talking about my born-free generation. (Black people born in the post-apartheid South Africa). I cannot imagine them doing well with an English-language IQ test, never mind how well their parents would have done during the 1980’s apartheid-SA.
Thank you for the context!
There are tons of lQ tests that do testing without even using language, for goodness sakes. You are ignorant about how they test.
@@georgewashington2930 Well in this scenario that wasn't the case. You are ignorant to this comment because you didn't read it fully.
Yooooo!!! I'm in the Burg right now. I love ❤️💕💖 your country
@Lintra Harrington awe! Have a great stay, thank you for visiting! I hope you enjoy your time here 🇿🇦 ❣️
Guys I did a scientific study and I found out that I’m actually smarter than everyone else.
If you disagree, you hate science
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam You understand that saying that doesn't prove you're not racist, right? The problem is the method and ideology, not who you think is on top of the made-up biological hierarchy.
@@Arrakiz666 I don't care about proving that I'm not "racist".
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam Well, there's yer problem!
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam - you seem to care a lot about who is and isn't though. It would put quite a dampener on your accusations if you ended up being one, no?
@@PersonwhousesUA-cam Why are you being so racist?
Coming back I still would like to argue with eugenicists about the usefulness of intelligence. The Human niche has only happened once. Crab has happened multiple times. The new measure should be crab quotient
The Lorb approves.
intelligence has been shown to be related to many things we care about, such as income, school performance, and even longevity, so I think we should stick with it.
@@BUSeixas11 cart/horse
@@christophergreen6595 nope. The direction of causality goes from intelligence to those things. Just read Ian Deary’s work
@@BUSeixas11 everyone knows high-IQ babies can hunt for themselves, lolol
1:33:07 "'It is proposed therefore to round this figure up to 70'... why?"
Such a small moment but also somehow manages to show just how batshit crazy some of the statistical analysis is in these papers.
You know you're doing good statistics when you literally just start changing the data for the hell of it.
I'm impressed by the boldness of it. It's not accidentally screwing up like the misunderstanding around heritability, it's not weaselly screwing up like using skewed factor analysis or p-hacking to make the data say what you want, you just... straight change the number. And then tell everyone that's exactly what you did. Incredible.
@@sixstringedthing Is it better or worse than reporting a study's sample size as the average IQ?
"A moron uses statistics in the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination."
how about not being ableist?
especially given the eugenics and denigration and marginalization of people with actual/perceived lower intellectual abilities...
don't accept nazi framework, and use ableist slurs as insults?
@nihilismful
first of all, you might wanna check if you're right before starting to explain things to random person on the internet - I might be the one with more knowledge...
(but not native English speaker so ignore the mistakes)
Now -
a. you don't need to intend it to be ableist (same for every other bigotry)
b. it doesn't matter if it's "outdated" when it's used, connotations are there, we all know. People alive today have/d close ones institutionalized with those diagnosis (all officially abandoned in 70ies, afair). People with actual or perceived lack of intellectual or other abilities are bullied with those words today.
Those are never said in endearing way.
So it's exactly the same as for r-word, but st**id also,
when the principle is to not insult people on basis of their abilities, you avoid all of them, be it stronger or milder "case"
ie
c. don't use ppl's (lack of) abilities as an insult & indication someone is bad/wrong.
It's always backhanded insult to anyone who's struggling. They know, they hear you. Decent people are being denigrated that way.
so
d. By continuing to use ableist slurs you're contributing to their stigmatisation and marginalisation. They are not seen as equally human beings!
In these pandemic times there were news about decisions to let those people die, ffs.
So many people is ok with that - hence eugenics/nazi mention.
Out thoughts, language, attitudes, and consequent (in)action are interdependent.
So maybe rethink this defense of ableism, learn more about the topic, and start replacing those words with somethig more creative?
*these are *not my ideas*, not up for debate.
@@al.the. If you're trying to say that impugning somebody's intelligence is always ableist, that's a fucking... uh... well I can't say how I feel without upsetting you. Ideas can be unintelligent, as the people who espouse them can be.
Nazism is both evil AND stupid.
You have to have some way of categorising the validity of ideas and people or else you will never achieve any intellectual progress.
I am a firm defender of the word stupid. It has a clear dictionary definition and can be used very effectively in debate.
al the al with all due respect , you are being a bit of a wokescold right there ..
Some ideas should insulted and mocked because otherwise not doing so gives them neutral validity
Shaun while I’m watching alone: The regression samples were inaccurate because...
Shaun when my parents walk in the room: Measured the size of their genitalia and the distance of their ejaculate.
wtf?
@@nowgo7638 it’s almost 2 hours in
@@seanleith5312 yikes
@@seanleith5312 Just go back the Jared Taylor fanboys at American Renaissance.
@@seanleith5312 least obvious federal agent
It is really a miracle how people were upset at a book that recommends forced sterilization of people who don't get a high enough number on an arbitrary test.
What book?
@@jonpaulcox4954the Bell Curve. the one this video is about.
it's like that jake paul movie
If you read something you don’t understand, perhaps listen to someone who does, like this video so coincidentally aids with.
@jameslacoste9383 Correct, reading books like the "The Mismeasurement of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould does actually educate you on cognitive psychology as opposed to the book this video is titled after, which is propaganda.
Is it just me or is this perhaps the best made amatuer presentation on youtube. I've not seen anything this good that was made by a youtuber rather than a production company. Its witty, its smart, well executed. I mean its as long a 2 feature length movies on a science debate that involves statistical analysis and yet its rivetting. I cant say well done enough to Shaun. This is a masterpiece.
Agreed this is a work of art. The alt Right handbook is really good too. have you seen it?
ua-cam.com/play/PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ.html
@@icecoldpierre Havent seen it. But I'll take a look, thanks.
@@icecoldpierre Just watched the first one, Excellent resource, I learned something useful already. Thanks
@@jlrinc1420 No problem, i love that series. it gets better and better. And it's really well researched as you get to the later videos he talks about what he read to make the videos. I learned a lot about the right and conservatism in general watching that. That series is must see for all bread-tube watchers imo. Also he recently did a video about the anti-racists protest. It's very good, i've never heard this take on it and it completly changed my thinking on protests. ua-cam.com/video/6BB0Q1qHpAw/v-deo.html&ab_channel=InnuendoStudios
@@icecoldpierre Will check it out. I love his take that its better not to engage them. You cant win or change their mind. They wont look at your links and I wont look at their so he's right just dont engage. Its a waste of time.
Second
are you ever going to do a real analysis on skyrim? I'm still mad about it.
Fak
20th
ｂｌｅｓｓ
This is just cheating... (BTW, I love tou)
If you put lo-fi hip hop in the background, it sounds like Shaun is doing a chill-ass rap
My follow-up study (2020) provides mild, though not strong, confirmation of Wall (2020)
If you put on instrumental drone metal in the background, it sounds like Shaun is debunking the Bell Curve over instrumental drone metal
Search “exurb1a 10,000 more years” and you’ll get a chill ass rap about science in a British accent.
If adding a beat to a guy talking makes it sound like a type of rap, that says something about that type of rap.
@@adrianmarkstrom6692 it says that Shaun has mad flow.
Asking guys about their genital size is an invitation to be lied to, even more so than asking about their intelligence.
excuse you, i _always_ tell the truth about my speed and accuracy when asked it by middle-aged men hanging out in front of random buildings
I have a micro, so he must believe I'm a goddamn genius.
might as well have asked them to whip it out
@@professiggitways Maybe that’s how he got suspended.
*cis
1:59:40 I can't possibly fathom how a man would come up with the idea, that a small penis is indicative of a large brain.
What a mystery this is.
Lmfaooo
@S E P it actually has no benefit. It's just a difference.
As stupid as it sounds, large genitalia is an indication of more testosterone... and testosterone changes a TON of things.
lol
@Pe pi A Narcissist looks down.
Me, as a college professor: "Oh, neat, a video about the grading scale? Not sure why that's a video."
*clicks* "Jesus, why's it over two hours?"
*less than a minute in* "Oh. Oh no."
That was a terrifying first minute.
I give you an F for conveying meaning in an easily understandable way.
As soon as they start arguing about intelligence, me as a psychologist: oh God no, this book is totally wrong.
@Jesse Lee Peterson that is not what my degree says :)
@Talal a web search away is a linkedin result that seems to indicate that... you're basing this on... nothing at all??!?
The bit at the end where Shaun shows how all these civil intellectual dispensers of truth are funded by Nazis is like the bit at the end of each scooby doo episode where they take off the masks and it turns out the friendly guy from earlier is actually the monster because he wants more money
That was the great thing about Scoob and the gang, by the end it was always revealed that the scary monster of the story was just a person. It was never a real ghost or vampire or frankenstein's monster or whatever, it was just man's inhumanity to man.
@@rugierro mans inhumanity to man is fundamentally human. Torture doesnt exist outside of humanity unless you count cats maybe
Timestamp?
@@franklee8478 It starts at around 2:18:00
"let's see who's reeeally behind this"
*snatches off mask*
"*gasp* _josef mengele?!_ "
this video was more peer-reviewed than the book itself ☠
HBomb: I'm making a two hour long video about a video game no one has ever heard of, I'm bad at the UA-cam ain't I.
Shaun: Hold my skin
Wait. He has skin?! I feel betrayed.
@@fiercerodent *hold my femur
Fierce Rodent He takes it off for recordings.
+Fierce Rodent Not anymore, he _FREED HIS SKIN._
@@cosmicjenny4508 _FREE_ _YOUR_ *_SKIN_*
This is the best response to the Bell Curve that I've ever listened to, in large part due to the careful ways that you explained the statistical and methodological background to Herrnstein and Murray's proposals. My thanks also go to the people who helped you out with the text and sourcing references. Academic work can be a challenge to explain to a lay audience, and I think that those listeners who stuck through the entirety of your video now have an improved toolkit available to critically assess other works of academic and scientific racism.
(And I, as a resident of the Ivory Tower of Academia, am so grateful for your work! I know from experience how difficult it is to explain some of this stuff in a way that is neither condescending nor full of technical jargon. Again, thank you for this!)
"...using a sophisticated statistical technique called guessing."
I died. 😂
MeebleMeeble ???
@MeebleMeeble Nope, maybe talk with people outside of your bubble. We don't believe that.
@thesatanic6 You mean some right wingers claim that? Let's just say I rather believe Shaun than another guy whos vid has a comment about how Shaun is "anti-white" upvoted more than hundred times, by a guy with a marble bust as avatar. Such people tend to make shit up to serve their narative. Seeing Aydin Paladin in the comments, again upvoted more than hundred times, certainly doesn't look too good either.
Except it was called normalizing the data for congruence. In fact the raw data showed a greater difference between white and black. They included both in the book and explained it.
@@kazaddum2448 so, your argument is nothing but ad-hom. Congrats
I have watched this video maybe 5 times over the years and "Crucially here, nothing is actually happening genetically on the earring front" (42:25) is a line that never fails to make me giggle
As Joe Biden said: "poor kids can be as smart as white kids".
That's all you need to know to understand the thinking behind a book like the Bell Curve.
lol
And to think Biden is fucking *WINNING!*
To quote hbomberguy
“I am sure the electorate will continue to make the worst possible choice“
@@Nai-qk4vp well he will keep the rich rich, including the people running the party and who make up all the major media outlets and those who have called the shots on eductating the populace, that is all that matters.
Nai 2013 I mean, I get what you’re saying, but better him than trump.
“Pass the aux cord!”
“You better not play trash.”
*presses play*
“If you test a relatively uneducated group of copper miners....”
@jay everything in this video was well delivered, supported by data and logic, and very much not "psuedointellect" however you actually meant that.
@@stevencleere4912 "jay can't write"
"Yeah but... jay didn't watch the video anyway"
But seriously, Shaun uses plain language and lays out his case in a meticulous and logical manner. If I believed jay had actually watched the video, I'd love for him to identify either the "Yeah but" OR the "pseudo-intellectualism" he claims the video contains.
But don't you all know that the right has a monopoly of Facts and Logic™
@@horticulturalist7818 Jay's feelings don't care about your facts.
I'm reading A People's History of the United States, and in the first chapter the author refers to a text on Christopher Columbus by historian Samuel Morison. I think his statement on that work is applicable here:
"One can lie outright about the past. Or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusions. Morison does neither. He refuses to lie about Columbus. He does not omit the story of mass murder, indeed he describes it with the harshest word one can use: genocide. But he does something else - he mentions the truth quickly and goes on to other things more important to him. Outright lying or quiet omission takes the risk of discovery which, when made, might arouse the reader to rebel against the writer. To state the facts, however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader with a certain infections calm: yes, mass murder took place, but it's not that important - it should weigh very little in our final judgements, it should affect very little what we do in the world."
@gotsda this is a two and ahalf hour long video that quotes the bloody book every few.minutes.
@ExecuteAllNazis InMinecraft well, I see you, but theres always the hope that one might change their minda
@ExecuteAllNazis InMinecraft i suppose, yes.
🙌 Read through Zinn’s masterpiece over the holidays to remedy my conservative private education, “knocked me on my ass” at least every five pages
I remember I had a professor who said the week after a test:
“That test was too hard. The average was 50%, and there wasn’t even a pretend bell curve. It was almost a strait line.”
A literal university-level physics test doesn’t always give a bell curve. NOT EVERYTHING COMES IN BELL CURVES AND ASSUMING THEY DO OR SHOULD IS PROBABLY NOT GREAT ACADEMIC PRACTICE.
Yeah, I recall multiple teachers at my secondary school openly admitting that too many people did poorly/well on a test so they changed how they graded this test. When I was working on A-levels, I had a teacher cut a question from a quiz because he'd graded it wrong, which meant that I got a lower grade cause I'd answered it correctly (this upset me cause I did poorly in that class and every point counted). I had a teacher give me an extra grade (4/15) out of pity to at least push my final grade up to be 4/15 overall as well. The grading system in general is rigged and teachers are fully aware. Tests are bullshit.
Thank you gentlemen. Good day to you both
I had a teacher like that. Very smart man, but obsessed with making everything a bell curve to a fault. He was a good man however, considering he hated The Bell Curve more than he loved making bell curves.
@@misaamane8091A lot of teachers forget tests are supposed to help them see how well the students understood the subject and how well they taught it.
It is literally academic science? Almost all social sciences that study population with statistics will judge how valid their findings are based on whether it fits a normality curve.
oh man, having someone so thoroughly dismantle such an insidious and icky argument as that present in the bell curve and then say "righty ho! That's all from me today" is really delightful.
Only people who haven't read it or that are being completely dishonest can think that these kind of videos disprove race realism.
@@marcomartins3563you people are cowards. just admit you're racist instead of misusing the scientific process. You're making a mockery of the very thing that brought us to the moon.
@@marcomartins3563 There is no such thing as "race realism".
@@marcomartins3563have a better case than this 2h40m comprehensive deconstruction of your shitty ideology?
@@marcomartins3563 Basing intelligence of race makes no sense. Why dont we do the same thing with liver size or eye colour? they are both as relevant as skin colour. Or why dont we talk about red head realism and tell everyone the truth that they are dumber because of a completely unrelated trait to intelligance. As the video said there is often greater variation in racial groups than between them. The only reason i can think it racism and purely environmental factors which can be traced back to racism.
I clicked on this video thinking it was going to be about how grading on a curve was bad. I don’t know whether to be disappointed that I wrong or disappointed that racist pseudoscience is alive and well enough for a 2 & half hour discussion of its stupidity.
Just because you say it's stupid doesn't mean it's not real. How can you say with a straight face that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics?
@@Sealwithwificonnection potential for intelligence is largely determined by genes, that potential can be hampered or nurtured. The problem is when those who have been nurtured claim that those who have been hampered were simply of low potential to begin with.
@@Sealwithwificonnection No one is saying that genetics does not have correlation with intelligence. What is being said is that race and skin color have nothing to do with it. Also, measurements we use for intelligence are so narrow and screwed to be almost meaningless.
@@Sealwithwificonnection , listen to the entire video before typing and pressing send. You are uninformed.
So basically, facts and logic dont care about eugenist feelings
Facts and logic are irrelevant to eugenists. They're not germane to why they hold those views.
ua-cam.com/video/KHYMnrcqhz0/v-deo.html
You're not being intellectually honest, genes aren't irrelevant to socio economic success and life outcomes. Jordan Peterson agrees that IQ is almost completely genetic, and he's well read and credible. Mentally disabled people prove that what traits we inherit, determine how we cognitively function. Aspergers is a heritable trait, that wrecks the Human psyche. Sucks the alt right and other closet nazis are so involved in IQ discussions. They completely ruined the topic for politically neutral readers/viewers.
@@halaldunya918 "Jordan Peterson...credible"
Meh
The dude is a grifter. When he appeared on Tv he didn't have a skeptical approach which should be typical of academics, he has always adopted polemical positions making clear he made up his mind to appeal to his audience. The problem is that many times he has quoted studies "that prove X and disprove Y" but in reality when you go search those very papers he quotes, the studies themselves say that more data and studies are needed as with current tools is impossible to establish a causative relations, even if evidences are *pointing* toward a certain direction
A serious academics would say something "as of right now studies seems to show X rather than Y", instead of saying "X is definitive, Y is wrong"; moreover in social sciences when causative effects are more trickier to be established ;)
@@halaldunya918 "Jordan Peterson [...] he's well read and credible"
I see great potential in your future as a great comedian.
I think chess is one of the best examples of how the appearance of intelligence is massively swayed by time. Certain people perform better in certain time controls, even at the highest levels of chess. Though Magnus Carlson and other great players have unified the Blitz (3 min games) and Classical (30+ min games) Championships, there have been many times when the reigning Blitz and Classical champions are different players because they have different strengths. If you only had them play against each other in one time control, one player would seem to have the edge, giving a false illusion of the gap.
Very good point, at best IQ tests are a proxy for an ASPECT of intelligence. But even that seems a bit too generous to IQ tests.
Chess is already a brilliant example of how environmental factors can determine intelligence due to the best player of our time outclassing those of 50 years ago. Have humans gotten smarter over that small period of time? No, not enough mutations in that period of time have happened to make it that stark of a difference. What’s actually happened is that the resources that have been made allow for those amazing at chess to excel even further.
@@Echantediamond1 it's also faster to learn from a book than to invent something new from scratch
@@isaacburrows8405 every following generation has the last one to built of of
@@isaacburrows8405 plus, now we have chess engines that can analyze your every move and give you detailed explanations on why a certain move is optimal or why a certian move is bad or terrible. suddenly training for chess gets way easier because we have the internet and you can play with anyone who is online and willing, rather than only the people you can physically be in the same room as. and the number of games you can analyze have increased substantially as well
Man, thanks.
I've been dealing with this feeling all my life. The feeling that the people I don't agree with are deep down right (especially in controversial issues) and that deep down I'm wrong. For some reason, I've always considered that somehow their points are difficult to reply to if the issues we're discussing are sensitive.
One day I watched a minidocumentary about "political correctness" where they talked about the bell curve (the book). One of my first thoughts was that "how would I handle an argument made from this book?", and also "what if they are right? what if people don't like the book because of political correctness and not because it's wrong? what if everything about racism and discrimination is justified? what if discrimination against me is justified because of this?"
I started imagining myself debating Murray and shutting his mouth with "facts and logic" but I didn't have the time to do the research about the book so in the end this feeling that Murray would simply shut me up with his ideas and stronger arguments remained. The feeling that even if I 'wasted' my time with this I would end up discovering he was right.
Discovering your channel and watching your videos has shown me that these right-wing loons aren't as smart and correct as they think they are and that in reality proving that they are more clowns than anything else isn't that difficult (although it requires time and research in order to make it understandable and coherent for us your viewers) and that their points aren't really that strong and that I shouldn't be taking them as seriously, to begin with.
You have done this with the Bell Curve as well, in an entertaining and easy to understand manner.
Again, thanks very much man, keep uploading to your channel.
Deep down, you are wrong. Your intuition was correct, and this video you have just watched is propaganda.
medium.com/@houstoneuler/the-cherry-picked-science-in-voxs-charles-murray-article-bd534a9c4476
@@lollll9932 a lot of things can be considered propaganda, doesn't make them good or bad automatically. Also why not respond to something in the video instead of posting an article responding to someone completely different?
@@lollll9932 no it doesn't lol
@@lollll9932 That page addresses nothing in the video.
It's good not being an example of Dunning-Krüger, but you shouldn't be the complete opposite (imposter syndrome) either and continually doubt yourself to that degree. It's very easy to appear convincing even when someone knows that they know nothing about a subject (especially if they don't have any moral or ethic to reign them in or they've a 'the end justifies the means'-mentality), so there's no reason that you should believe them just because they want you to.
I hope you gain some more self esteem and confidence in yourself and your abilities! :)
was feeling smart for knowing the answer to the japanese question until i got called out for being a weeb
works with Chinese too :D
yea i got in chinese too, it's a very easy language question for beginners in chinese too (and japanese i guess)
Well, 抜けている形を選択する just means essentially "choose what fills the blank" which you can infer with 0 Japanese; and since Japanese rips off the Chinese writing system if you can read numbers its gonna be trivial. His earlier chess position is a simple mate in 2 starting with 1. Ra6. I guess that makes me a weeb and a nerd. Thank god none of his IQ questions involved naming celebrities.
@@lollipophugo I wish my maths professor would just accept that I solved these test questions
Yeah same
Me: Hmmm I don't really feel like watching a 2 hour movie, it's too much of a time commitment
Shaun: *releases a 2 1/2 hour long video*
Me: Yeah I can commit to this
@Andy Rodriguez
You know what it is, just leave crazies like him alone is honestly the best thing to do.
To be fair this is easy to chunk. I watch this 30ish minutes at a time.
@Andy Rodriguez My agenda is truth. I'm tired of discrimination against whites, Asians, and Jews because blacks and Hispanics don't as well in certain areas.
@@chrimony I hope you are aware that ancient Egyptians were dark with extremely curly hair according to ancient Greek historians so more likely what you call subsaharan Africans than arabs
@@mg7094 We Wuz Kangz. No.
I scored 148 on a IQ test when I was 9 in Florida. I was held back that year. I get irritated when people tell me I'm smart because I said something insightful. I'm a bus driver.
I feel you. but, to flip that, just cause you drive buses doesn't mean you aren't smart
@@jaceking5938 I'm told I'm smart all the time. I'm not sad that I'm a bus driver. IQ test used properly is to improve the education of the child, not to qualify you for anything. I could have been educated properly. I could have been a more "useful". As of now the world doesn't seem interested in elevating people to their potential, only profiting from the promise.
Well, according to the ' Bell curve ', you were destined to be a successful billionaire.
Are you just dumbing down your grammar for us un lerned poeples
@@marketwindfall1927 where are you from? Nothing he wrote is/was difficult to comprehend for English speakers regardless of that person's education level.
What makes me laugh at this whole thing is that going to school is expensive, and for a lot of kids it means leaving their family with one less income to support them. It instantly kills their argument of some cognitive ruling class. It's all just money, baby.
How did they get the money in the first place? By being smarter, and thus their children wont just inherit their money but genes for IQ too, which predict life outcomes better than just simply "money"
@@hihello8771 You think you get more money from being smarter? So my grandfather fought in WW2 as a young man and then devoted the rest of his life to less fortunate inner city kids. He was poor as hell but very intelligent by all standards (he held several degrees and was always being asked to speak at charity functions, etc.).
My mother was also brilliant and gravitated towards art and singing. She met my father who is an engineer and had me. My family had four kids and several hardships which I won't get into that depleted my father's wealth and caused us to have to fend for ourselves. As a result, most of us took careers that pay decently well, but weren't allowed to pursue the height of our ambitions.
This is the story of a white kid from the suburbs. This isn't even factoring in any form of societal oppression.
You're not the only American who thinks like you. You see people praising rich people all the time for being "money savvy" for turning 300 million into a billion or something like that. Could you turn 30 dollars into 100? You can? OH WOW! Well, if you can do that, you can turn 300 million into a billion or more and it's actually much easier because the richer you are, the better financial products and vehicles you have access to. I work in finance and wealth management people won't even talk to someone who isn't already holding 30k plus liquid, and for the average American that may as well be a million.
Long story short (too late). Talk to more intelligent people. Most are not wealthy. I find that most wealthy people (not all) at least tend to be educated, but lack any kind of raw intelligence. This country is merely setup to cater to them. I've met some disgusting brilliant people who are socially inept as well, and that limits their upward mobility too! A beautiful, charming person can easily marry into money. Is that genetic material going to produce Einstein? I hope I've helped to dispel some of your fantasies about wealth with this long diatribe. Thanks for reading it if you did.
@@hihello8771
The majority of wealthy people inherited at least part of their wealth and access. If you haven't noticed, high IQ isn't that heritable. There's some remarkably dumb people with wealth and power.
They themselves don't realize it, the narcissism that comes with having money/power makes them think they're brilliant.
Money and connections are _extremely_ easy to pass on to one's heirs...but not intellectual capacity.
@@AuspexAO lmao pure anecdotal evidence. Yet i thought the left was about objective evidence? Heritability remains high. Not even siblings of the same household come out the same... your blank slate theory has been long debunked.
@@grmpEqweer nope, just under half inherited their wealth. Most of it was earned. I dont know why you people cant understand population statistics
I've decided to dedicate my life to proving that the correlation between cheese consumption and death by bedsheets share a common cause. The truth has been hidden for far too long!
I think I cracked it. Going to bed with a full stomach of food (cheese) can make you spend more time in REM (rapid-eye-movement) while asleep which is where the most vivid dreams happen. With that now extended period of time in REM, you’re more likely to have nightmares and wrap yourself in your sheets for comfort, occasionally to death
Not the hero we wanted the one we deserve truly
@@onelovelylilidiot4959 a fascinating hypothesis. Unfortunately I lack both the funds and friends to gain willing test subjects. As such I am forced to expirement upon myself. I have already eaten a pound of cheese and am prepared for bed.
Bedsheets stuck together with melted cheese?
@@anenemystand5582 you haven't updated in a week, I guess you were right after all.
What bugs me about all this is that we already have to deal with groups of people that are biologically, objectively incapable of performing certain tasks without help and affirmative policies. Do these people want to cut benefits from the disabled and the elderly too?
I mean, I know the answer, but how they can justify to themselves that they aren't eugenicist fascists is beyond me.
@Cole S this is not the point of my comment, what are you responding to?
@Cole S "affirmative policies are intended to rectify historical institutional discrimination" that's what racism is my dude, historical institutional discrimination. But let's not get hung up on that yet, next you say:
"If the disparities between groups are the result of their inherent biology, it's perfectly ethical [...] to end affirmative policies" so, you really want to cut benefits from the disabled and elderly? I'm confused.
Also, "for the sake of it"? People from underprivileged groups having more acess to opportunities is one hell of a goal, we should strive for that in a society.
@Cole S uh, affirmative policies can also apply to the groups I mentioned. Disabled and old people can benefit from them, as they have a harder time finding jobs because of prejudice, and some of them need education too. Welfare is included in my criticism, because it is also something the folks in the book want to cut.
"Wasting society's resources" wow man, maybe want to rephrase that, no? No one is a waste of resources, if more children can have bigger opportunities in life than the ones assigned by their "genes", it's worth the effort. If there are successful black people in literally every field, it means that they have the potential, so why deny them the chance? Also you seem pretty convinced that IQ differences are caused by genetics, despite the clearly biased and not enough evidence.
I can only laugh at the "check your privilege" line, just because I didnt mention women and lgbt people doesn't mean I think only racism is a problem. I said racism because this IQ bullshit is focused on race. You don't know anything about my race, gender or sexual orientation, what privilege do you think I have?
@@xpusostomos that's just an imaginary problem made up by Nazis, anyway
@@xpusostomos Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. Diseases are natural, vaccines are not. Hopefully you know which of those two is good for you
It's crazy to think that this 2 hour long criticism of Scholastic integrity is on the same web platform as Paul Brothers vlogs and prank compilations.
Variety is the spice of life.
...And now I'm going to go watch kitten compilations. ;)
All it takes is a little tuning of your recommendations and you can basically pretend like much of the most popular content on youtube simply doesn't exist. :)
I mean, you have books like The Art of War and ones written by The Situation from the Jersey shore. A platform is just a means to access your content, not always defining what that content is.
I actually winced at 1:08:42 when he brought up the passage saying that "the African black population has not been subjected to the historical legacy of American black slavery and discrimination"
Where the fuck did they think the AFRICAN-American slaves came from? And how the fuck did they think the slaves got to America? Because something tells me that wherever the AFRICAN-American slaves came from, they didn't exactly go willingly, and I feel like the place they left behind might suffer a bit after losing a large number of its able-bodied males at the hands of an oppressive colonial regime 🧐
@S E P. Well, it depends on what province or nation they were enslaved in, much like here in America.
Slaves might be "treated better" in one state, but treated like crap in another. Same rule applies essentially to any place where slavery was prevalent.
Either way, they're still slaves, which is awful in its own right.
@KampKarl true but the scale wasn't nearly as high until thr transatlantic slave trade became a thing where various African powers did sell slaves but many were forcibly stolen from their homes by European powers.
@KampKarl I didn't say it was unique to Europeans to do slavery I'm explaining the impact also and many but mot all just many times the trans-saharen slave trade wasn't necessariy always tied to skin tone, many times many of these slaves managed to get high positions of power and even take over the government however American slavery was simply tied to the colour of your skin and was a much more brutal affair. I do not deny the Arab slave trade wasn't bad as it was, hell many castrated the men alot of the time but to the scale of the European slave trade where 12 or 12.8 million slaves were taken either sold to Europeans or forcibly captured from there homes were shipped across the Atlantic compared that to 7.2 million slaves taken from the trans saharen trade in the years mid 5th to 20th century does seem to show it was not nearly as driven. Plus the trans Atlantic slave trade by far has a more devastating effects amongst the black communities within the Americas. Also the Europeans or mainly the British banned the slave trade in 1807 but slavery itself still existed until 1838 when it was officially banned and had full emancipation, in France however they banned it a few times earlier infact in the homeland but their colonies like Hati still practiced it and Napoleon brought it back, it took the mid to late 1800s to actually ban slavery officially.
They were using "African black" to mean black people born and raised in African countries and to differentiate them from black US citizens. They were using (specifically black) Africans to bolster their racist idea that black Americans are just "naturally stupid." "African black" is pretty clearly an attempt to mean...black people in Africa. And also that apparently all black people are just stupid.
This comment and most of the responses make me wonder what people were listening to.
"I expect people may have to watch this one in multiple parts" No, I don't think I will.
I'm only halfway but I hope you're going to quote Gould:
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
That's one of the most beautiful summaries of how environment determines an emergence of intelligence more than anything else
@MeebleMeeble bzzt, incorrect, man with one study. Your paper came out in PLOS Biology in 2011 attempting to reclaim Morton as an accurate skull-measurer and to demonstrate that Gould's criticisms were largely without merit and that his own analysis contained errors. This paper received coverage in mainstream sites, such as the New York Times and Wired, and does appear to be the primary piece of evidence 'debunking' The Mismeasure of Man that gets referred to nowadays. However, the PLOS Biology paper itself made a number of errors, both conceptual and factual. These have been pointed out in a number of articles, and indeed even in comments left on the original article. A brief selection:
Firstly:
"Gould’s argument for Morton’s unconscious racial bias is based on a comparison between two sets of measurements using two different materials. In his 1839 Crania Americana, Morton used “pepper seeds,” but he switched technique to using lead BB shot for the measurements presented in his later works, especially the 1844 Crania Aegyptiaca. Morton made this switch because the pepper seeds were light, variable in size, and easily compressed, and as a result his measurements were highly variable. It is important to note that Gould agrees with Morton about the superiority of the shot measurements. Gould calls these measurements “objective, accurate, and repeatable” [2]. After tabulating and reanalyzing Morton’s data, Gould was struck by a systematic difference between the two sets of measurements. The mean cranial capacity for Africans, Americans, and Caucasians had all increased between 1839 and 1844, as is shown in Fig 1. However, they did not change by the same amounts. The African skulls have a much larger increase in mean cranial capacity than the Americans and Caucasians. If this difference were the result either of lack of precision or of a systematic measurement error, the change should be approximately the same for the different races, but it was not. Gould thought that the best explanation for the more dramatic change in the African mean was unconscious manipulation on Morton’s part in 1839, when technique made that manipulation possible. Why, then, do Lewis et al. think Morton has been vindicated? Their 2011 paper reports on the remeasurement of about half the skulls in Morton’s original set. They found that Morton’s shot measurements were mostly accurate, and that such errors as existed did not support a charge of bias. They also considered Gould’s other criticism of Morton’s methods and analysis, which they also judged to be mostly without merit (we are here only concerned with the measurement issue; for detailed discussions of all the claims in dispute, see [4,5]). They concluded that “Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould” [3]. We take no issue with Lewis et al.’s remeasurements, but argue that these measurements are not and cannot be evidence for their conclusion. Although Lewis et al. found Morton’s shot-based measurements to be accurate, Gould already accepted this. Indeed, Gould had to assume that Morton’s shot measurements were accurate, as he relied on them in his own analysis. Gould never made, nor did he ever claim to make, nor did he have any reason to make any measurements himself. Gould’s argument depends on the difference between the two sets of measurements. Thus, as a matter of logic, there is no way that the results of Lewis et al.’s remeasurement program could be used to adjudicate the issue of who was biased. The many commentators who cite as a major failing of Gould’s that he “never bothered to measure the skulls himself” [6] have also, though perhaps more understandably, missed the point. PLOS Biology invited the authors of [3] to respond to this Formal Comment. They provided the following statement: “We decline to respond as the issues raised are well covered in our original paper, which we encourage interested readers to consult.”
Secondly:
"the Lewis et al. article received significant attention in the popular media. But many of the claims made by Lewis et al. in their article are misleading in important ways, and, as we make clear, much of the media attention focused on the most misleading aspects. It is impossible, reading Lewis et al., not to be led to the conclusion that Gould’s work was badly flawed, and that Morton’s was broadly correct. This is, for the reasons we suggest below, not the case. But the kind of sloppiness that Lewis et al. engaged in has real consequences -- e.g., members of the White Supremacist website “StormFront” immediately trumpeted Lewis et al.’s results as proving that Gould was “a fraud,” and took them to be broadly supportive of their explicitly racist agenda,2 a view apparently shared by many in related communities.3 Their discussion of the remeasurement takes up a significant portion of their paper, and much, indeed most, of the media coverage focused on this aspect of their work. We argue that this re-measurement was completely irrelevant to an evaluation of Gould’s published analysis of Morton; the exercise was pointless, and there was no legitimate reason to feature the results of that work. The space Lewis et al. devote to their re-measurement of the skulls, as well as the media attention it garnered, form part of a larger pattern of a reframing of Gould’s criticisms of Morton that is, again, at best misleading. Gould never claimed that Morton’s shot-based measurements, which is what Lewis et al. compared their new measurements to, were unreliable. Rather, Gould explicitly stated that he assumes “as Morton contends, that measurements with shot were objective and invariably repeatable to within 100 3” (Gould, 1978 507). In his The Mismeasure of Man, Gould is even more straightforward, and states simply that after Morton switched to lead shot, Morton “achieved consistent results that never varied by more than a single inch for the same skull” (Gould, 1981 53). Gould did not “bother” to re-measure the skulls, because Gould explicitly stated that, once Morton developed a method that made the unconscious “fudging” of the results difficult, the results became reliable. For Gould what was of interest was the difference in the kinds of results obtained when a less reliable method (seed) was used, and those obtained when a more reliable method (lead shot) was used; Gould hypothesized that the less reliable method permitted more room for unconscious bias to influence the results (Gould, 1978 505). recall that Gould explicitly stated that the shot-based measurements, unlike the seed-based measurements, were trustworthy; Gould simply never claimed that the shot-based measurements were subject to manipulation via unconscious bias at all. Gould did not claim that, once Morton switched to shot, Morton “physically mismeasured some skulls” -- he in fact states the exact opposite of this. Lewis et al. are here falsifying (their word) a claim that Gould never made...While it is important to publish negative results, framing those results in ways that suggest that they refute other people’s claims, when they do no such thing, is at least misleading, if not dishonest.
Thirdly: Despite what they say, Lewis et al. have not falsified Gould’s claim. Gould’s argument was that the differences between Morton’s seed‐based and shot‐based measurements reveal Morton’s racially biased measurements. Showing that Morton’s shot‐based measurements are reliable is very impressive, but cannot support the claim that Morton’s work reveals racial bias. Indeed, Gould accepts the reliability of Morton’s shot‐based measurements, since he has no other way of determining differences with the seed‐based measurements.4 Importantly, this piece does confirm that there are some errors in Gould's analysis (I recommend reading the whole article here), but makes points such as: At least with respect to the Peruvians, it seems clear that Gould’s accusation that Morton manipulated subsamples, even unconsciously, does not stand up to scrutiny...While Gould’s accusations against Morton fail here, there is a subtlety to Gould’s argument that hasn’t yet been brought out and that remains correct. Although Lewis et al. focus on Gould’s discussion of sample size, Gould also discusses the problematic ways that Morton determines which samples to include in racial means. For example, Morton included small‐headed Inca Peruvians in the American mean, but excluded small‐headed Hindus from the Caucasian mean. This allowed Morton’s American sample to appear smaller and Caucasian sample to appear bigger than it might have been otherwise. Gould’s criticism can be made even more generally. Morton already saw differences in cranial capacity among the families and sub‐families in his samples. These differences should have led him to be much more cautious about reporting means for each race, since there is much variation within races, and relatively small differences between the racial aggregates. Thus while Lewis et al. are correct in their specific critiques of Gould, Gould’s more general critique is important and correct. even if Morton’s original numbers didn’t conform to racial stereotypes in quite the way Gould thought, Gould’s overall and most important point is correct. There is little difference in mean cranial capacity between the races, and Morton did not see this. Gould makes a substantial mistake in his exclusion of all Native Americans that weren’t in Morton’s 1839 sample. There is no principled reason to do this. Moreover, even without this exclusion, Gould’s point is preserved. Native Americans are no longer abnormally low in mean cranial capacity. In the final analysis, Gould’s charge that Morton’s analyses exhibit racial bias seems well‐justified. Gould made some analytical errors which were uncovered by Lewis et al., but his two most important claims-that there is evidence that Morton’s seed‐based measurements exhibit racial bias and that there are no significant differences in mean cranial capacities across races in Morton’s collection-are sound...
Gould’s analysis and critique of Morton has been widely discussed and widely used as an illustration of implicit bias in science; it ought to remain so. I will finally point readers to this article by Simon Whitten, which deals with both the PLOS Biology paper and a naturally crappy Quillette article. medium dot com/@simonjwhitten/has-stephen-jay-goulds-the-mismeasure-of-man-really-been-discredited-f38ab6e50086
Incidentally, the Morton section is only a small portion of The Mismeasure of Man! And these pitiful. easily defeated complaints are the best asspained internet racists can muster. This is why racial science isn't taken seriously. It isn't the Jews, it isn't the communist conspiracy, it's because it's bullshit. Sorry, loser.
@@wngbjngwwgk
Damn.
“In favor of Japanese people. And anime fans.” Is probably one of the funniest lines I’ve heard just because of how dry the delivery is
What's the timestamp on that one? (if you remember)
@@hainiok7915 1:06:00
Just wait until he finds out that those numbers are actually chinese.
@@Nick-o-time The answer is D
@@Nick-o-timewait til you find out our numbers are Arabic
I was wrong to be overwhelmed by hbomberguy's latest video's length, I'm prepared to be wrong again--just later when I have more time.
How was it? I'm scared by the length
well, i missed that hbomerguy put up a new video (notifications on now)...guess i have 5 hours of vids to watch tonight
Preparing to be wrong is one of the greatest contributors to human advancement. May it work for you as well.
RoseEyed the Hbomb one? It’s ok, basically a review of a (extremely good and fascinating) game that you should play. There’s been some better UA-cam vids on it though even if those creators aren’t necessarily affiliated with breadtube.
Watching again, and it's painful seeing the 3.4k dislikes. I majored in genetics, and this is such an outstanding resource for understanding so many disparate techniques, concepts, and ideas in biology. Knowing that most of those dislikes are reactionary-- it just hurts to know how much more power people could have in explaining their world, given an understanding of the material presented here.
Edit: I made a very long response to the objections to this in the replies.
They don't want the facts, they just want to be racist.
I actually disliked the video BECAUSE I think there wasn't a very good focus on the target audience. The people who would generally be tempted to watch the video is aware of 90% the things discussed [correlation vs. causation and a wide range of topics]. Effectively a lot of the video is a waste of time. A "Cliff-notes" version of the video jumping into an analysis of the more problematic claims of the bell curve would have been more appreciated.
@@erutherford Some things need to be explored in depth. The history and context of the book is just as problematic as the things it says and that deserves attention too. I don't know who you think the target audience is meant to be?
@@erutherford who would be tempted to watch a 2 1/2 hour video, but be expecting a cliffnotes version of the situation? pretty sure the target audience of Shaun's content is people who like videos with great attention to detail and in-depth research. that's how all of his content is, so maybe you just aren't familiar with the channel?
i already knew a lot of this information but the way it's presented here is both good for educating others and helped put some history into perspective that i previously wasn't familiar with. there's nothing wrong with the video just because it wasn't for you. if you don't want to watch a video this long, you're not the target audience, honestly.
no whats painful is that this guy is a quack and convincing people by using pseudo-intellectualism. He straw mans the entire book and uses emotion to manipulate the viewer, hes just far more clever than your average leftist so it "seems" like he is being straightforward. How is straw manning an old iq test and then generalizing all iq tests based on ones from 100 years ago "valid genetics"? Ridiculous to suggest this video is good
This is definitely going to get buried but it’s worth adding that - when the tests were administered to black South African school children under apartheid - the Bantu Education Act was still in practice.
The Bantu Education Act’s primary purpose was to segregate schooling based on race (creating the exact same schools in KwaZulu Natal that were given the tests) and - most essentially - provide a completely different education to each school based on their race.
Black students - quite literally - were not working from the same academic curriculum that white students were. They were being directed to the unskilled labour market, only learning basic arithmetic, gardening, sewing and Christian Studies, while white children were learning complex mathematics, science, etc.
That’s not even going into the fact that many black students weren’t even being taught in their home language, but instead were instead exclusively taught in Afrikaans, making their already subpar education even more incomprehensible. All of this culminated in the student Soweto Uprising protests of 1976.
Just the cherry on top of the bullshit results that were spawned from those studies.
This is extremely important. Far too often South Africa gets touted around by racists as proof that white people are more civilised than black people and they just completely ignore the history of structural destruction of black people
I don't believe that IQ tests, even ones from that era, ever tested knowledge. Differences in education would not have affected results.
@Tara Lang how so? There were many sources with many studies done.
Tara Lang I can imagine, we have ridiculous volumes of apartheid history that foreigners will never know, sadly.
The practice itself was only “officially” ended in 1980, which is ridiculously recently when you consider that we now have black kids whose parents’ entire education and designated living space were designed to turn them into unskilled farmhands.
SANITY IS FOR THE WEAK My dude, you wouldn’t have asked that if you’d actually watched the video we’re commenting on rn. Shaun speaks rather slowly, so I can understand why a 2 hour 39 minute long video might seem daunting, but you’re welcome to tap those top three dots in the upper right-hand corner of your screen, go to “playback speed” and hit 1.5 or 2x speed. Happy learning, buddy.
If I ever submit a paper with incredibly sketchy sources, but claim that I will be proven “retroactively right” in a couple decades, I hope they throw me out on my ass.
32 Sargons, oof. Gonna be a challenge to try and finish this within the current decade but I'll try my best.
EDIT: It took just over 3 days, but it was worth it. Surprisingly interesting the whole way through for a video of this length.
In addition to Shaun's explanation that eugenics weren't a unique measure by Nazi Germany and a lot of it has been inspired by what Americans did before the Nazis, I can recommend the book 'Hitler's American Model' that goes much into detail on this matter.
Great video, Shaun
i actually wrote a review of that book for an academic journal, it's a fascinating account of history that usually gets overlooked
The Native American genocide inspired Hitler, and many American companies and public figures profited from and admired the Nazis, like Henry Ford and the Bush family.
@thesatanic6 Who gives a shit lol
@thesatanic6 I've already seen that video and it's bad. You actually believe a video that is 10 minutes long debunks the entirety of Shaun's video? Shaun's video is three hours long. AH makes only 3 weak arguments that are fallacious. What Shaun said in his livestream regarding how he presents Murray isn't bad either, because what he presents of Murray is still true.
I actually wanted to make a post detailing what's wrong about AH's video, but after paragraphs and paragraphs I realized I have too much shit to do for university, and that people who think a 10 minute video could debunk Shaun's work are imbeciles anyway that want to cling on to their right wing race realist fairy tales to find reasons to mistreat minorities. So yeah, go fuck yourself in short.
Shaun "...In my recent Steven Crowder video..."
At no point during one of your videos can a previous video be described as recent.
ua-cam.com/video/0Z5CHFUvn1U/v-deo.html
I mean sure, but his scripts are sooo long and very well organized/researched/framed that it’s definitely worth the wait
@@sydneegalusha5698 oh I love his content. I just wish it came out more frequently.
@@JamesIdentity A Nazi account called "downfall". How ironic.
Well, his video was published in a recent year...
The same year, in fact!
The unintentional humour of the automated subtitles’ struggles to try to spell “Herrnstein and Murray” and the many and varied ways it makes the attempt gets me every time.
I have never clicked on a Shaun video so fast, you basically wrote a thesis for this video
roger barron you’d probably have to watch it to know
roger barron Yeah, there is pretty much no way you’ve watched the video given that the video came out an hour ago and it’s two and a half hours long.
@roger barron LMAO imagine being so triggered by this
@@deaconcouric5037 Imagine thinking IQ matters
@@MrLukeKK It's not even thinking IQ doesn't matter. It's a critique of the bell curve. This guy is so married to a book this old he dismisses an almost three-hour long video. The parts that he could have watched are literally historical analyses with sources.
1:51:47 I like the audacity of basically saying "It's too difficult, so we didn't bother" in a book the authors consider to be legitimate.
Their key target demographic is too stupid to understand anything other than "whites are superior".
Back in elementary school my teachers gave me a test to figure out why I was struggling in class. (I'm in college now so my memory of what was in it is a little fuzzy) But I recall it had me reading things and solving things within varying time frames. After that, I was given additional material and help understanding my courses (basically tutoring) I was also given extra time.
From what I understand. I was processing things slower then the other students. I did eventually understand the material given and retained it well, but not in the time the classes provided. The same went for when I took exams. I was allowed extra time because retreaving information took longer for me.
For a long time, I was a little self conscious about it cause at my school there was always a stigma that needing help like this ment that you were "nitwitted" and I recall my friends at the time making terrible jokes about it. I was too scared to speak out cause I was too afraid of them perceiving me as anything but neurotypical. But I'm older now, and now it's wrong to think this way. Their is nothing wrong with needing help in school or being mentally handicapped. People process things differentl, that's just the facts. All schools should do their best to accommodate all students of varying processing abilities.
I became one of the school's most improved students and since then I've been excelling relatively well. Now I dont even need tutoring or additional assistance.
So in that regard, I'm happy the test I took in elementary school helped to adjust my schooling so I wasn't left behind.
ApexKnight You’d be interested to know that SJ Gould, in the book Shaun quotes (Mismeasure of Man), stated that some schools are using Binet’s “IQ” test as he originally intended: to identify kids with learning disabilities so they could get extra help. Gould said his own son was diagnosed that way.
I wasn’t evaluated for ADHD until I was in my 20s (often goes undiagnosed in young girls) and, all my life, I seriously struggled in math. Even in HS, I had to retake geometry 3 times because I kept failing it despite an honest effort to learn. What I didn’t know then was that the reason I struggled so much in math was related to my learning disability, because of my ADHD, I struggle with my working memory, meaning that, even though I had good comprehension of the overarching concepts, when it came to stuff as simple as holding the solution to one operation in my head and carrying that number into the next operation. I’d make basic errors. Forget the number and write down another one etc. It also didn’t help that I’ve got dyslexia w/numbers and mixed up their order a lot. My teachers tended to assume this was some sort of carelessness/ mental laziness and would scold me saying that when they checked my work they saw I was doing everything right except checking that I had the right numbers plugged into the equation. “Careless mistakes” they’d say. And it really messed with my self-esteem- I was a clever kid, but couldn’t see myself as such because I made such basic errors and was falling behind kids 3 years younger than me in math. It wasn’t until I took a remedial math course for a gen ed credit in college that I realized I’m not inherently bad at math. Something about having more freedom, with the teacher being less didactic about what “showing our work” should look like and being able to use a calculator allowed me to get a system in place that worked with how my brain works. It’s sounds silly, but being able to check my basic arithmetic on the calculator...not because I wasn’t able to do mental math, but because I didn’t have to rely on my working memory to do “42-35, hold that sum in my head, plug it into the next equation” I could just reference the calculator to see that I had the number right and being allowed to take my time, put every step onto paper, and write out all my intermediary sums...so basically, if I have to preform multiple operations I need to write down the answer each operation gets me to, do the next operation on that number etc. I’ve just got break it down into smaller steps and write out everything. I’m still slow going with math, but, for the first time, I saw that I am very capable of doing well in it. I got an A+ in that class and actually really came to enjoy math for the first time ever! It’s just when I was initially taught math, the strategies we were taught weren’t tailored to people like me who have a tendency to swap digits in numbers, forget where I am when counting etc. it just kinda assumed that wouldn’t be an issue for people. Even for people w/o learning disabilities, our brains have differences...for instance, some of us are visual learners etc. and if anything’s relevant to test kids for it’s probably that, you know “what methods of conveying information click best for this kid and how can we make sure that that’s being accommodated for?” And slow≠ not smart. Being slower at something can be valuable- it can mean you’re being more thoughtful and thorough. How do you distinguish a student who is simply slower at doing the work in this subject from a student who is struggling to comprehend and needs more attention? That’s a more interesting question to me than general intelligence.
This is an utterly essential document for several reasons. Please put chapters in it, even though it should be listened to as a whole.
I second this
Shaun, I just watched the entire video. This video is yet another thorough debunking of The Bell Curve. I wrote a debunking of that book in college and graduate school over 20 years ago, using some of the same sources as you (e.g. Inequality by Design, and Intelligence, Genes, and Success). It's great to see a resource like this become available to the newer, social media generation. Thank you for the time and effort you put into bringing this masterful work to the public.
It gives me hope that people 40 and over are watching Shaun videos. Most of th time we feel like y'all don't much care what we have to say.
@@clsisman ok zoomer
@@clsisman Ay man, phrasing anything along the lines of "people like you usually aren't on the side of people like me, maybe you people are alright" isn't very cool. I know the ok boomer thing is big now, and you don't have any ill will, but it's comes off as ageist, and in a video breaking down the fallacies of discrimination we should remember to not see people as out group vs in group
@MeebleMeeble Wow you really like copy+pasting your bs all over. Anyway, about the stude where people were raised in middle-class background: there are things that affect people that are not only controlled for by a middle-class life. There is a stereotype that asians are smart. People usually like things they perceive themselves to be good at. Therefore an asian, who is told that they are supposed to be smart, will likely be drawn to other things correlated with higher intelligence(with limited proof of them being tied to actually increasing intelligence.)
We live in a culture where most people have different expectations for different ethnic groups. These expectations shape us, regardless of if people grow up in similar homes, whether we realize it ourselves or not.
@MeebleMeeble
No one deleted your comment you arnt that special.
This video is really eye opening. I think it says a lot about bigoted people when, even if you accept their bullshit and say they're completely right and that some races are inferior, their solution is to discard them and let them suffer. I know Shaun talked about this but it's exactly what I was thinking. Even if it's true, why would you not help these people? When we see an old woman struggling with her groceries, our solution isn't to push her over and help the strong able-bodied man in front of her. Why the hell is the solution to this problem "fuck them"? Of course I think the answer is obvious. Because they don't actually want to help other races. They want a reason to dislike them and they want a reason to treat them poorly. It makes them feel better to fuck with statistics and "scientifically" show that they're correct because otherwise they'd be hating people for no reason, like an asshole.
Anyways awesome video! I can't believe I watched the whole thing and actually understood the concepts in the book. When you first read those excerpts I thought "this sounds like a complicated topic that might have a point". After you explained it all, I thought "this sounds like it was written in the 1940s". No wonder the scientists of that era were so angry. It's disgusting.
beautifully written response, especially " When we see an old woman struggling with her groceries, our solution isn't to push her over and help the strong able-bodied man in front of her. Why the hell is the solution to this problem "fuck them"? Of course I think the answer is obvious." They are true demons and anti-human!
I'm a black South African and this is the same conclusion I came to as a 12 year old back when we first watched interviews of apartheid leaders. I'd get nauseated by their holier than thou attitude. A total lack of humanity
I mean, it kinda was written in the 1940s, since it has It's roots in Nazists
This actually reminded me of what people say about homeless people. "We shouldn't give them help/protection because they're all mentally ill" -- first of all, not true, second of all... Why do people with mental illness not deserve a bed and food?
People help the old lady because it's an easy to solve problem. The issues of helping an entire group of people are mind boggling complex. Even trying to discuss what the best outcome is and how to get there has a whole hurdle of philosophical issues. Then execution of a plan that works not only in the short term but also in the long term requires vast amounts of cooperation and diligence.
Generally things as a trend have been getting better for everyone in a realistic sense even if the gap of wealth has increased.
You know you're on a spicy video when all the top comments have hundreds of replies each.
Indeed
If I may ask, are you british btw?
You know its really spicy when you just sort the comments by new
Aaron Corpuz the new comments are pretty cancerous
And all full of brainrot, it’s disheartening to literally go on a reporting spree for a single person dragging the replies to 100+ and being explicitly racist in every other comment
Listening about how biased the different African test results were gave me so much second hand embarrassment. I've never gotten this much of this one emotion from a video before.
Yeah. As soon as Shaun said, “surely they wouldn’t base their statistics on the results of a racist and segregationist white supremacist state, would they?” I immediately thought, “…They took the scores from South Africa, didn’t they.”
The differences are actually larger when the tests are completely language and culture neutral.
The Bell Curve isn't perfect, but it's science is far better than that presented here. Almost right away Shaun blatantly misrepresents cranial capacity studies, equating them with phrenology. He even has the audacity to use Gould as a source when Gould was shown to have deliberately lied about what the study showed to support his far-left politics.
Using that disgraced liar as a source establishes early on the level of honesty one can expect from this video.
@@hideousruin Where is your evidence for any of your claims? Not only could I find no evidence Gould was a fraud or a far-leftist (unless center-left means far-left in your view) but the sources I did find suggest the opposite. Gould is very beloved by scientists; if he were a plagiarist or fraud, it would be known instantly and his reputation would be in shambles. I would also like a citation on your original claim, since anyone can just make a contrarian statement with no proof.
@@MrBrendanRizzo
There isn't any. He's butthurt that all of his talking points are worthless and wrong, so he's attempting to poison the well so the debunks suddenly don't "matter" anymore.
It's worth noting perhaps that in the college admissions scandal, the rich people who were caught are in a way not actually *that* rich - they’re sort of the affluent class actor and celebrity types. The actual rich - or should I say wealthy - people don’t get involved in scandals like that because they can donate a wing to the college and ensure their offspring gets admittance. So even the 1% is nothing compared to the 0.0001%.
The extreme end of the bell curves are really powerful
I always thought about this when the scandals were going on.
A lot of those people were new rich, celebrities with acclaim but maybe not much capital.
It’s sad that so many of them got fucked while the much larger variety of legal bribery and acceptance based on lineage is still alive and well.
@@batukhan1 that's why I like to think of the extremely wealthy as "bell-ends"
@@billiecruz4399 systemic exploitation will never be solved, this is a guarantee. You need a centralized organisation with hierarchy to achieve anything in any economy. And those with sufficient intellectual capacity and drive will also include ambitious people with little moral consideration. This is inescapable feature of our life.
Reminder that everyone earning over $34k is part of the 1%.
That's a lot of Sargons, jesus christ
Sargon himself couldn't even begin to comprehend how many Sargons this is
I might feel sorry for him having to watch this if it was twice as long,.. maybe (and if he had to ofc)
32 straight sargons?!? he cant even get through ONE sargon sometimes!!
cant wait for my 48 sargons of content
how many MauLers is it?
Shaun hasn't posted in, like, three months then drops a 2.5 hour video?
*I'm here for it.*
EDIT: Since this comment has received so many likes, I'd like to broadcast HUGE thanks to Shaun. I first heard of the Bell Curve from Sam Harris. I cowed to this myth because: 1) it was legitimized through Sam Harris who appeared to have understood it, and 2) Murray seemed to discuss his methodology clearly. I, as an African American with a familiarity with research, was ready to accept (and briefly did accept) the claim if the research pointed toward it.
There was a problem though. Every single time right wingers used the Bell Curve and other race "science" to support their claim, I spotted deep methodological flaws, misapplication of statistics, and other severe faults in logic (I was in a few active right ring groups to hear if the opposing positions had much merit). I studied statistics in university, and I actually scored in the top 3% of the U.S. for my major, which was research intensive. But after an unbroken and uncontested streak of junk science and misapplication from race realists, some of which cited the Bell Curve, I decided to look into the Bell Curve myself (with my research background), and I was legitimately stunned by how misled I was from Harris, Murray, and me with my unwarranted trust.
Shaun, this was immensely helpful in combatting a pernicious little right wing myth that's at the core of race realism and debunking a book pedestaled by pseudo-intellectual racists.
TL;DR: Sam Harris is trash for not vetting and understanding the Bell Curve before inviting Murray on to discuss it as if his book is some compelling set of facts that the Left resists out of some misguided infantilism. Murray is trash for [insert 2 hour 40 minute video]. I'm trash for not spotting and questioning that narrative, and I've dedicated a lot of my time enlightening others to redeem myself. Shaun is NOT trash, and he is as cool as *buried bones* for dedicating a 2 hour 40 minute video to critically: 1) discrediting this labyrinthine network of malicious misreporting and 2) debunking a self-congratulating tome of junk science that proposes a truly fucking despicable bit of conservative and rightwing policy.
Worth the wait when you get a movie lol
Feel you bro
i mean like, a nearly three hour documentary would take many more months to create usually with a huge team at the presenter’s disposal, we should probably thank Shaun for all the time, effort, and hard work he put into this as well as any people who worked alongside him
So what the hell are you going to do after you watch this and have to wait 3 months for the next video?
Bobby Bob there are other youtubers you know
When I was in high school I was really insecure and so paid $20 or whatever to do an IQ test so it could tell me I was smart. I actually ended up getting a pretty high score, but it was mostly math and had a lot of trigonometry and pre-calculus on there, which even at the time bothered me. Like, I'd just got done doing this in school within the last year or so, so of course I was good at it and could do it quickly. If this was supposed to be a test of one's unchanging, innate cognitive ability, shouldn't it be on something more universal or psychological and less like rote math problems you wouldn't even know if you were a few years younger than I was? Adding to that, math doesn't at all come naturally to me, so outside that specific school environment where I was doing it every day, the same test would probably determine that I dropped 20 points since I was in high school just because I forgot how exactly to order sines and cosines. At the time, I dismissed it because I figured I'm not an expert so how could I understand. In retrospect I definitely wasted $20 lol but it was an interesting experience I guess
just wanna let you know, that wasnt an iq test, at least not by any psychologist standards
Bro you got scammed in no way is that an iq test lol an iq is administered by a psychologist
That wasn't an IQ test. The whole point of the IQ test is to answer your question.
A real IQ test is administered by a licensed psychologist and takes several hours to complete. It is nothing like a $20 multiple choice test. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale is the typical standard.
Psst, trust me, go back up. It’s not worth it
I must.To know is to see the best and worst
He spoke the truth but we did not listen
We were fools, all of us!
return to monke
😂😂😂
me: god i cant believe i watched hbombs pathologic video it was so long
shaun: hold me beer
Danica Metz I love how everyone in this comment section watches the same videos lmao. God, I love these long vids. Never stop being amazing, kings
SRSLY
I like watching them. Then I like watching others rip these pseudo intellectuals to shreds and reading the comments in this echo chamber.
@Jacqueline A no, Shaun didn't use a modern academic book to debunk anything. He miss represented the arguments and ignored modern research and twin studies that completely validate the book.
@Jacqueline A to give you an example of how dishonest Shaun is. He literally cherry picked a random interview for the definition of hereditary traits. When the part he was criticisizing had the academic definition right next to it. He literally had to ignore it and go find something in a random interview.
this is basically my field of study for my PhD and I have to say you've done an amazing job of explaining the history of factor analysis!
You're studying psychometrics? Where are you doing your PhD, if you don't mind me asking? I go to the same school that the late Rushton used to teach at. :)
@MeebleMeeble Asians outperform white students in USA because US immigration policy only allowed rich Asians for ages until relatively recently, and children growing up in wealthy homes are more likely to perform well in academic tests. It has far more to do with environmental factors than race
@MeebleMeeble There's only one human race :-)
-IQ test questions are prone to cultural, and pop-cultural bias.
-While also genetic, Intelligence has significant environmental factors when accounting for adoptive families.
-Tests were conducted in English when the participants are residents of African countries that do not speak English as their primary language.
-A significant number of the tests cited were conducted in African countries that were ruled by white-supremacist governments (South Africa and Belgian Congo) that has a tendency of under-funding education and medical care for their black-majority citizens.
Minnesota twin study iirc, adopting children had no effect on their IQ and their IQ was similar to the biological parents.
"environmental" factors do not necessarily mean "cultural(i.e. sociological)" people tend to misinterpret these things, when it usually means "non-internal but biologically affecting" factors.
Culturally fair IQ tests were created, regardless of 'The Bell Curve" by itself, the IQ is relatively the same in those countries regardless.
- All twin studies roundly contradict your claim.
- The authors could have omitted any racial element and the claims would stand. 99%+ of the book is not about racial differences. The authors accurately predicted the cognitive elite we see in Silicon Valley and east coast cities. Things have only gotten more separate because cognitive ability is far more important now that it was when they published.
- All of us, including you, have met individuals who are smarter and the reverse in our lives. Pretending this isn't a thing is a childish way to avoid reality. Many people are smarter than me and it's not their fault or mine.
This video is one, long-winded obscurantist gish-gallop completely avoiding the basic claims of the book. The nincompoop amazingly avoids the fact that ALL intelligence researchers, INCLUDING FLYNN, agree with the foundational claims of The Bell Curve, that it's not controversial, and that G continues to be the best predictor of very many things.
And everything you just said is completely disproven by the fact that sn individuals IQ changes throughout their lives or on any given day.
@@benhaylock7097 The ability to perform cognitively does not at all disprove IQ as a measurement. It is common sense that someone who is stressed, tired, distracted, or hungry would be unable to perform ideally on an IQ test. This can be controlled for in an individual or accounted for in a population. It does not invalidate the measurement itself.
@@CrusteanParliament "- All twin studies roundly contradict your claim."
Source? When I put "All twin studies" into Google I don't get any studies.
"- The authors accurately predicted the cognitive elite we see in Silicon Valley and east coast cities."
Source? What is a cognitive elite? Who observed it? How did they demonstrate its existence? What is the significance of the authors of the The Bell Curve predicting this phenomenon?
"Things have only gotten more separate because cognitive ability is far more important now that it was when they published."
Source? How do we quantify "cognitive ability?" How do we quantify "important?"
"- All of us, including you, have met individuals who are smarter and the reverse in our lives."
What if I disagree? What bearing does this have on the argument?
"Pretending this isn't a thing is a childish way to avoid reality."
This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing.
"This video is one, long-winded obscurantist gish-gallop completely avoiding the basic claims of the book."
This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing.
"The nincompoop amazingly avoids the fact that"
This is ad hominem and contributes or demonstrates nothing.
"ALL intelligence researchers, INCLUDING FLYNN, agree with the foundational claims of The Bell Curve,"
Source? Quote? Anything? "All intelligence researchers" also turns up no studies.
"that it's not controversial"
I'm not going to ask for a source here because I easily found sources that indicate this is simply false. A work is automatically controversial if many people say it is.
*Wikipedia: "The book has been, and remains, highly controversial"*
*American Enterprise Institute: "October marks the 20th anniversary of “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,” the extraordinarily influential and controversial book"*
_Jacoby, Russell, and Naomi Glauberman. The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions. Times Books, 1998._
These sources are iffy: Wikipedia is Wikipedia, the American Enterprise Institute openly labels itself a "think tank," and The Bell Curve Debate was published in 1998. I expect better sources from you.
"G continues to be the best predictor of very many things."
Can you explain what specifically G is? If not, how can you know enough to make this claim? Is there a source? What does your claim mean - G is the best predictor of what specifically, compared to what, by whom?
I am giving you an IQ score of 30 for this comment because I want to. I guess that means you're just irredeemably, genetically stupid? Sorry!
So basically the authors think the economy will be better and society healthier if there is an uneducated underclass of peasants ruled by wealthy, educated elites? Someone has never read European History, especially 19th century European history. The peasants have never exactly appreciated being subjected to arbitrary oppression and doomed to perpetual poverty, which is why they rebelled _constantly_ and the lords had to go around killing a bunch of them every once in a while to keep the others obedient.
Things didn’t actually get better for most people until some of these rebellions succeeded and the reforms stuck, allowing for socialist policies to be implemented through democracy after the kings were out of the way.
also the black plague caused there to be such a lack of workers that the workers that were left were now more valuable and less replaceable therefore had the ability to demand higher wage and better treatment. Just a fun fact
I think what they're saying is that society already organizes itself like just that, all the intelligent people rising to the top and ruling society. What the book advocates is that we stop trying to reverse it with social policy.
@@bunnyben5607 I don't think they merely want to stop trying to reverse it, the policies outlined are clearly meant to actively increase the stratification. And it is all disingenuous since they called that outcome "apocalyptic" early in the book.
Now describe successful sub saharan african societies and native american societies... human sacrifice daily, cannibalism, trading women for beads and beaver pelts. Much better system, indeed.
In all seriousness, the USA was better on every metric, intelligence, high school test scores, crime and poverty metrics BEFORE 1969. Why is that? We've spent 1 trillion on the war on poverty starting about that time. Perhaps increasing the birth rates of the poor hasn't been the best idea, and so we need to ask ourselves if the problem is genetic.
@@renaissance17 "human sacrifice daily"
Someone watched too many propaganda movies.
For the app users:
6:15 Intelligence
17:18 The Bell Curve
30:03 General Intelligence
57:21 IQ Tests
1:41:15 IQ vs Environment
2:02:34 Politics
Thank you
Thanks! :)
+
@@kaikingsland
+
For some reason people think equality means everyone is the same when it really means everyone is a human and should be treated with respect and dignity and have human rights
"Equal opportunity" ostensibly means equal access to resources, education, safety, work opportunities, political power, etc.
But people usually just use it to mean "poor people deserve to be poor and rich people deserve to be rich"
@@bravetherainbow Exactly. Conservative worldviews typically believe that present hierarchies and injustices are due to everyone being "in their proper place."
It's why reactionaries get so damn mad about reform. They see any benefit going to the "undeserving" in their eyes as a disruption of the natural order. Exact same brain-space that would have them arguing in favor of divine right monarchy a few centuries ago.
We all have a range of different survival needs and those ought to be met. Only when our needs are met are we free to relate in ways that suit us
You said it right equality does not mean identical which is a clever twist on words. #Humanrights.
@wonderbarn1111 no one said that but go off I guess
I'm very late to this party, but I wanted to jump in regarding their second defense of their regression analysis that you discuss at 1:53:15. What they are referring to is called multicollinearity, and it is indeed a problem in regression analysis.
However, as you can probably expect by now, the way they discuss multicollinearity is very much misrepresenting the issue. When doing regression analysis, you can add in as many independent variables as you want, and the regression will indicate how strongly those variables tie in. However, if you were analyzing crime patterns for example, if you included average weekly temperature as well as ice cream sales, you will find both are positively correlated with crime rates. But you can look at this simply and say "well that makes sense as warmer weather will also increase ice cream sales, hence those 2 variables are correlated and one must be removed." But it isn't always the case where the link is very apparent, and that would be very much true in this intelligence study. So their process SHOULD have been to include as many potential variables as they can think of in their analysis and then run VIF tests for those variables to see which are correlated with each other. Then they would simply remove the variable they think is less directly involved and include their reasons why in the justification. Their decision to not even bother testing other variables is like going to your doctor because your arm hurts and they amputate it so it won't hurt anymore. You should always be overzealous with your independent variable selection and then use regression analysis testing to make corrections. In fact, you will see most academic papers with regression analysis will share and discuss multiple iterations of a model in their paper before presenting the final model as they have to correct for multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation.
This is something even introductory statistics students learn, so I think it's reasonable to say their book wasn't written for scholarly reasons or with good intentions for that matter.