Scan barcode
typodactyl's review against another edition
1.0
If you think this is a good book, read the [b:The Tyranny of Metrics|36644895|The Tyranny of Metrics|Jerry Z. Muller|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1511400900l/36644895._SY75_.jpg|58414707] next. The question of whether this book is racist or not is how well you understand measurement and what influences it.
Anyone with a lick of scientific background and understands how samples and data can be polluted by influence won't have much use for this book except to understand how racists twist facts and figures to suit their views instead of changing their views based on data.
Anyone with a lick of scientific background and understands how samples and data can be polluted by influence won't have much use for this book except to understand how racists twist facts and figures to suit their views instead of changing their views based on data.
kstumpf's review against another edition
4.0
Wow. That was A LOT of information, and a lot to think about.
I was introduced to this book while reading, How Children Succeed, and Whatever It Takes, both by Paul Tough. These are not easy issues/subjects to address.
After reading a few reviews both before and during my reading of this book, I have decided two things: (1) some people are not going to like this book because of the difficult subject matter and how uncomfortable the content may be, (2) some people obviously did not read the book before their reviews.
Are there difficult, uncomfortable, gut wrenching, pieces of information shared - absolutely.
Is it difficult to read and comprehend - absolutely.
Are there many issues both inherent and externally that have and impact - yes again.
BUT just because the “fix” was not provided, does not mean the thoughts are incorrect.
After having dealt with adults in the business world on every imaginable distribution along the IQ scale, there was NOTHING I could do to help some of the associates I worked with. While others, I could not believe how quickly he/she progressed. These were not college educated people, they were every day citizens from all walks of life and a variety of SES, home life situations, family structures.
Do I have all the answers? No. But after reading this book it has helped me understand people that I interact with on a daily basis on a different level.
A different environment can be helpful. A two parent household can be helpful. A higher SES situation can be helpful. But none are a cure all.
I was introduced to this book while reading, How Children Succeed, and Whatever It Takes, both by Paul Tough. These are not easy issues/subjects to address.
After reading a few reviews both before and during my reading of this book, I have decided two things: (1) some people are not going to like this book because of the difficult subject matter and how uncomfortable the content may be, (2) some people obviously did not read the book before their reviews.
Are there difficult, uncomfortable, gut wrenching, pieces of information shared - absolutely.
Is it difficult to read and comprehend - absolutely.
Are there many issues both inherent and externally that have and impact - yes again.
BUT just because the “fix” was not provided, does not mean the thoughts are incorrect.
After having dealt with adults in the business world on every imaginable distribution along the IQ scale, there was NOTHING I could do to help some of the associates I worked with. While others, I could not believe how quickly he/she progressed. These were not college educated people, they were every day citizens from all walks of life and a variety of SES, home life situations, family structures.
Do I have all the answers? No. But after reading this book it has helped me understand people that I interact with on a daily basis on a different level.
A different environment can be helpful. A two parent household can be helpful. A higher SES situation can be helpful. But none are a cure all.
bookclubtrivia's review against another edition
3.0
Pretty racist, and their suggested solutions are basically “every man for himself” which just feels super backwards to me.
But they do make a few good points:
High schoolers are not motivated to try hard, because there’s no benefit (only one test matters, and only if you want to go to an Ivy).
The introduction of TV may have affected verbal IQ scores.
People of different abilities exist in society, and those with the lowest IQs struggle to survive due to complicated bureaucracy (ever tried to do your own taxes?) and wages that won’t support a household. They suggest that the earned income tax credit can help, and I agree, although I think minimum wage should go up as well and that both should be tied to inflation. I also think the EIC should be a graded amount like tax brackets, not just an automatic drop-off. The amount awarded goes down as income goes up, and the total should be enough to bring a full-time employee enough money to pay rent and survive.
I don’t think bringing race into it was necessary by any means; I think the whole point was for them to complain about affirmative action. There’s no way black IQs are an entire standard deviation below white ones, and if they are, there are certainly outside factors making it so. I do think IQ matters, to an extent, but I honestly think emotional intelligence is a better predictor of success.
Also smart women would have more babies if we had paid maternity/paternity leave, universal healthcare, and if climate change wasn’t destroying our future.
But they do make a few good points:
High schoolers are not motivated to try hard, because there’s no benefit (only one test matters, and only if you want to go to an Ivy).
The introduction of TV may have affected verbal IQ scores.
People of different abilities exist in society, and those with the lowest IQs struggle to survive due to complicated bureaucracy (ever tried to do your own taxes?) and wages that won’t support a household. They suggest that the earned income tax credit can help, and I agree, although I think minimum wage should go up as well and that both should be tied to inflation. I also think the EIC should be a graded amount like tax brackets, not just an automatic drop-off. The amount awarded goes down as income goes up, and the total should be enough to bring a full-time employee enough money to pay rent and survive.
I don’t think bringing race into it was necessary by any means; I think the whole point was for them to complain about affirmative action. There’s no way black IQs are an entire standard deviation below white ones, and if they are, there are certainly outside factors making it so. I do think IQ matters, to an extent, but I honestly think emotional intelligence is a better predictor of success.
Also smart women would have more babies if we had paid maternity/paternity leave, universal healthcare, and if climate change wasn’t destroying our future.
sbenzell's review against another edition
2.0
Waaaaaaaaaaay too long. Also racist. But it is a very provocative and pretty well written introduction to an important literature. For those able to separate wheat from chaff, that's better than boring. Putting aside the racist stuff, we do have strong reason (from twin studies) to believe that part of intelligence is inherited, and that is really important for social scientists/planners to understand. I'd reccomend that someone interested in the social implications of IQ start elsewhere though.
lucas12345's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
Kinda mid a lot about policy and IQ and it is a bit out dated.
ajmarquis's review against another edition
1.0
This book is just the n-word with many extra steps.
I'd read texts that directly or tangentially respond to The Bell Curve but not the book itself until now. It was, somehow, worse in quality than I imagined.
When I see a poorly constructed or misleading argument I try not to judge whether the work was shoddy or it was written in bad faith. That's very difficult to do here because much of the book seems elaborately constructed to mislead. It's frankly ridiculous the way the authors, for example, weave between the scientific and colloquial definitions of heritability to overexaggerate a possible genetic factor to cognitive ability. There are many other issues which other authors have enumerated.
The science is bad and even were it true the authors' deeply conservative policy recommendations wouldn't follow as conclusions from them. All the steps in the argument and the connective tissue between them are full of nonsense.
Even if you were the book's target audience I couldn't recommend it. If you bring any of these arguments into a space where anybody knows anything or has any critical thinking will dunk on you.
I'd read texts that directly or tangentially respond to The Bell Curve but not the book itself until now. It was, somehow, worse in quality than I imagined.
When I see a poorly constructed or misleading argument I try not to judge whether the work was shoddy or it was written in bad faith. That's very difficult to do here because much of the book seems elaborately constructed to mislead. It's frankly ridiculous the way the authors, for example, weave between the scientific and colloquial definitions of heritability to overexaggerate a possible genetic factor to cognitive ability. There are many other issues which other authors have enumerated.
The science is bad and even were it true the authors' deeply conservative policy recommendations wouldn't follow as conclusions from them. All the steps in the argument and the connective tissue between them are full of nonsense.
Even if you were the book's target audience I couldn't recommend it. If you bring any of these arguments into a space where anybody knows anything or has any critical thinking will dunk on you.
shiradest's review against another edition
2.0
I feel guilty even giving this book two stars, but I must admit that there are a few nuggets of ore buried in the excrement that is this book:
1. Yes, giften children are being dumbed-down by our school system, despite the Talented and Gifted programs in many states: those programs simply do not give the brightest kids the leeway and encouragement to learn as much as they can as fast as they can in as many interesting areas as they can, partly due to lack of resources, and partly due to a need to be 'practical' in job outlook, and partly due to the demonisation of intellectuals in the USA.
2. Yes, we need apprenticeships and other types of one to one job training. It is also true that poverty and high-crime neighborhoods did not go hand in hand 50 years ago. The factors are complex.
But
Race does not exist. Therefore, IQ cannot differ by racial grouping. Seee the Human Genome Project, and all 'racial' research in the last few years, as well as the many reviews of this book which have already cited the conditions under which certain groups of people have been forced to live which (as with lead pipes) make it very difficult for children in those groups to test at the level of even poor White Americans.
So, sadly, the arguments that the authors make are inherently biased, and perhaps also self-serving.
1. Yes, giften children are being dumbed-down by our school system, despite the Talented and Gifted programs in many states: those programs simply do not give the brightest kids the leeway and encouragement to learn as much as they can as fast as they can in as many interesting areas as they can, partly due to lack of resources, and partly due to a need to be 'practical' in job outlook, and partly due to the demonisation of intellectuals in the USA.
2. Yes, we need apprenticeships and other types of one to one job training. It is also true that poverty and high-crime neighborhoods did not go hand in hand 50 years ago. The factors are complex.
But
Race does not exist. Therefore, IQ cannot differ by racial grouping. Seee the Human Genome Project, and all 'racial' research in the last few years, as well as the many reviews of this book which have already cited the conditions under which certain groups of people have been forced to live which (as with lead pipes) make it very difficult for children in those groups to test at the level of even poor White Americans.
So, sadly, the arguments that the authors make are inherently biased, and perhaps also self-serving.