On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:54:38 EST MScoleman at aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 99-02-03 19:46:43 EST, you write:
>
><< Gould reviewed the Bell Curve for the New Yorker, and pointed out
>that even
> by Murray & Herrnstein's own evidence, IQ explains only about 2-3% of
> social outcomes. That is, they claimed that IQ explained 50% of
>social
> outcomes and their regressions had r^2's of around .05 (the only time
>I've
> ever seen an r^2 quoted in the New Yorker!). So 5% of 50% = 2.5%.
>It's no
> wonder they presented only the regression trendlines in their texts,
>since
> if they'd shown the full scattergrams they'd have looked only
>slightly less
> than random. And that, of course, is on the basis of their own
>crackpot
> models.
>
> Doug >>
>
>hmmmm, could it be that murray isn't intelligent enough to understand
>statistical regressions???? maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com
>
I seem to recall that when Murray was profiled in The New York Times
Magazine a few years ago, he pretty much admitted that he knew
little about statistical regressions and the like. Presumably,
Herrnstein
was knowledgeable but as they say "dead men tell no tales."
Jim Farmelant
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]