> 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 >>
I believe that is the article that he has in the collection _The Bell Curve Debate_ which is a book of essays that were mostly printed elsewhere first.
> hmmmm, could it be that murray isn't intelligent enough to understand
> statistical regressions???? maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com
No, he's not stupid, he's a lying sack of shit.
--
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com