cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (08/25/89)
In article <519@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: > >Some questions and comments about IQ discussion: >In the discussion twin studies have been mentioned. It was pointed out >that a former "classic" inquiry contained faked results. The following notes are taken from a review in the Guardian of "The Burt Affair", R.B. Joynson, Routledge, the review by Dr Clare Burstall. In 1976 Burt was accused of falsifying research results in order to bolster his views on selective education, and of inventing research assistants. In 1979 Prof Hearnshaw's biography of Burt endorsed these charges, and added more. In 1980 The Council of the British Psychological Society accepted Hearnshaw's arguments as "evidence of fraud". I quote: "The flaws in Hearnshaw are so glaring and ubiquitous that it seems as though no one had seriously attempted to check ... the catalogue is damming ... suspicion did duty for evidence ... Joynson states: `the attempt to confirm Hearnshaw's account has failed; not occasionally and incidentally, but repeatedly and crucially ... this enquiry provides fresh grounds for supposing that Burt's most important data were in fact genuine ... no reliable indication of fabrication whatever ... The Burt affair must never be forgotten. It is a paradigm of the corruption of scientific judgement by the common sense, the values, and the controversies of the everyday world.' ... This is a scholarly and measured account of of a patient and painstaking examination of the evidence assembled in attempts to convict an innocent man of acandalously fraudulent and deceitful behaviour." Why? Joynson suggests, and Burstall agrees, that while Burt's data (suggesting a substantial genetic component in IQ) at the time were squarely in line with popular liberal views on education (e.g., that IQ testing and streaming lifted up and gave a proper opportunity to clever children whose background fell foul of teachers' prejudices), in the 1970s popular liberal views felt that grading and labelling children's academic performance was a bad thing to do, and that any scientific evidence suggesting the inheritance of intelligence smacked dangerously of elitism, racism, etc.. So Burt was demolished, the strength of popular feeling overwhelming scientific objectivity to the extent that unsubstantiated rumour based on wishful thinking became textbook fact. The controversy apparently still rages in comp.ai! Several posters have argued in very strong terms that the notion that humans differ in basic mental genetic endowment is tantamount to fascism, a denial of basic human rights, a contradiction in terms, socialist nonsense, evolutionarily improbable, manifestly silly, etc. etc. I'm cross-posting to sci.psychology to find out what academic psychologists think :-) -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (08/29/89)
In article <528@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes: }In article <519@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: }> }>[ Condemnatino of Burt's work. ] }[ Vindication of Burt's work. Burt seen as victim of social mores. ] }I'm cross-posting to sci.psychology to find out what academic }psychologists think :-) A point usually forgotten by both sides of the Burt argument is that Burt's honesty, or lack of it, has nothing to do with the question in hand. There have long since been mountains of further studies, good and bad, on the same subject. Academically, Burt's work is merely one footnote among many, and hardly definitive. The consensus of these studies, to the best of my knowledge, remains inconclusive. The nature/nurture debate rages on. Most reasonable, scientific psychologists will agree that both play a significant part. Which dominates under what conditions at what time of a person's life remain questions for further research. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (08/29/89)
<> No answers here, but I do have some related questions: Have any studies been done on SAT or ACT scores that use an analysis of variance or other technique to see whether (and if so how) scores are affected by the students' *parents'* educational level and socio-economic class? Then next step, of course, would be to look at adopted children's scores compared to their step-parents. :-) -- Krista A.
osborn@pipiens.usc.edu (Tom Osborn) (08/30/89)
In article <1434@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: >No answers here, but I do have some related questions: >Have any studies been done on SAT or ACT scores that use an >analysis of variance or other technique to see whether (and >if so how) scores are affected by the students' *parents'* >educational level and socio-economic class? About ten years ago a friend of mine - Les Bobis - did a similar study to the one you suggest in Newcastle, Australia. I helped with the statistics. The study involved 15 year olds and looked at parent occupation, parent education, parent aspirations for themselves and for the kids, and on the kids' side, aspiration and performance in various aptitude and performance tests. "Social status" of the parents' occupations was also included, and the study was stratified. The correlations were SO HIGH, that the write up was mainly as case studies. All factors were significant (6+ sigmas, mostly)!!! Basically, the kids performed and aspired to a level a bit higher than the parents expected of them and a bit higher than the parents had achieved. This also applied to IQ (except, of course, the parents didn't 'expect' their kids' IQ scores, but they did rate their 'smartness' in a rankable way). >Then next step, of course, would be to look at adopted children's >scores compared to their step-parents. :-) As far as I know, Les didn't publish, but may get 'round to doing a more extensive study one day. I do recall his study including citations to similar work. >Krista A. Tom Osborn. *** AT USC for 6 months *** --- Tom Osborn, | Doon or Task Varoom School of Computing Sciences, | the Belt holes - University of Technology, Sydney, | Eat holes, PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA. | few.
tsu00256@koryu.statci.junet (ohsaka) (09/10/89)
q