CommunityFDL Main Blog

Crossburner Chuck: Still Racist (And Wrong) After All These Years

You can tell the Turner Diaries arm of the right wing is feeling frisky. Charles Murray’s popped up again, apparently hoping that nobody remembers his history of cross-burning as he tries to fit scientific research on the Procrustean bed of his white-power agenda:

It’s one thing to point out that programs to improve children’s cognitive functioning have had a dismal track record. We can always focus on short-term improvements, blame the long-term failures on poor execution or lack of follow-up and try, try again. It’s another to say that it’s impossible to do much to permanently improve children’s intellectual ability through outside interventions. But that’s increasingly where the data are pointing.

Two studies published this year have made life significantly more difficult for those who continue to be optimists. The first one is by Florida State University’s Kevin Beaver and five colleagues, who asked how much effect parenting has on IQ independently of genes…

The second study breaks new ground. Six of its eight authors come from King’s College London, home to what is probably the world’s leading center for the study of the interplay among genes, environment and developmental factors…

So much bullshit and misdirection in those words! Just what you’d expect from a member in good standing of the American Enterprise Institute. And the rest of his piece is no better.

Geez, where do we start? Besides noting that Russ Whitehurst’s anti-preschool and anti-government crusade, which is what that link in Murray’s first paragraph links to, has been ripped to shreds by actual early childhood education experts? And that James Heckman’s 2007 research showing the benefits of early intervention and education — research from which the chart that graces this post is taken — neatly pre-debunks Whitehurst, Murray, and the rest of the “let the kids rot so the guys who sign our paychecks can have that extra house in St. Moritz” brigade?

Fortunately, a Disqus commenter named Sonja7039 has already done much of the heavy lifting for us.

Here she is, pointing out the problems with citing FSU’s Kevin Beaver and the publication Intelligence as reliable authorities for the purposes of this discussion:

The “journal” Intelligence is not particularly distinguished or highly regarded. Nor are the contributors from very good schools. I took a very close look. The FSU study is headed by someone from the department of Criminology. It’s not particularly compelling.

Look, anyone can start a journal and publish their friends’ papers. This “journal” is highly ideological, and has always been. The phenomenon of inventing “journals” so that academics can publish and preserve their jobs is widespread, and has caused the level of research to decline across the board. The same thing has happened in many fields.

And this:

This is NOT a distinguished editorial board.

http://www.journals.elsevier.c…

This is nothing compared to the leading journals in the field of human cognition, and this is not where the best teach or publish their work. These people are all ideologues, and I’d be embarrassed to have my good name associated with them.

It was most amusing to watch the white-power freaks run away from her links to studies proving the efficacy of efforts to increase intelligence (links like this 2008 PNAS study by Susanne M. Jaeggi, Martin Buschkuehl, et al, or a 2010 study by Buschkuehl and Jaeggi, or this 2012 APA study by Richard E. Nisbett et al — they’d pretend to read them, but their cockeyed responses showed they were lying.

CommunityMyFDL Front Page

Crossburner Chuck: Still Racist (And Wrong) After All These Years

You can tell the Turner Diaries arm of the right wing is feeling frisky. Charles Murray’s popped up again, apparently hoping that nobody remembers his history of cross-burning as he tries to fit scientific research on the Procrustean bed of his white-power agenda:

It’s one thing to point out that programs to improve children’s cognitive functioning have had a dismal track record. We can always focus on short-term improvements, blame the long-term failures on poor execution or lack of follow-up and try, try again. It’s another to say that it’s impossible to do much to permanently improve children’s intellectual ability through outside interventions. But that’s increasingly where the data are pointing.

Two studies published this year have made life significantly more difficult for those who continue to be optimists. The first one is by Florida State University’s Kevin Beaver and five colleagues, who asked how much effect parenting has on IQ independently of genes…

The second study breaks new ground. Six of its eight authors come from King’s College London, home to what is probably the world’s leading center for the study of the interplay among genes, environment and developmental factors…

So much bullshit and misdirection in those words! Just what you’d expect from a member in good standing of the American Enterprise Institute. And the rest of his piece is no better.

Geez, where do we start? Besides noting that Russ Whitehurst’s anti-preschool and anti-government crusade, which is what that link in Murray’s first paragraph links to, has been ripped to shreds by actual early childhood education experts? And that James Heckman’s 2007 research showing the benefits of early intervention and education — research from which the chart that graces this post is taken — neatly pre-debunks Whitehurst, Murray, and the rest of the “let the kids rot so the guys who sign our paychecks can have that extra house in St. Moritz” brigade?

Fortunately, a Disqus commenter named Sonja7039 has already done much of the heavy lifting for us.

Here she is, pointing out the problems with citing FSU’s Kevin Beaver and the publication Intelligence as reliable authorities for the purposes of this discussion:

The “journal” Intelligence is not particularly distinguished or highly regarded. Nor are the contributors from very good schools. I took a very close look. The FSU study is headed by someone from the department of Criminology. It’s not particularly compelling.

Look, anyone can start a journal and publish their friends’ papers. This “journal” is highly ideological, and has always been. The phenomenon of inventing “journals” so that academics can publish and preserve their jobs is widespread, and has caused the level of research to decline across the board. The same thing has happened in many fields.

And this:

This is NOT a distinguished editorial board.

http://www.journals.elsevier.c…

This is nothing compared to the leading journals in the field of human cognition, and this is not where the best teach or publish their work. These people are all ideologues, and I’d be embarrassed to have my good name associated with them.

It was most amusing to watch the white-power freaks run away from her links to studies proving the efficacy of efforts to increase intelligence (links like this 2008 PNAS study by Susanne M. Jaeggi, Martin Buschkuehl, et al, or a 2010 study by Buschkuehl and Jaeggi, or this 2012 APA study by Richard E. Nisbett et al — they’d pretend to read them, but their cockeyed responses showed they were lying.

Previous post

Saturday Art: Influential Authors: Betty Layman Receveur

Next post

FDL Book Salon Welcomes Jeff Madrick, Seven Bad Ideas: How Mainstream Economists Have Damaged America and the World

Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman