Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Logic Of Bell Curve Leftism

  1. #1
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    3,077
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    380
    Thanked in
    248 Posts

    The Logic Of Bell Curve Leftism

    A twist not many of us saw coming.



    Source: AndrewSullivan

    There aren’t many books out there these days by revolutionary communists who are into the genetics of intelligence. But then there aren’t many writers like Freddie DeBoer. He’s an insistently quirky thinker who has managed to resist the snark, cynicism and moral preening of so many others in his generation — and write from his often-broken heart. And the core of his new book, “The Cult of Smart,” is a moral case for those with less natural intelligence than others — the ultimate losers in our democratic meritocracy, a system both the mainstream right and left have defended for decades now, and that, DeBoer argues, gives short shrift to far too many.

    This isn’t a merely abstract question for him. He has grappled with it directly. As a school teacher he encountered the simple, unavoidable fact that some humans are more academically gifted than others, and there’s nothing much anyone can do about it. He recalls his effort to teach long division to a boy who had managed to come a long way socially (he’d gone from being a hell-raiser to a good student) but who still struggled with something as elemental as long division: “At one point he broke into tears, as he had several times before … I exhaled slowly and felt myself give up, though of course I would never tell him so. I tried to console him, once again, and he said, ‘I just can’t do it.’ And it struck me, with unusual force, that he was right.”

    What DeBoer tries to do is explain how our current culture and political system is geared to torment, distress and punish this kid for no fault of his own. “This is the cult of smart,” DeBoer proclaims. “It is the notion that academic value is the only value, and intelligence the only true measure of human worth. It is pernicious, it is cruel, and it must change.” It has become un-American — or perhaps it always was? — to say that an individual has natural limits, that, even with extremely hard work, he won’t always be able to realize his dreams. And this is not because of anything he has done or failed to do — but simply because of his draw in the genetic lottery of life. The very American cult of education is supposed to end this injustice — except that it doesn’t, because it can’t, and its brutal logic actually exposes and entrenches the least defensible inequality of all, the inequality of nature.

    This genetic reality — in fact, the very idea of nature existing at all — is currently a taboo topic on the left. In the most ludicrously untrue and yet suffocatingly omnipresent orthodoxy of our time, critical theory leftists insist that everything on earth is entirely socially constructed, that all inequality is a function of “oppressive systems”, and that human nature itself is what John Locke called a “white paper, void of all characters” — the famous blank slate. Freddie begs to differ: “Human behavioral traits, such as IQ, are profoundly shaped by genetic parentage, and this genetic influence plays a larger role in determining human outcomes than the family and home environment.”

    People are not just born unequally and unfairly into class, and culture, and place, they are inherently unequal in various ways in their very nature: “not everyone has the same ability to do calculus; not everyone has the same grasp of grammar and mechanics … we can continue to beat our heads against the wall, trying to force an equality that just won’t come. Or we can face facts and start to grapple with a world where everyone simply can’t be made equal.” And this is not a counsel of despair. What Freddie is arguing is that, far from treating genetic inequality as a taboo, the left should actually lean into it to argue for a more radical re-ordering of society. They shouldn’t ignore genetics, or treat it as unmentionable, or go into paroxysms of fear and alarm over “eugenics” whenever the subject comes up. They should accept that inequality is natural, and construct a politics radical enough to counter it.

    For DeBoer, that means ending meritocracy — for “what could be crueler than an actual meritocracy, a meritocracy fulfilled?” It means a revolutionary transformation in which there are no social or cultural rewards for higher intelligence, no higher after-tax income for the brainy, and in which education, with looser standards, is provided for everyone on demand — for the sake of nothing but itself. DeBoer believes the smart will do fine under any system, and don’t need to be incentivized — and their disproportionate gains in our increasingly knowledge-based economy can simply be redistributed to everyone else. In fact, the transformation in the economic rewards of intelligence — they keep increasing at an alarming rate as we leave physical labor behind — is not just not a problem, it is, in fact, what will make human happiness finally possible.

    If early 20th Century Russia was insufficiently developed for communism, in other words, America today is ideal: “The communist revolution could take place in an economy more than capable of providing food, housing, education, and medical care for everyone … an economy, that is, like the twenty-first century one.” Let the super-smart create the wealth and then tax the hell out of them — to provide Medicare for all, universal pre-K, and a UBI or a guaranteed job.

    This genetic case for communism can leave a reader a little disoriented, I have to say, if only for its novelty. But it is more coherent, it seems to me, than a leftism that assumes that genes are irrelevant to humans and society, that the ultimate goal is to be as smart and thereby wealthy as possible, and that we can set up an educational system where everyone, regardless of their genetic inheritance, can succeed or fail by their own efforts. What sounds like a meritocratic dream is, in practice, a brutal and unforgiving formula for most who can’t achieve it — and has obviously failed if its task is to foster equality. In fact, mass education appears to have increased the gulf between rich and poor. As Freddie notes, “education is not a weapon against inequality; it is an engine of inequality.”



    I think it was Mickey Kaus who once quipped about the potential for “Bell Curve Leftism”, but DeBoer takes it seriously and thinks it through. Here’s the critical point: “In insisting on the power of genetics to shape our academic lives, and thus our economic lives, I am simply taking leftwing thought to its next logical conclusion … In most arenas, ascribing outcomes to biological factors is the more progressive position — when it comes to being overweight, for example, or in the case of mental illness, progressive people tend to believe that it’s biology, not willpower, that plays the largest role.”

    So why not intelligence? Why do we imply it’s a matter of mere will? It’s not as if the genetic roots of intelligence aren’t well established; or the data proving the irrelevance of parenting and most education isn’t sound. So why the resistance? “It frequently seems as if progressives only believe in evolution from the neck down,” DeBoer notes. “And this sclerotic attitude is not just unnecessary. It is potentially crueler than the alternative.”

    The reason for the left’s pathological distrust of the genetics of intelligence, of course, is about groups. Many legitimately worry that because there are real differences between some crudely defined racial groups, intelligence genetics must be inherently racist, and thereby should remain a forbidden topic. Freddie is risking cancellation by even mentioning it. But he insists that the heritability of intelligence is for individuals, not groups: “it is perfectly consistent to believe that the difference between individual students is largely genetic while the difference between racial groups is not.” And indeed it is.

    So why is the difference between these “racial” groups so great and seemingly stable, even if there is more variability within any such group than between any? Freddie notes that “if the average white student sits at 50 percent of all students at a given academic task, the average black student lies somewhere between 15 and 30 percent,” which is not a minor difference. DeBoer doesn’t explain it as a factor of class — he notes the IQ racial gap persists even when removing socio-economic status from the equation. Nor does he ascribe it to differences in family structure — because parenting is not that important. He cites rather exposure to lead, greater disciplinary punishment for black kids, the higher likelihood of being arrested, the stress of living in a crime-dominated environment, the deep and deadening psychological toll of pervasive racism, and so on: “white supremacy touches on so many aspects of American life that it’s irresponsible to believe we have adequately controlled for it in our investigations of the racial achievement gap.”

    He is emphatic on this, as well he might be, inveighing against pernicious “race scientists” whose genetic reductionism he says is indistinguishable from racism. But he is almost as withering about those “well-meaning but misguided people who dismiss the importance of genetics out of hand, who associate any discussion of the heritability of behavioral traits with the worst elements of eugenics and colonialism, and who make grandiose claims about a scientific literature they have never read.”

    He has, in fact, read some of it, and notes that the genetic origins of intelligence are increasingly indisputable: “a major study utilizing a data set of thousands of test subjects revealed 52 varieties in genotype that were associated with differences in intelligence.” And he wants to end the left’s taboo: “through grappling with the data, we can craft better arguments against those who would misuse it to advance their racist and sexist agendas. Or we can ignore the data, dismiss the subject entirely, cede the field to the worst people imaginable and suffer the consequences.”

    If this book does nothing but prompt some liberals and lefties to relax and rethink on this subject, it will be worth it. I suspect the left’s insecurity about genetics is partly why so many have fallen completely for the critical theory cult, leaving reality far behind, and sustaining this new (and false) consensus at this point solely by punishment of dissent. But Freddie is not easily dismissed. And his broader argument about the moral neutrality of intelligence largely makes the fear of fomenting racism somewhat moot. If there should be no stigma toward the less intelligent, why would it matter if differences in intelligence between “racial” groups persisted? We would simply recognize the gaps, focus resources on those less gifted, deconstruct the cult of smart, and aim to increase the flourishing of every community and individuals. If we drop the inferior/superior framework and simply accept natural differences between individuals and even between groups, we could better help everyone.

    And this is, surely, a moral project as much as a political one. To see intelligence as having some kind of special moral salience, to see it as the ultimate virtue or credential, is bizarre. Yes, we can admire the astonishing ability of, say, a master chess player, or a gifted coder. But we need not see them as somehow better human beings. You can acknowledge the central role of intelligence in helping some achieve their goals, without valorizing it as the ultimate compliment.

    One thing we have learned in this epidemic, for example, is the vital importance of essential workers, the nurses and carers, the trash-collectors and food-preparers, the supermarket cashiers and truck drivers. They are people we should look up to, not down on, as they keep our entire society functioning. Instead, I suspect that many smart people have mistaken their own unearned gift for some kind of moral virtue, which is why they are so reluctant to note that others may not be so smart, and if they do so, think less of them. Remove the elites’ vanity, and self-love, and you can see their irrationality for what it is.

    For me, intelligence is a curse as well as a blessing — and it has as much salience to my own sense of moral worth as my blood-type. In many ways, I revere those with less of it, whose different skills — practical, human, imaginative — make the world every day a tangibly better place for others, where mine do not. Being smart doesn’t make you happy; it can inhibit your sociability; it can cut you off from others; it can generate a lifetime of insecurity; it is correlated with mood disorders and anxiety. And yet the system we live in was almost designed for someone like me. No one in my family had been to college before me; and at the age of 10, I was given a simple IQ test to see whether I would qualify for a place in a selective school — and my life was changed for ever.

    At the same time, my grandmother was living with us. The seventh of thirteen kids, she had close to no education, trafficked in stories of ghosts and fairytales from her Irish rural childhood, never seemed to read anything, feigned horror at every event in the news, and could recite the Hail Mary at the volume and speed of a Sotheby’s auctioneer. Her skills had been cleaning houses (if rarely her own). And she lived with a blithe serenity, an almost careless grace, and a steadying faith that I came to see as beyond my own reach. My big brain, I realized, was as much an impediment to living well as it was an advantage. It was a bane and a blessing. It simply never occurred to me that higher intelligence was in any way connected to moral worth or happiness.

    In fact, I saw the opposite. I still do. I don’t believe that a communist revolution will bring forward the day when someone like my grandmother could be valued in society and rewarded as deeply as she should have been. But I believe a moral revolution in this materialist, competitive, emptying rat-race of smarts is long overdue. It could come from the left or the right. Or it could come from a spiritual and religious revival. Either way, Freddie DeBoer and this little book are part of the solution to the unfairness and cruelty of it all. If, of course, there is one.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 12:49 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    735
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    315
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    453
    Thanked in
    267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Verđandi View Post
    A twist not many of us saw coming.

    ....
    In fact, I saw the opposite. I still do. I don’t believe that a communist revolution will bring forward the day when someone like my grandmother could be valued in society and rewarded as deeply as she should have been. But I believe a moral revolution in this materialist, competitive, emptying rat-race of smarts is long overdue. It could come from the left or the right. Or it could come from a spiritual and religious revival. Either way, Freddie DeBoer and this little book are part of the solution to the unfairness and cruelty of it all. If, of course, there is one.

    Well, that sums it up then. The core motive of Leftism is hurt feelings about "not being valued by society as you should have been". Even if you have to use your grandmother as a decoy to distract from the fact that you think the others didn't appreciate your talent "as they should do".

    Intelligence is of course such an example as well. It's simply unfair how it is distributed within and among population. Since it would sound silly to vent against ones betters, something else must be found. Even comparisons between individuals would be a difficult sell, since one could then look at both individuals life choices. To obscure the possibility of a decent comparison the leftist looks for some intergroup disparity. The problem then is that group difference over time may simply stem from cultural, nay, racial differences and that again would make the leftist look stupid. So why not devise something more intellectually sounding then? How about the "Racism" of group W prevents the members of group B from succeeding? OK, "Racism" has been overused for a long time. And it's obvious that its not sufficient as an explanatory model in a society where the downtrodden group is favoured by legislation and government programs. One must find a more sinister concept work. There you have it. There is "White privilege" that White people have secretly constructed in cahoots with each other to hold Black people down! There is of course no legal barriers, it's more sinister and invisible than that. They simply will give Whites a preferential treatment when hiring employees or arresting suspects. Doesn't have anything to do with their experiences over time or the behaviour of the underprivileged and downtrodden group, of course.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 01:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    175
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    104 Posts
    Just look at the mug shots of the BLM protestors, or google some leading feminists. Malformed and grotesque human beings.

    We can all understand why they have chosen to disparage the importance of genetics, or human achievement in general, by just looking at them.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Neophyte For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 01:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    175
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    104 Posts
    We must also realize that things like this are written in preparation for the inevitable, that science -- and eventually people in general -- will have to come to terms with the fact that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between the races and that they are genetic. When it becomes an established fact that the social hierarchies are based in genetics and that there is a hierarchy of the races with Blacks at the bottom; and when it becomes an established fact that there are genetic differences between men and women that explain all the variation in income and career paths that we see; what is the Left then to do?

    This.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Neophyte For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 12:49 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    735
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    315
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    453
    Thanked in
    267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    We must also realize that things like this are written in preparation for the inevitable, that science -- and eventually people in general -- will have to come to terms with the fact that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between the races and that they are genetic. When it becomes an established fact that the social hierarchies are based in genetics and that there is a hierarchy of the races with Blacks at the bottom; and when it becomes an established fact that there are genetic differences between men and women that explain all the variation in income and career paths that we see; what is the Left then to do?

    This.
    While I don't think those guys take orders from the central office of cultural Marxism, I'm sure that the lefties realise that their claims and assertions do come under scrutiny over time. They will have taken note of debates about the subject and that while the majority of students are gullible (or too cowardly to change hegemonial opinions), some of them don't by what they are fed and will also express this in some way.

    I don't think that the hereditary factors relating to intelligence are in serious doubts among researchers in the field. It's more the importance they are factoring to the genetic influences on psychometric results. Sure, the upbringing of individuals will also have influence on their intelligence and academic performance as well as many other behavioural issues, but correlations between heredity and intelligence are quite consistent the results of any research regarding IQ.

    So they need to be prepared, when dealing with the issue. But so far the efforts by lefties to deal with Heredity, IQ, Human Behaviour have been evasive, amateurish and sometimes quite obviously intellectually dishonest.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 01:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    175
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    104 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    While I don't think those guys take orders from the central office of cultural Marxism, I'm sure that the lefties realise that their claims and assertions do come under scrutiny over time. They will have taken note of debates about the subject and that while the majority of students are gullible (or too cowardly to change hegemonial opinions), some of them don't by what they are fed and will also express this in some way.

    I don't think that the hereditary factors relating to intelligence are in serious doubts among researchers in the field. It's more the importance they are factoring to the genetic influences on psychometric results. Sure, the upbringing of individuals will also have influence on their intelligence and academic performance as well as many other behavioural issues, but correlations between heredity and intelligence are quite consistent the results of any research regarding IQ.

    So they need to be prepared, when dealing with the issue. But so far the efforts by lefties to deal with Heredity, IQ, Human Behaviour have been evasive, amateurish and sometimes quite obviously intellectually dishonest.
    The big thing is the relationship between on the one hand IQ and on the other race and gender (men have more variety, and thus the smartest people, i.e. CEOs and scientists, tend to be men). This undermines the race and gender theories on which the Left has built over the past decades.

    Given what we know about IQ, upbringing does not seem to enter into the equation. Genes explain most of the effect, and then there is some idiosyncratic variation that could just as well be explained by random variation since we a dealing with complex networks of thousands upon thousands of genes working together. As we age, heredity becomes increasingly important, and that leads me to lean towards randomness for the rest. If the environment was important, we would expect its impact to increase over life. But it does not.

    So there is nothing that can be done about the POCs dismal performance. Nothing. No school programs, no affirmative action, no safe spaces. Nothing.

    There is no White supremacy, White people are simply superior. There is, unfortunately, no patriarchy, men are simple over-represented on both ends of the spectrum (which in a way makes the case for polygamy). The more so the closer to the extremes. Asians might have few IQ points on us, but they do not seem to produce geniuses like Newton; thus reducing their economies to we-too status.

    But as we see, the leftist above still argues for the same. Communism is a solution looking for a problem. It is the rebellion of the defective individuals against natural order. Physically and mentally healthy people, strong and fit individuals, beautiful individuals; they all tend to be conservative, nationalist, right-leaning etc.

    To make and accept the communist/feminist/BLM argument in the light of, and even based on, the evidence of modern genetics, the individual must first acknowledge that they are acting from a perspective of ressentiment or inferiority. Such an admission is not easy to make, so we should probably not expect too much from them.

  11. #7
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    Prussia Prussia
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    210
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    124
    Thanked in
    92 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    Just look at the mug shots of the BLM protestors, or google some leading feminists. Malformed and grotesque human beings.

    We can all understand why they have chosen to disparage the importance of genetics, or human achievement in general, by just looking at them.
    Within the last 15 years, all that you have to do is shop at an American Mall, and you have been seriously "red pilled" between obesity and poor manners among many nonwhites. They cough and sneeze on you during flu season without covering the mouth, yell out in public, open packages and steal items, and bump into you with their kids or cart with no apology. They don't have the best social skills and start arguments with quiet customers over a line or check out issue. They give you a hateful look when you politely suggest to move, so you can reach an item, since the size of the human takes up most of the aisle space. Many people who emigrate to America tend to be mediocre at best, overweight, and unassimilated into our culture, including their children. The problem is not the skin color but the behaviors and attitudes that differ from Western culture. They also have more children here in the USA, reported by California Govt., than they do in their own home countries.

    When you discuss Asians with slightly higher IQ scores, it's not enough to be a significant difference over 3-5 points, but 15 points reach one standard deviation up or down. For Blacks, it can be 15 point below Asians and Whites as the Bell Curve shifts leftward for average intelligence. Blacks still have a few gifted and geniuses but less prevalence than Asians and Whites do. We also don't need an entire society of average 112 IQ points because you still need workers in typical jobs. In fact, we seem to have more geniuses who invent and develop technologies in which their creations have surpassed much Asian achievements over the last 500 years.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Winterland For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Last Online
    17 Hours Ago @ 08:33 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    1/2 Rheinland, 1/4 Baden-Württemberg, 1/4 Neumark, Greek and Dutch traces
    Subrace
    fälisch-alpin-nordisch-atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-L22
    mtDNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Location
    North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    21
    Zodiac Sign
    Capricorn
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    NEET
    Politics
    Right
    Religion
    Nothing specific
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    21
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    28
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    Just look at the mug shots of the BLM protestors, or google some leading feminists. Malformed and grotesque human beings.

    We can all understand why they have chosen to disparage the importance of genetics, or human achievement in general, by just looking at them.
    Goethe wrote: "So mußt du sein, dir kannst du nicht entfliehen" (This is how you'll have to be, you cannot flee from yourself) ...

    They do not choose, they are genetic trash and therefore want everyone else to be like them as well. The mere sight of blonde hair or blue eyes creates extreme resentment in these individuals.

    The physiognomy of a human being tells you everything about who they are. The ancient Greeks knew: Only a beautiful man is a man of good character and vice versa.

    The German author and anthropologist Carl Huter created a whole science concerning this matter, sadly I haven't seen any proper translations yet.

    Of course these people will hate others who are more genetically gifted. It is a law of nature that the stupid hate the smart, the ugly hate the beautiful, the poor hate the rich, the short hate the tall, the commoners hate those of noble birth, and so forth. Only people who are content with who they are do not feel the need to hate-but who these days can proudly declare that they are proud of themselves and their ancestors? It certainly is a minority. Even those who are born in the Germanic countries mostly derived from the slaves of the Germans rather than the Germans themselves, who were tall, blonde or red-haired and blue- or green-eyed and wore long hair through and through. The average European male these days is bald or semi-bald, has black to brown hair and brown eyes, is not even anywhere near 6 feet in terms of height, and so on. It's a huge Existenzialneid (being envious of the way someone is, or ressentiment as coined by Nietzsche) that cannot be destroyed and only grow unless bright-haired, bright-eyed, tall, pale, slim and muscular, straight-nosed, beautiful, or in short: Germanic people, people of the blonde races, cease to exist.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Freude For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. The Bell Curve (Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray)
    By Tore in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 4 Weeks Ago, 08:19 AM
  2. Charles Murray (Author of 'The Bell Curve') On TV
    By FadeTheButcher in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 07:18 AM
  3. 'The Bell Curve' After 10 Years: “You Have To Tell The Truth”
    By friedrich braun in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 12th, 2004, 02:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •