By which you exclude virtually all books.

All credible scientific books will have been sourced – in one way or another – from prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, the book might as well be in the fiction section. That’s a fact.

Lynn has a great many papers published in academic journals, including many in the journal Intelligence

I am talking specifically about his work on IQ and Nations, the book you mentioned here.

By your reasoning the referees are alternately exercising and not exercising what you term “quality checks” rather than objectively assessing the papers submitted. In my opinion you smear all the referees and all those academics published in this journal and by extension every other journal which has published them.

The article I cited (National Intelligence and National Prosperity) is actually a peer-reviewed paper with its own research, not a review of Lynn’s work. However, Lynn’s work is so full of mistakes, that these authors felt compelled to mention them, including the embarrassing fact that Lynn used the IQ of retarded Spaniard children to compute the IQ of an African Nation.

On the subject of reviewers, there are definitely good and bad ones. The good ones are the ones that can spot flagrant mistakes, like N.J. Mackintosh.

In my opinion, it is not Lynn’s standard of scholarship which is question, but rather that of your own.

You have to read the whole paper, not just the abstract. The authors do say that they agree with Lynn that there is a correlation between IQ and Wealth. But they go on to say that (a) Lynn’s main assertion from the book that IQ produces wealth is unfounded, (b) Lynn’s data contains SEVERAL flaws something they said “there are reasons for being concerned”, (c) they do *not* agree that extrapolating the IQ of 185 nations from 81 nations and not explaining how they did that, to be a good idea.

If you feel that this is an acceptable standard of scholarship, then really, there is nothing else I can add.

By which you exclude virtually all books.

Ravi Naik 124 wrote … The sort of errors people found in Lynn’s work would be enough to reject the conclusions of his research but since he is funded by a wealthy extreme-right wing organisation, he got to publish whatever he wanted with no quality checks. …

Lynn has a great many papers published in academic journals, including many in the journal Intelligence, wherein you cite the article National intelligence and national prosperity to support your case of Lynn’s poor standard of scholarship.

By your reasoning the referees are alternately exercising and not exercising what you term “quality checks” rather than objectively assessing the papers submitted. In my opinion you smear all the referees and all those academics published in this journal and by extension every other journal which has published them.

In addition, the abstract of article National intelligence and national prosperity you cite concludes thus:

… We conclude that in spite of the weaknesses several of their data points Lynn and Vanhanen’s empirical conclusion was correct[emphasis added], but we question the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth. We argue that the relationship is more complex. …

In my opinion, it is not Lynn’s standard of scholarship which is question, but rather that of your own.

As most books are not peer reviewed, which books do you not describe so and why?

Bert – academic research needs to be peer-reviewed by a prestigious publication in order to have any sort of scientific standing. The sort of errors people found in Lynn’s work would be enough to reject the conclusions of his research, but since he is funded by a wealthy extreme-right wing organisation, he got to publish whatever he wanted with no quality checks.

Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea …

Do you have the exact reference?

Yes – Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9. They are the ones who found this rather disturbing act of deception.

I have a copy of this paper if you can’t get it.

On the subject of the Indian diaspora and IQ, I found this recent Forbes article, which I wonder if it is only specific to the US.

Video. … April 3, 2009

The financial industry brought the economy to its knees, but how did they get away with it? With the nation wondering how to hold the bankers accountable, Bill Moyers sits down with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Black offers his analysis of what went wrong and his critique of the bailout …

I did not cite that book.

Ravi Naik 113 wrote … to make the point that Indians in this country are of lower calibre than whites …

I made no such statement.

I believe you are referring to this reply to Jai, wherein:

According to Racial Differences in Intelligence Table 6.1 page 81 a dozen different studies gives general IQ in India in the eighties. In Table 6.2 page 83 for Indians in Britain another dozen studies gives general IQ in India in the eighties and nineties.

Results in Table 6.1 include those authored by Gupta & Gupta, Chopra, Sinha, Rao & Redd, Majumdar & Nundi, Mohanty & Babu and many others. A random sample of these references were all published in academic journals, which I presume are peer reviewed.

Results in Table 6.2 include three authored by Mackintosh et al. (1985) which appeared in http://www.amazon.co.uk/EDUCATION-ALL-Keith-Foreword-Joseph/dp/B000Y1AE0G I doubt that it is peer reviewed.

Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Even if all the studies cited were peer-reviewed, it matters how they interpreted their data. …

I cited two tables, containing research results of dozens of authors. Furthermore, I did not interpret their data nor did I report any such interpretation by Lynn.

Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Same crap, again not peer-reviewed …

As most books are not peer reviewed, which books do you not describe so and why?

Ravi Naik 120 wrote … published by an extreme-right wing organization. …

But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. What it matters is the quality of your research.

Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea …

Do you have the exact reference? In Racial Differences in Intelligence Table 4.1 page 31 Lynn cites Fernandez-Ballesteros et al. (1997) and an equitorial Guinea “g” of 59. Lynn was not one of the authors of this study, which was published in a book and so probably not peer reviewed.

“Though you do not cite a particular comment of mine, I seem to remember that I have cited a table in said book which lists various empirical studies of ISC individuals resident in the UK. I would hazard a guess that many of said studies were peer reviewed.”

Even if all the studies cited were peer-reviewed, it matters how they interpreted their data. In fact, N.J. Mackintosh in his review says:

“Even if we wanted the data, can we rely on Lynn to have given an accurate account of them? I do not pretend to have read the originals of more than a handful of the papers and books cited by Lynn, but it just so happens that I wrote two of them myself, and Lynn has simply got their data wrong..

Ouch!

A later version of said book, namely IQ and Global Inequality has attracted numerous reviews. One which is both easy to read and to download, by Michael A. McDaniel Professor

Same crap, again not peer-reviewed – and published by an extreme-right wing organization. Once again, the book attracted several criticisms, in particular, the way they arbitrarily gathered data and how he interpreted existing studies – something the reviewer you mentioned did not bother to look. The most damning of them all, is the fact that Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea – not surprisingly, they got a very low IQ score – the equivalent of having a nation where the average individual is literally a retard.
What a travesty!

Yup.

It ain’t all fine,

in 2009.

ridiculous that the politicians and government bemoan political apathy then sit back while the police treat those who do want to have their say – like criminals, troublemakers, naughty children.

and ridiculous that class consciousness is brought into play – ‘oh those protestors are middle-class kids’ (daily-mail)

I agree with you too. And I believe in it too.. And I am sure all of our contributions do make a difference –

I am aware that when you start to believe things you start to see justifications for these beliefs. I am seeing them in the consumer push for fair trade, even in Jamie Olivers focus on feeding kids. Also 24 hour media, this blogging sort of stuff is an evolution of conciousness in some ways.

I don’t know that this is going to happen, it might be pie in the sky. I just have a hunch which keeps me going. If I can be a part of it in some small way it is worth a go as I am going to die one day.

Go around the world mate — and I have done that extensively over the past decade and a half. And based on experience and knowledge from International Development folks in various UN agencies, NGOs and Governments — I am sorry to say it has made lives better for millions of people worldwide.

However, what it has failed to do is create equal opportunities and that is got nothing to do with capitalism but cronyism and corruption and lack of vision among leaders of various nations.

Writing of capitalism is completely off the wall and actually has no basis. Regulators failed to do what they were supposed to do. And that was a big failure. Those who failed to regulate Should now be allowed to run things. I think not.

What makes you think that the Government is any better equipped to run companies especially after the experiences in the 60- 70s. Arthur Scargill was much more of a despot than Margaret Thatcher — he never allowed a free vote.

So, I would like to understand what is your beef with Capitalism and what do you suggest we replace it?

Though you do not cite a particular comment of mine, I seem to remember that I have cited a table in said book which lists various empirical studies of ISC individuals resident in the UK. I would hazard a guess that many of said studies were peer reviewed. Do you have the link to the comment to which you refer?

Ravi Naik 113 wrote … This means Richard Lynn pretty much published his work without anyone evaluating the quality of his research. … Please see immediately above.

Ravi Naik 113 wrote … But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. … Or the SPLC or indeed the Stalin-Hitler memorial fund. In my opinion.

Ravi Naik 113 wrote … What it matters is the quality of your research. … I agree.

Ravi Naik 113 wrote … Here is one review of Richard Lynn’s book by Professor N.J. Mackintosh …

From said review … Much labour has gone into this book. But I fear it is the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name. As a source of references, it will be useful to some. As a source of information, it should be treated with some suspicion. On the other hand, Lynn’s preconceptions are so plain, and so pungently expressed, that many readers will be suspicious from the outset. …

I agree.

A later version of said book, namely IQ and Global Inequality has attracted numerous reviews. One which is both easy to read and to download, by Michael A. McDaniel Professor – Human Resources and Organizational Behavior, Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University can be found here

I would encourage you to read it from beginning to the end.

In my opinion, we are both to be congragulated: you for taking this thread so far off topic and me for following you!

Ravi Naik 83 wrote … the fact that you cited Richard Lynn as a credible scholar … In which ways is he not credible? Please be precise.

1) The work you cited to make the point that Indians in this country are of lower calibre than whites, was not peer-reviewed. This means Richard Lynn pretty much published his work without anyone evaluating the quality of his research. This amounts to zero credibility in the scientific community.

2) How did he managed to publish? Well, he is funded by the Pioneer Fund. What is so controversial about this group? Here is a profile of this foundation, and here is an article that gives you a wider picture of who these people are.

3) But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. What it matters is the quality of your research. Here is one review of Richard Lynn’s book by Professor N.J. Mackintosh (Emeritus Professor of Experimental Psychology in the University of Cambridge). I hope you read it from beginning to the end.

Leon- As I said before, I don’t have an immense amount of experience, and I don’t think that the police are angels. But I do think it is important to look at the faults of both ‘sides’.

Ravi Naik 83 wrote … what kind of diversity you feel is threatening our democracy …

I have never knowingly expressed my feelings to you. If you can find the time to specifically address one or more of the many posts I have made at this site then I will endeavour to find the time to reply.

Ravi Naik 83 wrote … the fact that you cited Richard Lynn as a credible scholar … In which ways is he not credible? Please be precise.

Ravi Naik 83 wrote … What we see right now has nothing to do with diversity … Please substantiate this statement, preferably with logical deductions drawn from the statistical analysis of empirical data. Or am I to infer a prefix of “Personally, I feel [that]”?

I think the idea he had this time of hiring bouncers to protect him is truly inspired. If all the anarchists saved up their pennies and hired three bouncers each next time to protect them they could kettle the Police no? This is the way forward! Cheers Russell!

Years and years ago they experimented with a process called “The FIT squad”. They photographed people who were violent then circulated pictures of these people and tried to arrest them next time they saw them. By and large this worked, especially with football violence.

They turned this tactic on anarchist protests. People I knew at the time who were living their lives for the next opportunity to have a ruck with the cops DID’NT COME BACK. The process worked. I don’t miss them as I am not living my life for the next ruck with someone in uniform. I am AGAINST CAPITALISM. These Police are a looming aggresive DISTRACTION.

Capitalism is still here. It doesn’t work for the majority. What do you want to do about it?