[ExI] Literary Criticism Technique

[mail at HarveyNewstrom.com]

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> It's been a long time since I've read "The Bell Curve" if
> that's what you're thinking about, but I'm speaking here
> only of "Human Accomplishment".

Nope, I wasn't talking about The Bell Curve.  I was pointing out specifc 
problems with this particular methodology from this particular book.

> There are many occasions where he refrains from giving
> interpretations that you might think "favorable" to some
> preexisting ideological viewpoint you might suspect he
> has.

It doesn't matter how "fair" a judge is, if the evidence only comes from one 
side and is evaluated incorrectly.

> He spends page after page attempting to correct for not only
> Eurocentric biases, but gender biases and ethnic biases.

You can't get blood out of a turnip.  And you can't get accurate statistics 
from flawed data using flawed methodologies.   He only looked at European 
histories and concluded that Europeans were the most important figures in 
history.  What do you think would have happened if he only read Oriental or 
only Middle Eastern histories?  No matter how much he claims to have 
"corrected" the data, it still comes from one culture only, biasing the 
results toward that culture.

> exactly why would Murray have a reason to inflate
> Jewish accomplishment?  Or for that matter, why try to deflate
> the accomplishments of non-European peoples in general?

I'm not speculating as to motive.  I am merely pointing out the objective 
flaws in his methodology.  His methodology clearly only polls European 
sources and therefore overcounts them.  Had he actually tabulated references 
from all cultures, he would have counted more entries for more non-European 
figures.

> If you do yourself have preexisting ideas that this is just
> the sort of thing that white males do, then please, again,
> take a serious look at the book.

You are implying that my objections are not serious or not based on the book 
itself.  But you don't give any reason for this belief.  If you have a 
problem with what I have said, or any counter arguments, I would love to 
hear them.  But merely suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about 
doesn't give me information about why you think that.

>> I wouldn't take any of his "methodologies" seriously.  His
>> statistical "methods" are likewise suspect.
>
> Have you actually closely examined "Human Accomplishment"?
> Are there people or researchers that clearly themselves do not
> have any clear biases that you have confidence in who disparage
> his methods?

I cannot imagine that you are unaware of the controversies surrounding 
Murray and his methods, including this book.  Go Google it for yourself if 
you are unaware of the negative peer review and criticism that this book has 
received.

> I don't know, but I suspect that your usage of "always" here
> reflects a reluctance to critically but objectively examine his
> findings and how he got them.

Sadly, no.  My use of the words "always seems" here is not hyperbole.  I 
seriously can't think of any valid statistical work Murray has done.  All of 
his books have been panned by experts as being statistical nightmares.  He 
just never seemed to have controls, double-blind studies, falsifiable 
evidence, rigorous logic, or mathematically valid statistical techniques. 
His calculations and literary analysis are just plain wrong.

> Anyway, you might wish to change the subject line; I wanted
> to inquire about literary criticism and one of its particular textual
> methods.

Nope, the subject is still the same.  The literary technique that you are 
praising and want to talk about is the exact subject I am criticising.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP