<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Sep 6, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>You ought to read the first few pages of<br>"The Bell Curve". The deliberate defamation<br>of Cyril Burt is carefully explained.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Neither of the authors of "The Bell Curve" Herrnstein and Murray, wrote one word in scientific journals about the genetic nature of intelligence or collected any data themselves, they relied entirely on other people's data, particularly that of Cyril Burt. In 1973 Herrnstein proved he was no better than Burt; in that year he published a book called "IQ in the Meritocracy" and talks about Burt's 1961 study "Intelligence and Social mobility"; he says Burt's sample size was 1000, later he says he was wrong about that and the true sample size was 40,000. In reality Burt didn't say how big his sample size was and as all his notes and raw data were burned we will never know how big it really was. We do know that both burt and Herrnstein were con men.</div><div>,</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>It's politically completely incorrect, but<br>I'm surprised you haven't seen it.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think genetics is far more important to intelligence than the liberal mentality is comfortable with, but Cyril Burt was more than politically incorrect, he was plain old incorrect. Nobody is ever going to convince good scientists of something by citing terrible scientists.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>