Government Entanglements in Birthrates
CINDY SMITH
and Murray's _The Bell Curve_ pages 548 - 549:
Of all the uncomfortable topics we have explored,
a pair of the most uncomfortable ones are that a
society with a higher mean IQ is also likely to be
a society with fewer social ills and brighter economic
prospects, and that the most efficient way to raise the
IQ of a society is for smarter women to have higher
birth rates than duller women. Instead, America is
going in the opposite direction, and the implication is
a future America with more social ills and gloomier
economic prospects. These conclusions follow directly
from the evidence we have presented at such length, and
yet we have so far been silent on what to do about it.
We are silent partly because we are as apprehensive as most
other people about what might happen when a government
decides to sicial-engineer who has babies and who doesn't.
We can imagine no recommendation for using the government
to manipulate fertility that does not have dangers. But
this highlights the problem: The United States already has
policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies,
and it is encouraging the wrong women. _If the United States
did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it
now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be
described as engagin in aggressive manipulation of fertility_.
The technically precise descrption of America's fertility
policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are
also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence
distribution. We urge generally that these policies,
represented by the extensive network of cash and services
for low-income women who have babies, be ended.
The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone,
rich or poor. The other generic recommendation, as close to
harmless as any government program we can imagine, is to
make it easy for women to make good on their prior decision
not to get pregnant by making available birth control
mechanisms that are incrasingly flexible, foolproof,
inexpensive, and safe.
Just curious what you all think.
--
Cindy Smith I have further observed under the sun that
c...@dragon.com The race is not won by the swift,
c...@5sc.net Nor the battle by the valiant;
c...@romancatholic.org Nor is bread won by the wise,
Nor wealth by the intelligent,
Me transmitte sursum, Nor favor by the learned.
Caledoni! -- JPS Ecclesiastes 9:11
rian
--
Darn! an evil hen.
CINDY SMITH <c...@cygnus.5sc.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
g3Jepj...@cygnus.5sc.net...
mark lages
> and Murray's _The Bell Curve_ pages 548 - 549:
Like a lot of things quoted here, I think it's too long.
....Mark
Alan White
of birth control by churches gotten us into.
Alan
Adina Sobo
writes:
> Of all the uncomfortable topics we have explored,
> a pair of the most uncomfortable ones are that a
> society with a higher mean IQ is also likely to be
> a society with fewer social ills and brighter economic
> prospects, and that the most efficient way to raise the
> IQ of a society is for smarter women to have higher
> birth rates than duller women
Well, to start with, I think that it's more efficient to raise the IQ
of a society by providing adequate prenatal care and nutrition
for pregnant women, and then good nutrition and other health
care for children they bear.
My other comments are in the same vein....
- - -Adina
"The fox, when he cannot reach the grapes, says they are not ripe."
-- George Herbert, _Jacula Prudentum_ [1640]
PSmith9626
Look up the short story: " The Little Black Bag"
best
penny
" Doctor of penmanship, Masters of card filing"
dave
>Nothing, it is a stupid book!
Agreed! What a shock that a far right winger would be reading it.
-dave
PSmith9626
Yes." A Modest Proposal".
What a wonderful satire.
best
penny
>Jonathan Swift had an answer to this kind of thing. Which was, to eat
>the poor.
I adore Swift.
CINDY SMITH
<ri...@infocom.demon.nl> writes:
> Nothing, it is a stupid book!
Do you think the conclusions are stupid or the data is stupid?
On the theory that the data is not stupid because the data is the
data, why do you think the conclusions are stupid? Do you think the
conclusions are not logical? Pray be specific.
> Darn! an evil hen.
> CINDY SMITH <c...@cygnus.5sc.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> g3Jepj...@cygnus.5sc.net...
>> I'm curious what Mensans think of the following quote from Herrnstein
>> and Murray's _The Bell Curve_ pages 548 - 549:
--
Cl.Massé
g3Jepj...@cygnus.5sc.net...
> I'm curious what Mensans think of the following quote from Herrnstein
> and Murray's _The Bell Curve_ pages 548 - 549:
Another packing of the same crap. It's so predictable that it is
useless to read till the end.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20 LPF
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
CINDY SMITH
Mary <nu...@testweb.us.mensa.org> writes:
> On 27 Jan 2002 19:13:29 -0600, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
>>In article <a2smua$l...@chicago.us.mensa.org>, "rian"
>><ri...@infocom.demon.nl> writes:
>>> Nothing, it is a stupid book!
>>Do you think the conclusions are stupid or the data is stupid?
>>On the theory that the data is not stupid because the data is the
>>data, why do you think the conclusions are stupid? Do you think the
>>conclusions are not logical? Pray be specific.
> The book is stupid and the data is a metastudy --- NOT a study. It is
> collected unrelated meaningless data. There is no legitimate
> comparitive study in that book.
> Why is that so hard to understand??
Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
> I can't take anymore of this. Filters on.
Suit yourself.
> Mary
R. K. Henry
> In article <81ra5ugo6ps20n5hj...@4ax.com>,
> Mary <nu...@testweb.us.mensa.org> writes:
> > The book is stupid and the data is a metastudy --- NOT a study. It is
> > collected unrelated meaningless data. There is no legitimate
> > comparitive study in that book.
> Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
> concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
That's not the point. I don't think Mary is necessarily arguing the points in
_Bell Curve_ one way or the other. She's merely pointing out the lack of
scientific/mathematical rigor. In such a case you can't logically conclude
anything. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it doesn't mean it's right, it just
means that you can't draw any conclusions.
--
Bob
Feek O'Hanrahan
"R. K. Henry" <rkh...@preferred.com> wrote in message
news:a34c2m$k...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Basically it's like this: if I take a white male graduate student from MIT
and test him on math ability (I'm not saying all of them are good at this,
but most are), and take a black female gangbanger from Compton (LA) and test
her on math ability (I'm not saying all of them are bad at this, but I'd
wager most are), and then say from the results "White males are better at
math than black females", that would be obviously wrong. If done correctly,
this can be done on a macrocosmic scale.
dave
>If she reads all my post, she will find that she has made it to my
>killfilters as I am not interested in discussing NOSENSE filtered with
>hatemongering nonsense.
>
>Mary
Has she looked into opening a Real Live Georgia Catholic version of
Christian Identity?
I think that's the logical destination.
-dave
dave
>Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
>concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
You are pre-supposing the "Bell Curve" *is* a legitimate "study".
It's not, but I am interested why you are motivated to read the book.
Reply and I will give you loads of de-bunking.
-dave
CINDY SMITH
dave <grum...@onebox.com> writes:
> On 28 Jan 2002 10:48:11 -0600, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
>>Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
>>concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
> You are pre-supposing the "Bell Curve" *is* a legitimate "study".
No, I'm not. Mary claimed it is not a legitimate study, so I asked
her references to studies that she considered to be in fact
legitimate. She hasn't responded to that request yet, but perhaps you
will?
> It's not, but I am interested why you are motivated to read the book.
> Reply and I will give you loads of de-bunking.
I'd read alot about the Bell Curve, positive and negative, and decided
to read it for myself to learn what all the hoopla was about. I came
to the book with no preconceptions or prejudgements. I neither agree
nor disagree with the book's conclusions since I am neither a
psychologist nor a psychometrician. I'm just curious what others
think of the book's data and conclusions. I'd like to pointed to
legitimate studies about IQ levels, if such exist, and have explained
to me why these studies are legitimate while the NLSY is not.
> -dave
CINDY SMITH
Mary <nu...@testweb.us.mensa.org> writes:
> R. K. Henry wrote:
>>Cindy,
> So why is that so hard to understand?
> If she reads all my post, she will find that she has made it to my
> killfilters as I am not interested in discussing NOSENSE filtered with
> hatemongering nonsense.
I am simply discussing a book that I read. I realize that different
people have different ideas about it. However, I am not a hatemonger
simply because I read a book and discussed it on mtm. Rather than
guilt by association, this is guilt by reading a book. My own opinion
is that we should take measures to improve the nutrition and education
of all children and adults in this country. Ignoring disparities in
IQ results in no improvement due to failure to acknowledge a problem.
Feek O'Hanrahan
--
Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound together. -Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, poet, dramatist, novelist, and philosopher (1749-1832)
"dave" <grum...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:p75c5u8uhie2hnrh4...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Jan 2002 10:48:11 -0600, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
>
> >Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
> >concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
>
> You are pre-supposing the "Bell Curve" *is* a legitimate "study".
>
> It's not, but I am interested why you are motivated to read the book.
I would be interested in reading the book, because a lot of times, one can
learn more from a thing that is done badly (as long as they know HOW it was
done badly) than something done correctly.
CINDY SMITH
Pat Sullivan
...
> I'd read alot about the Bell Curve, positive and negative, and decided
> to read it for myself to learn what all the hoopla was about. I came
> to the book with no preconceptions or prejudgements. I neither agree
> nor disagree with the book's conclusions since I am neither a
> psychologist nor a psychometrician. I'm just curious what others
> think of the book's data and conclusions. I'd like to pointed to
> legitimate studies about IQ levels, if such exist, and have explained
> to me why these studies are legitimate while the NLSY is not.
Hi Cindy,
I read The Bell Curve a few years ago (I should reread it though) and
what impressed me most about the book was the caution with which the
authors approached their conclusions. As I understand the book, the
authors took advantage of existing studies and applied several more
dimensions to those studies, more or less expanding the scope of those
original studies. Of course in real science that would have required
gathering fresh data, but the authors didn't have enormous resources
for that, so they did the best they could with the available material.
This thread has gone on for an extended period with everybody addressing
only the methods of data interpretation. I see very little constructive
criticism about how a study seeking answers to their questions should
be designed and conducted.
Is it a trait of the high IQ people that they focus on details at the
expense of failing to see the broader picture? Tunnel vision over
peripheral vision?
The main message I took form the book is that more study needs to be
done, but, the early data seems to suggest that <insert one or several
controversial conclusions here>...
I think we should be discussing how to design a more accurate study.
Peace, love and goodwill,
Pat Sullivan
CINDY SMITH
pepe_...@435.org (Pat Sullivan) writes:
> c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote in message
>> I'd read alot about the Bell Curve, positive and negative, and decided
>> to read it for myself to learn what all the hoopla was about. I came
>> to the book with no preconceptions or prejudgements. I neither agree
>> nor disagree with the book's conclusions since I am neither a
>> psychologist nor a psychometrician. I'm just curious what others
>> think of the book's data and conclusions. I'd like to pointed to
>> legitimate studies about IQ levels, if such exist, and have explained
>> to me why these studies are legitimate while the NLSY is not.
> Hi Cindy,
> I read The Bell Curve a few years ago (I should reread it though) and
> what impressed me most about the book was the caution with which the
> authors approached their conclusions. As I understand the book, the
> authors took advantage of existing studies and applied several more
> dimensions to those studies, more or less expanding the scope of those
> original studies. Of course in real science that would have required
> gathering fresh data, but the authors didn't have enormous resources
> for that, so they did the best they could with the available material.
> This thread has gone on for an extended period with everybody addressing
> only the methods of data interpretation. I see very little constructive
> criticism about how a study seeking answers to their questions should
> be designed and conducted.
Yes, and this is exactly what I am looking for. Conservatives who
want such studies done are accused of racism, perhaps because liberals
are afraid of what the results will be, whereas liberals who want such
studies done are accused of betrayal. The end result is that studies
are not done, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Has anyone or
any organization considered conducting a major research project which
attempts to analyze intelligence amongst the races? Would the results
be condemned before the study got off the ground?
> Is it a trait of the high IQ people that they focus on details at the
> expense of failing to see the broader picture? Tunnel vision over
> peripheral vision?
> The main message I took form the book is that more study needs to be
> done, but, the early data seems to suggest that <insert one or several
> controversial conclusions here>...
> I think we should be discussing how to design a more accurate study.
I agree completely. As the Reverend Charles King is fond of saying,
the first step in solving a problem is first to acknowledge that the
problem exists. Perhaps there's something wrong with the IQ tests.
When I was in high school, I remember taking a black-oriented
intelligence test which I roundly flunked along with most of my white
classmates. Are there any intelligence tests designed by blacks for
blacks that the Mensa Society will accept as prior evidence? If not,
why not? Perhaps Mensans on this forum should put their money where
their mouth is. I don't know if Abbie Salney reads mtm, but, if she
does, I would like an answer to that question.
> Peace, love and goodwill,
> Pat Sullivan
--
dave
>I'd read alot about the Bell Curve, positive and negative, and decided
>to read it for myself to learn what all the hoopla was about. I came
>to the book with no preconceptions or prejudgements. I neither agree
>nor disagree with the book's conclusions since I am neither a
>psychologist nor a psychometrician. I'm just curious what others
>think of the book's data and conclusions. I'd like to pointed to
>legitimate studies about IQ levels, if such exist, and have explained
>to me why these studies are legitimate while the NLSY is not.
Ok, Cindy. I am just so used to right wingers touting this book that I
presumed you were doing the same. My mistake.
Still, trying to find some genetic justification for racism is an
obsession I would advice you not to partake in. If you need a reminder
why, go look at the current crop of twaddle in rec.org.mensa.
-dave
Vince
>On 29 Jan 2002 09:19:33 -0600, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
<snip> I'm just curious what others
>>think of the book's data and conclusions. I'd like to pointed to
>>legitimate studies about IQ levels, if such exist, and have explained
>>to me why these studies are legitimate while the NLSY is not.
<snip Dave's>
Cindy,
I won't comment on why asking a question about whether the validity of
a "study's" (and I use the term loosely, see below) data and
conclusions are valid seems to result in knee-jerk accusations of
"right winger" racism, but no actual answers. I will leave it as a
though exercise for the reader to determine what agenda might lead to
that behavior. (-:
But to answer your above question: "it sucks". It is bad science from
start to finish. No intellectually honest conclusions can be drawn
from the actual data presented. (Other than their data sucks, that is
(-: !!! )
1. The data was not a random sampling, and confounding variables were
not properly isolated.
they used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY)
from 1979. This survey, obviously, gathered data from a rather narrow
subset of people, namely "youth" (ages 14-22 in '79). I rather suspect
that it was a voluntary survey, and thus would be liable to a lot of
subject self-selection. They excluded students from thier survey, as
well as non-whites (Yes, I said they excluded data points that were
not identified as white!!! - I'll assume they were trying to control
for race, though they could have done that in the analysis, not in the
sample selection, phase.) They cut thier sample down from a raw 12,686
to 3367 !!! Greatly increasing the likely effects of any incorrect or
outlying data points.
2. Inappropriate sampling and data analysis methods were used.
They used "IQ", SES, and AGE as variables to determine whether one was
likely to live above or below the POVERTY line.
The "IQ test" used was the AFQT (derived from the ASVAB -Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery). While the ASVAB is taken by
MANY HS students, and recruits into the military, it is by it's very
nature NOT a random sampling. For figuring the AFQT, they used test
scores recorded in the NLSY 79 study, but the AFQT scoring method from
1989 - A method used for a (significantly) different version of the
ASVAB.
The "SES" (Social-Economic Status) ranking was based on a
combination of UP TO 4 factors. Where they had all 4, they
"standardized" all 4 ( 100+100+100+100 / 4), where they had 3, they
used 3 ( 100+100+100 / 3), etc, etc.
7447 had 4, 3612 had 3, 679 had 2, 138 had 1 for a total of 11,876
"valid" scores. There is no assurance that the SES of subject 1 has an
apples to apples comparison to subject 2. Also one of the elements of
the SES was Occupation, which IMNSHO is a very subjective criteria.
Another element was "Income" (comprised of Father Income + Mother
Income). Those living on thier own WERE ASSIGNED a value.
I think they may have handled the Age one OK, but I'd not bet on it.
"Poverty" was BINARY. They were either 1 poor or 0 not poor. Was this
above the poverty line for one indivudual, or a family of 4? Should it
make a difference? Should it matter if the individual was living with
parents/relatives, or on thier own? Also, one would expect that the
"Poverty" Data point would overlap "somewhat" with a low score on the
SES-Income piece.So, they were, at least to an extent comparing
"poverty" to "income". That's all I'm gonna say on that....
They drew conclusions based on the position of the "IQ scores" of
blacks in the NLSY sample...did I mention already, that they
eliminated non-whites from thier "study" sample??
3. The "study" was not submitted/subjected to peer review (prior to
publishing), and the results have not proven to be repeatable.
Peer review may have lead the authors to re-do their work in a
more responsible manner, or not. Others have not been able to get the
same results (using sound analysis) from the same data. There is
little to no value in a study/experiment that is not repeatable.
I could go on, but the mind boggles. For more reading on it's flaws,
see: http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html and
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/featured/bellcurv.htm , both interesting,
though long.
-Vince
--------------------------------------------
Anyone who has had a bull by the tail knows five or
six more things than someone who hasn't.
-- Mark Twain
Adina Sobo
>This thread has gone on for an extended period with everybody addressing
>only the methods of data interpretation. I see very little constructive
>criticism about how a study seeking answers to their questions should
>be designed and conducted.
Actually, at least two of us have been very specific. You would
do it by having collecting data on a huge number of people,
using ONE test, which is not culturally biased (for example, doesn't
require vocabulary -- the Raven Progressive Matrices does a
pretty good job, although there are some questions as to whether
the patterns themselves may be culturally inculcated), and then
matching them by socioeconomic status and other factors that we
know correlate with IQ in a manner that is accepted to be causal,
and only then running a multivariate statistical analysis to determine
what differences -- if any -- exist.
There's a huge body of published work out there that indicates
there's only about a 0.4 - 0.6 correlation (depending on the
study) of parental IQ to offspring IQ and detailing all the different
things that correlate with adverse IQ development. In some of
these cases, the correlation is shown to be causal -- as with
poor nutrition in early childhood leading to decreased neural
connectivity. In other cases, as with membership in a branch
of Protestantism, there may not be a relationship. Likewise,
we know that there are cultural and socioeconomic factors that
will affect IQ test scores -- like the old WISC questions about
which woman was prettiest, identifying the candlestick telephone,
or knowing what a regatta is, as well as the actual language issues
involved in following directions, certain learning disabilities, and
so on. We know that most of the testing done up through the
1970s or so and reported upon to show "racial differences" was
horribly biased because of the tests that were then in use. The
WISC-R took out some of the most glaring examples, but there
are still subtle cultural biases in many IQ tests, since they are
measuring what the examining culture thinks is important.
A study of the nature that could actually answer the questions
the Bell Curve's authors ask would be enormously expensive.
One of the (many, huge) flaws in the Bell Curve was the way that
the authors took correlations as causalities, as with poverty --
they imply that poor blacks are poor because they are not very
bright, when a large body of research (as detailed above) shows
that being poor can *cause* a lower IQ due to factors that are
not heritable. They also try to compare tests that are not equivalent,
report on tests of different groups which lack a common background
as if the testing conditions were equivalent because the same test
was used, and try to take tests that are not IQ-normed create IQs
from them.
Oh, yeah, and given that "race" is a very vague descriptor, you'd
have to do genetic testing to assign people to different groups
-- preferably in some sort of blind fashion so the people who
score the IQ tests don't know what race the person is. You can't
go by self-identification, because many people don't really know
their racial background for more than a couple generations, and
because their identification may not match their genetics.
Everything I've ever seen while wearing my evolutionary biology
hat convinces me that there are far more differences among any
one "race" than between any pair of "races," and I incline to the
believe that race is an artificial construct, as meaningless as
defining cats by breeds.
Kevin Grant
> of racism, perhaps because liberals are afraid of
> what the results will be, whereas liberals who want
> such studies done are accused of betrayal. The end
> result is that studies are not done,
> Would the results be condemned before the study got
> off the ground?
Yes. And such a study will have to be cheap because
getting government funding for anything whose results
might legitimize elitism (even if race is not involved)
will be a problem. But the whole thing should work
itself out sometime this century anyway.
The problem is that IQ tests involve tests. Test
results are always problematic because the tests
have to be in some language, designed by someone who
grew up in some culture, etc. The breakthrough this
century will be to bypass the tests entirely. Once
we have cheap methods for determining a person's
genetic makup we can skip the tests, finding
statistical correlations between the presence and
absence of various gene combinations and academic
success (or whatever it is that the IQ tests are
supposed to be predicting). This means no more
"this test is unfair because it isn't in my dialect"
or "I was drunk when I took it" (complaints that
might very well be legitimate). Just "hold still
while we take this blood sample".
It seems to me I also read something somewhere
recently about using MRI's (or something similar)
to get exact readings on brain volume and find
some kind of association between that and IQ.
So the only real challenge here is to be patient
for the few more years/decades that it will take
for the technology to advance to the required point
to allow the studies to take place.
Will there be a significant genetic component to IQ?
I'd be surprised if there wasn't. If we admit that
the strong/weak guy was influenced in that direction
by his genes, as well as the light/dark guy, the
fat/thin guy etc... Then to say that everything
except intelligence is affected by genes would seem
rather implausible. Will people get upset about it?
I'm sure they'll get red in the face, run out into
the streets and jump up and down while singing
Wagnerian operas about the impending doom of
civilization as a result (people do that sort of
thing a lot).
But I wouldn't worry about it until at least this
summer. :)
Jeffrey Meyer
You mean race.org.mensa
--
Jeffrey Meyer
De gustibus non est disputandum
>
> -dave
>
Adina Sobo
<kpg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>It seems to me I also read something somewhere
>recently about using MRI's (or something similar)
>to get exact readings on brain volume and find
>some kind of association between that and IQ.
Actually, I am amazed by how much cranial capacity is
still a topic of study. There are tons of journal articles
over the last few years where the authors are trying to
prove that there are differences by race or gender and
just as many arguing vociferously with the methodology
(usually problematic because of maturation patterns and
measurements that favor one factor over others.
Despite what has been said here, there is actually a very
large body of data that has been amassed where race
and gender are correlated to IQ, achievement, learning
styles, etc. Anyone who wants to go to a PsychInfo
database or Medline, Healthstar, Biosis, Etc. can readily
see that this *is* a funded area for study.
PSmith9626
The phrenologists just keep trying.
best
penny
>It seems to me I also read something somewhere
>recently about using MRI's (or something similar)
>to get exact readings on brain volume and find
Women have generally smaller brains. Was Marie Curie ( winner of two science
Nobel Prizes) stupid?
Harvard has quite a history: In time, they have claimed definitive studies to
show the intellectual inferiority of : Jews, Women, and now ( The Bell Curve)
Nonwhites.
They ought to be ashamed.
>Will people get upset about it?
Genetics. Brain research.
Maybe we can figure out how to make everyone smart? Perhaps inhumanly smart?
I await that day.
"I got these flowers for Algernon"--penny
rian
would as big the would have waterheads and very sore neckmuscles. My
headsize is 1 size smaller than the smallest hat size for women (51 cm
instead of 52) so my brainsize is smaller than 80% of all women. Does
that mean my IQ is lower than virtual all women? heck no, I even score
higher in spatial conception than most men, with their big brains.
Quality over quantity!
Small is beautiful.
--
Darn! an evil hen.
PSmith9626 <psmit...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
20020201063541...@mb-mr.aol.com...
CINDY SMITH
> On 28 Jan 2002 10:48:11 -0600, c...@cygnus.5sc.net (CINDY SMITH) wrote:
>>Would you please point me to a legitimate study that logically
>>concludes the opposite of the _Bell Curve_ ?
> You are pre-supposing the "Bell Curve" *is* a legitimate "study".
Not at all. If the _Bell Curve_ is not a legitimate study, then I'm
asking for someone to point me to a legitimate study.
> It's not, but I am interested why you are motivated to read the book.
> Reply and I will give you loads of de-bunking.
I read it because I'd heard so much about it, I wanted to read it and
decide for myself what to make of it. Have you actually read it?
> -dave