智能精英崛起：认知能力与社会行为分析

正态分布

需积分: 50 192 浏览量更新于2024-07-18 收藏 1.41MB PDF 举报

身份认证购VIP最低享 7 折!

领优惠券(最高得80元）

《钟形曲线》是由理查德·J·赫恩斯坦和查尔斯·默里合著的一本书，该书探讨了认知能力在社会经济结构中的分布以及其对个人和社会行为的影响。这本书的核心概念是基于正态分布理论，即智力在人群中呈现钟形分布，其中一小部分人拥有高智商（IQ），而大部分人的智商则位于中等水平，极少有人处于低智商区间。作者通过四个部分深入分析： 1. **认知精英的崛起（1900-1990）**：这部分研究了教育与认知阶级的关系，指出自1900年至1990年间，教育成为区分认知阶级的重要因素，尤其是高等教育的普及使得一部分人进入高智商阶层。 2. **职业认知划分**：作者分析了不同职业对认知能力的需求如何导致了社会分层，某些职业倾向于吸引具备较高智力的人，而其他职业可能更偏向于较低智力的要求。 3. **经济压力下的分层**：书中讨论了经济竞争如何加剧了这种认知能力的分隔，高智商者在就业、收入和晋升上占据优势，形成相对狭窄的上升通道。 4. **社会行为与认知阶级**：这部分探讨了认知能力对贫困、教育、失业、家庭、福利依赖、育儿方式、犯罪率以及公民素质等方面的影响。第二部分着重于社会行为，揭示了低认知能力人群在社会问题上的表现，如较高的贫困率和犯罪率。第三部分涉及种族差异、智力不平等的关联，以及人口统计学因素如何塑造这些现象。同时，作者还讨论了智力与社会行为之间的关系，特别是在低认知能力人群中。第四部分关注提高认知能力的可能性、教育平等问题，以及在高等教育和职场中实行的多元化政策（如 affirmative action）及其潜在影响。由于该书的原始版本是以未经编辑的.txt文件形式存在的，缺失图表和插图，且句子结构受损，这可能影响了阅读体验。尽管如此，作者试图通过清理文本，使其至少在初步阅读时保持可读性。然而，目前市场上暂无专业版可供选择。《钟形曲线》以其深度的社会学和心理学视角，挑战了读者对于智力分布与社会地位之间联系的传统观念，提出了关于社会政策和教育改革的引人深思的观点。

资源详情

资源推荐

Page 8

in the received wisdom regarding equality. This was most evident in the

political arena, where the civil rights movement and then the War on

Poverty raised Americans’ consciousness about the nature of the

inequalities in American society. But the changes in outlook ran deeper

and broader than politics. Assumptions about the very origins of social

problems changed profoundly. Nowhere was the shift more pervasive than

in the field of psychology.

Psychometricians of the 1930s had debated whether intelligence is almost

entirely produced by genes or whether the environment also plays a role.

By the 1960s and 1970s the point of contention had shifted dramatically. It had

somehow become controversial to claim, especially in public, that genes had any

effect at all on intelligence. Ironically, the evidence for genetic factors in

intelligence had greatly strengthened during the very period when the terms of

the debate were moving in the other direction.

In the psychological laboratory, there was a similar shift. Psychological

experimenters early in the century were, if anything, more likely to concentrate on

the inborn patterns of human and animal behavior than on how the learning

process could change behavior.” But from the 1930s to the 1960s, the leading

behaviorists, as they were called, and their students and disciples were almost all

specialists in learning theory. They filled the technical journals with the results of

learning experiments on rats and pigeons, the tacit implication being that genetic

endowment mattered so little that we could ignore the differences among

species, let alone among human individuals, and still discover enough about the

learning process to make it useful and relevant to human concerns.”9 There are,

indeed, aspects of the learning process that cross the lines between species, but

there are also enormous differences, and these differences were sometimes

ignored or minimized when psychologists explained their findings to the lay

public. B. E Skinner, at Harvard University, more than any other of the leading

behaviorists, broke out of the academic world into public attention with books that

applied the findings of laboratory research on animals to human society at large.

To those who held the behaviorist view, human potential was almost

perfectly malleable, shaped by the environment. The causes of human

deficiencies in intelligence-or parenting, or social behavior, or work

behavior-lay outside the individual. They were caused by flaws in

society. Sometimes capitalism was blamed, sometimes an uncaring or

incompetent

Page 9

government. Further, the causes of these deficiencies could be fixed by the right

public policies-redistribution of wealth, better education, better housing and

medical care. Once these environmental causes were removed, the deficiencies

should vanish as well, it was argued.

The contrary notion-that individual differences could not easily be diminished by

government intervention-collided head-on with the enthusiasm for egalitarianism,

which itself collided head-on with a halfcentury of IQ data indicating that

differences in intelligence are intractable and significantly heritable and that the

average IQ of various socioeconomic and ethnic groups differs.

In 1969, Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist and expert on

testing from the University of California at Berkeley, put a match to

this volatile mix of science and ideology with an article in the Harvard

Educational Review.” Asked by the Review’s editors to consider why

compensatory and remedial education programs begun with such high hopes

during the War on Poverty had yielded such disappointing results, Jensen

concluded that the programs were bound to have little success because they

were aimed at populations of youngsters with relatively low IQs, and success in

school depended to a considerable degree on IQ .

IQ had a large heritable component, Jensen also noted. The article furtheir

disclosed that the youngsters in the targeted populations were disproportionately

black and that historically blacks as a population had exhibited average IQs

substantially below those of whites.

The reaction to Jensen’s article was immediate and violent. From 1969

through the mid-1970s, dozens of books and hundreds of articles appeared

denouncing the use of IQ tests and arguing that mental abilities are determined

by environment, with the genes playing a minor role and race none at all.

Jensen’s name became synonymous with a constellation of hateful ways of

thinking .” It perhaps is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the Jensen

disgrace,” wrote jerry Hirsch, a psychologist specializing in the genetics of animal

behavior who was among Jensen’s more vehement critics .” It has permeated

both science and the universities and hoodwinked large segments of government

and society.

Like Vietnam and Watergate, it is a contemporary symptom of serious

affliction.”” The title of Hirsch’s article was “The Bankruptcy of

‘Science’ Without Scholarship.” During the first few years after the

Harvard Educational Review article was published, Jensen could appear in

no public forum in the United States without triggering something perilously close

to a riot.

Page 10

The uproar was exacerbated by William Shockley, who had won the Nobel

Prize in physics for his contributions to the invention of the transistor but had

turned his attention to human variation toward the end of his career. As eccentric

as he was brilliant, he often recalled the eugenicists of the early decades of the

century. He proposed, as a “thought exercise,” a scheme for paying people with

low IQs to be sterilized.” He supported (and contributed to) a sperm bank for

geniuses. He seemed to relish expressing sensitive scientific findings in a way

that would outrage or disturb as many people as possible. Jensen and Shockley,

utterly unlike as they were in most respects, soon came to be classed together

as a pair of racist intellectual cranks.

Then one of us, Richard Hermstein, an experimental psychologist at

Harvard, strayed into forbidden territory with an article in the

September 1971 Atlantic Monthly.” Hermstein barely mentioned race, but

he did talk about cheritability of IQ. His proposition, put in the form of a

syllogism, was that because IQ is substantially heritable, because economic

success in life depends in part on the talents measured by IQ tests, and because

social standing depends in part on economic success, it follows that social

standing is bound to be based to some extent on inherited differences. By 197 I,

this had become a controversial thing to say .

In media accounts of intelligence, the names Jensen, Shockley, and Hermstein

became roughly interchangeable.

That same year, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the use of

standardized ability tests by employers unless they had a “manifest

relationship” to the specific job in question because, the Supreme Court

held, standardized tests acted as “built-in headwinds” for minority

groups, even in the absence of discriminatory intent.” A year later, the

National Education Association called upon the nation’s schools to

impose a moratorium on all standardized intelligence testing,

hypothesizing that “a third or more of American citizens are

intellectually folded, mutilated or spindled before they have a chance

to get through elementary school because of linguistically or culturally

biased standardized tests.”” A movement that had begun in the 1960s

gained momentum in the early 1970s, as major school systems throughout

the country, including those of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles,

limited or banned the use of group-administered standardized tests in

public schools. A number of colleges announced that they would no

longer require the Scholastic Aptitude Test as part of the admissions

process. The legal movement against

Page 11

tests reached its apogee in 1978 in the case of Larry P. judge Robert Peckham

of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that it was unconstitutional to

use IQ tests for placement of children in classes for the educably mentally

retarded if the use of those tests resulted in placement of “grossly

disproportionate” numbers of black children.

Meanwhile, the intellectual debate had taken a new and personalized turn.

Those who claimed that intelligence was substantially inherited were not just

wrong, the critics now discovered, they were charlatans as well. Leon Kamin, a

psychologist then at Princeton, opened this phase of the debate with a 1974

book, The Science and Politics of IQ .” Patriotism, we have been told, is the last

refuge of scoundrels,” Kamin wrote in the opening pages .” Psychologists and

biologists might consider the possibility that cheritability is the first.”28 Kamin

went on to charge that mental testing and belief in the cheritability of IQ in

particular had been fostered by people with right-wing political views and racist

social views .

They had engaged in pseudoscience, he wrote, suppressing the data they did

not like and exaggerating the data that agreed with their preconceptions.

Examined carefully, the case for the cheritability of IQ was nil, concluded Kamin.

In 1976, a British journalist, Oliver Gillie, published an article in

the London Sunday Times that seemed to confirm Kamin’s thesis with a

sensational revelation: The recently deceased Cyril Burt, Britain’s most

eminent psychometrician, author of the largest and most famous study of

the intelligence of identical twins who grew up apart, was charged with

fraud. 21 He had made up data, fudged his results, and invented

coauthors, the Sunday Times declared. The subsequent scandal was as big

as the Piltdown Man hoax. Cyril Burt had not been just another researcher but

one of the giants of twentieth-century psychology. Nor could his colleagues find

a ready defense (the defense came later, as described in the box). They

protested that the revelations did not compromise the great bulk of the work that

bore on the issue of cheritability, but their detenses sounded feeble in the light of

the suspicions that had preceded Burt’s exposure.

For the public observing the uproar in the academy from the sidelines,

the capstone of the assault on the integrity of the discipline occurred

in 1981 when Harvard paleobiologist Stephen jay Gould, author of several

popular books on biology, published The Mismeasure of Man. 32 Gould

examined the history of intelligence testing, found that it was

剩余561页未读，继续阅读

喵喵萌萌

粉丝: 1
资源: 11

智能精英崛起：认知能力与社会行为分析

Wiser网络智能家居技术方案.pdf

论文研究-萨克斯管钟形轮廓曲线拟合技术研究.pdf

编写一个R程序来创建随机正态分布的钟形曲线。

stats.norm.pdf(x)

Gy = 1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * sigmay) * np.exp(-0.5 * (y / sigmay) ** 2)是哪个数学公式？并给出该公式？

画出正态分布N(0.1)和N(0,2……2)的概率密度函数图形.(要求:在同一坐标系中画出两图形，曲线最好标注清楚.)

Gy = 1 / (np.sqrt(2 * np.pi) * sigmay) * np.exp(-0.5 * (y / sigmay) ** 2)是哪个数学公式

钟形函数 f(t)=ae^(b〖(t-14)〗^2 )

R = beta.pdf(quantile, a, b, loc = 0, scale = 1)

Python正态分布曲线

如何看懂高斯分布函数的散点图

python 怎么判断数据的正态性

curve fitting matlab 2维没有高斯吗

matlab如何通过脉冲信号的几个关键点画出钟形脉冲信号波形

应用数理统计钟波pdf

你画的正态函数的图像，我没看到？再发一次

用python绘制方差相等，ρ=0.75的二元正态分布的钟形密度曲面图以及概率分布水平投影图

matlab隶属度函数

matlab pearsonⅲ曲线

回归分析对数据有什么要求

最新资源