regarding that infamous book, "The Bell Curve"

From: john grigg (starman125@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:44:36 MST


Mike Lorrey wrote:
Funny that Gardner and his buddies don't feel the same way about the author
of "The Bell Curve".
(end)

Actually, there were two author's who cowrote the book, Richard J.
Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Herrnstein died shortly after the book was
published. He was seen by critics as not having the real research
experience to write the book, though he was a Harvard trained psychologist.

I am quoting from two separate author's from the May 1995 (Volume 40, Number
5) issue of Contemporary Psychology, APA's journal of book reviews.

a quote from a book review by Donald Dorfman:
One would presume that The Bell Curve represents Herrnstein's final summing
up of a lifetime of objective scholarly research published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals on the genetic basis of IQ.

Regrettably, the media seem to be totally unaware of the fact that the
deceased Harvard professor never published any scientific research on the
genetic basis of IQ and its relation to race, poverty, or social class in
peer-reviewed scientific journals in his entire 36-year academic career.
Richard Herrnstein's actual area of expertise is the experimental analysis
of decision making in pigeons and rats, and he never studied the genetic
basis of any behavior in those laboratory animals.
(end)

Regarding Charles Murray, Dorfman writes:
The second author of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, has a doctorate in
political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is
currently a Bradley Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a
conservative research group in Washington, DC. Murray often publishes his
research and theories in The Public Interest (e.g., Murray, 1994), a
neoconservative magazine edited by Irving Kristol, also a fellow of the
American Enterprise Institute and sometimes considered the founding father
of neoconservatism (Atlas, 1995).

In an article recently published in The Public Interest, Murray listed the
first priority of his political agenda: "And so I want to end welfare"
(1994, p. 18). Inasmuch as the media sometimes refer to The Bell Curve as
Murray's book, perhaps the book represents Murray's summing up of a body of
objective scholarly research that he had published in scientific journals on
the genetic basis of IQ and poverty. But like his coauthor Richard
Herrnstein, Murray has never conducted or published any research in
scientific journals on the genetic basis of IQ and poverty in his entire
career.
(end)

I thought some background information on the co-authors would be helpful.

The following paragraph I think sums up the point Murray and Herrnstein's
were trying to make with their book.

Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. in his review of the book wrote:
The notion of a meritocracy is not, in itself, an affront to American
sensibilities. Social scientists have carefully documented that social
mobility does occur from one generation to the next and that cognitive
ability is a major factor in determining whether an individual will achieve
greater or lesser social status than did his or her parents (Waller, 1971).
When each generation resorts in this way, the elements of fairness and
opportunity are preserved.

If, however, as The Bell Curve asserts, the heritability of IQ is quite high
and there is a strong tendency for those similar in ability to marry, there
will be less regression toward the mean in the cognitive ability of children
of the intellectually talented and, therefore, less intergenerational
reassortment.

Under these circumstances a meritocracy begins to look like an aristocracy,
a perception that is strongly reinforced when the intellectual elite
segregate themselves from the rest of society by living in separate
neighborhoods, sending their children to private schools, and supporting
social institutions that cater to their own unique interests.

The authors do argue that general cognitive ability (i.e., "g") is a major
determiner of social status and that variance in general mental ability is
largely attributable to genetic factors--propositions that are certainly
endorsed by many experts in the field. The book explicitly disclaims,
however, that general mental ability is the only determinant of social
status, or that g is the sum total of an individual's social worth.
(end)

This is strong stuff! I will requote the following:
Under these circumstances a meritocracy begins to look like an aristocracy,
a perception that is strongly reinforced when the intellectual elite
segregate themselves from the rest of society by living in separate
neighborhoods, etc.
(end)

Very powerful and scary! But is it true?? For the full document that has
the two book reviews please go to the URL below.

http://www.apa.org/journals/bell.html

I look forward to having further discussion on this topic.

sincerely,

John Grigg

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:16 MDT