Rating: 
Summary: A Courage Book - Comment from an African-American
Review: The question is not whether a difference exists in IQ scores between whites and blacks, but why does the difference exist! Murray and Herrnstein give a fairly convincing argument that IQ is a factor in determining ones success in life. Blacks with an IQ of 120 are just as likely to graduate from college as whites or Asians with a similar IQ, and Murray and Herrnstein note that fact in their book. However, I do think that the authors did not provide convincing evidence that IQ is primary genetic. That's the flaw of the book. My second comment is about the racial aspect of the book. I am an African-American man, and I did not find the book to be racist. In our age of political correctness, anyone who writes about the differences between the races will likely face a firestorm of criticism, regardless of how accurate the content of the book. People of African heritage tend to run faster than people of European heritage. As a matter of fact, men of African heritage ran the top 30 times ever recorded in the 100-meter dash. If someone observed and commented about this fact, does that make him or her a racist? It certainly does not!
Rating: 
Summary: Preaching to the converted
Review: The Bell Curve appears to be an impressive work. A Harvard professor as author, and enough statistical evidence to deter all but the most determined from subjecting the figures to much more than passing scrutiny. The problem arises with the conclusions reached from this mass of data. Those who are already committed to the idea of white supremacy will find the book useful justification for their views, but I doubt that this book will win many new converts. It certainly didn't win me.
Rating:
Summary: Statistically Valid
Review: I went back to this book again after recently spending a day in an Emotional Intelligence workshop (a theory which is all the rage). Of course, EI is pseudo-pop science. The Bell Curve, on the other hand, draws statistically signficant causal relationships from the data - that IQ and economic performance go togehter in this economy. Unfortunately, in these sensititve times, some folks chose to interpreted the results as racist. What we really should take from this book is a renewed motivation to get a better grasp on the cognative abilities necessary to succeed in a capitalist society.
Rating: 
Summary: Lot of talking, but no real facts
Review: This was an interesting book. By that, I mean not to say that the facts it presented were interesting, since all the statistical jargon seems more to be way of confusing the reader than anything. When authors insert so much "factual evidence" in their work, it is probably to overwhelm the reader and place the writer on a pedestal; hence, the reader may not understand the material, but there is so much "statistical evidence" that one thinks the author uncapable of drawing a wrong conclusion. This is a public forum for discussion, and I have no wish to insult anyone who views my review. However, it should be pointed out that the Chinese and Indians I have studied with seem to possess the highest "intelligence" in the world, whether it be crystalline or liquid (I forget the exact terms, it was two years ago that I read the book). I also know quite a few Black people who are very intellectual. While some may say that the strict culture of the Chinese and Indians is responsible for their success, it must be noted that the Indians had conceived ideas about anti-matter, big-bang, black holes, and numerous other subjects long before anyone. The Chinese came up with paper, rockets, gunpowder, printing-press, to name just a few things, and until the 17th century, invented the most advanced machines from their technological knowledge. Yet, things change; people change; times change. And for any race to claim inherent superiority over another is, perhaps not immoral, but definitely not advisable. The Chinese didn't do it, the Indians didn't do it, the Moors didn't do it, when each of those races had world ascendancy. Why should anyone else do it?
Rating:
Summary: I finally finished reading this tome
Review: Like most people, I purchased The Bell Curve when it came out a few years ago because of the racial controversy generated over Chapter 13. I read Chapter 13, but kept nodding off when I tried to read it from start-to-finish. I promptly placed it on my bookshelf where it collected dust for almost two years. Several months ago, I decided the finally read the darn thing. I finished it yesterday and my conclusion was that the book does not contribute anything to the debate on individual intelligence and one's contribution to society -- which is what the book was supposed to be about, right? Overall, I was left with the impression that author Charles Murray sought to put out a so-called scholarly tome to "confirm" prejudiced notions about black American intellectual inferiority -- much as The End of Racism (also published by the Free Press) sought to "justify" bigoted behavior against black Americans. I regret that I contributed in anyway to the financial well-being of a smug, eugenics bigot like Charles Murray by purchasing this book.
Rating:
Summary: Nope
Review: Testing the IQs of adults proves nothing. Of course you get lower average scores amongst groups (such as blacks in America) who live in poor areas, with poor schools, parents of welfare, no books in their homes etc. There is a genetic component to IQ, but there's a much bigger social component. I have an IQ 20-30 points higher than my parents because I was raised in a better educational environment and was TAUGHT how to think from an early age - exposed to books in a way that they were not, and actively encouraged to use my imagination. This book gets the causal relationship backwards (at least partially) - poverty breeds stupidity (and the stupid tend to be poorer, especially in a world where the best way to earn a lot of money is no be able to program in C++, so its actually a vicious circle). In New Zealand, where I live, you'll see the same relationship between Pakeha (white) and Maori IQs, and for the same reasons. However, if you were to go to Louisiana and measure the IQs of those living in the French Quarter of New Orleans, and then test poor whites living in shacks in the Bayous, you'd find the same result. When dumb parents raise a child in a bookless house and send him/her to a run down school where the teachers spend most of their time struggling to maintain order and don't have enough text books to go around - that child is going to grow up dumber than he/she would livings in the hamptons and going to a private school. Its nearly all nurture, and very little nature.
Rating: 
Summary: Is the problem with the book, or its readers?
Review: Perhaps the most important part of this book, from a public policy standpoint, is not what everyone wants to focus on, but rather Chapter 18, which discusses the shift in public education away from a (partially) elitist model to a decidedly dumb one. As politically incorrect as it is to say, we are committing the public-policy equivalent of a felony in not offering a truly world-class education to the majority of that percentage of public school students who might otherwise be the deep thinkers we will need. (It should go without saying that this does NOT mean that we shouldn't also educate everyone else to the best of their abilities. We CAN do both; these are not mutually exclusive goals.) We instead *deny* nearly everyone the *chance* to excel. How can we be surprised at what we have wrought. The *students* aren't dumb, but, in all honesty (I teach at the university level), there's just no *reason* for them to bust their butts. The game is rigged, and they know it. We all lose, including especially those minority students who should be kicking intellectual ass. Instead, we pamper them with pablum, bore them to tears, and then take away the true *accomplishment* that should attend whatever medals (admissions, jobs, etc.) they might otherwise earn. As someone involved in education for many decades, I can attest to the accuracy of this chapter, and I look with sadness as we create new generations of bored, marginally educated rebels-without-causes. To be honest, most of my generation (even in university) were dullards, too. But at least those who weren't had the opportunity (and pressure) to truly learn, and not just get by. ...And there wasn't quite the same assumption that if you were a plumber, or whatever, you were nothing. Instead, we now tell *all* students that if they don't get *at least* a Bachelor's, they *are* nothing. Worse than nothing. Why are we surprised when we end up with a system filled with people who just shouldn't be there. Let them in, of course, but make them earn their stay. One example of this dumbing down, which I suppose shouldn't surprise me, but does, anyway: In recent news, at least two *national* newscasters reported that the earthquake in Taiwan was "about equal" to the one in Turkey. Apparently, even the folks in the *highest newsrooms in the land* didn't (1) know the Richter scale is *logarithmic* and thus 7.6 is **2 1/2 TIMES** more powerful than 7.4 (although they're both serious), or (2) think enough to ASK someone, like a mathemetician or geologist, who *does* know. That's just pathetic. What should be basic knowledge...doesn't even occur to them. Also, it's apparent from several of the reviews that the reviewers either didn't read the book, or are so caught up in their own psychodramas that they simply cannot read objectively. If you disagree with the conclusions, fine. If you think We the People just can't handle the conclusions, and thus they shouldn't be printed, fine. But don't make stuff up. At the very least, *learn about thine enemy*: Faking it will only strengthen the enemy's hand in the future.
Rating:
Summary: All men are created equal... in what?
Review: Jefferson did us a diservice by confusing us on the concept of equality from the very beginning. He should have been clear and said, "All men are created with equal inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equal protection of the law. Governments are instituted among men in order to secure these rights, and ensure that anyone who tramples on the rights of others forfeits their rights in accordance with due process of law." By leaving the concept open-ended--"All men are created equal"--he left us with the ambiguous concept that somehow humans can be "equal" to each other, like numbers can be equal to each other. I say that when the concept of equality is applied to humans, it must never be left hanging, but the blank in the phrase, "equal in ....." must be filled. Equal in position? wealth? talent? height? compassion? beauty? villany? God forbid, intelligence? I read this book, "The Bell Curve" pretty much from cover to cover. I found that it was backed up with enormous amounts of studies, data, thoughtful analysis, and it accorded with experience. A lot of people may not LIKE the facts the authors lay out, nor the conclusions to which they come, and refuse to believe them because of their passionate belief in an ambiguous "equality." A lot of people didn't want to believe Copernican astronomy either, and attacked Copernicus and Gallileo. Make no mistake, egalitarian ideology is the enemy to science as much or more so than religion ever was. But facts are stubborn things. No one disputes that blacks and Hispanics score lower on standardized tests than whites and Asians. The big dispute is over why and whether it can be changed. Murray and Hernnstein give the evidence for why they think intelligence is 60-80% genetic. I repeat, they give EVIDENCE, and anybody who disputes their findings must counter it with opposing evidence, not simply huff and puff and denounce the authors as somehow immoral. One more thought. Another reviewer here said that equality is an alien concept in nature and the animal world. In his words, "hierarchy, inequality, dominance, and power are the chief features of evolution." If we are part of the evolutionary process, then "equality", is contrary to reality. It is OBVIOUS that people are unequal in abilities and intelligence, and this has a definite bearing on life outcomes. Funny thing, Christianity says that we are equal before God, but never tried to claim that we are equal in any other way, nor does it try to dismantle hierarchy or suppress economic diversity. Jesus said, "The poor will always be with us." So both of the main belief systems on the origin of life, Darwinian evolution and Judeo-Christian theology, accept inequality as an immutable fact of life. If Jefferson were alive, he would be fascinated by where his unclear syntax has led us, and perhaps would want to clarify, as above.
Rating: 
Summary: What is the point of this book?
Review: This book declares that measurable intelligence (IQ)--learning potential--is inborn, a fact that I won't dispute. It's usually pretty easy to tell which child is bright, and which may be slow, from a fairly early age. (I say 'usually' because there are exceptions--children of extremely high intelligence who were misdiagnosed as being dull at an early age. Albert Einstein, for example.) Environment is a factor, albeit a much smaller one. So as I muddled through the graphs and charts (no statistician, I), I found myself wondering what exactly the authors were trying to communicate. Is it that a person's race may determine their intelligence? I hate to say this, since I'm all for intellectual curiosity, but I wonder what the point of such knowledge would be. On average, that a black person's IQ is 15 points than the average white person's? Averages are averages, and figures are only figures. What would it mean, and how could this be important to our society? This book raises more questions than it answers.
Rating:
Summary: A justification for bigotry
Review: This long, boring book is a rationalization for a wealthy class privilege, "the cognitive elite". What a scandal of self- rationalizations of class inequality! How much common sense or intelligence do you see from our politicians who decide our fate? This book is a waste.
|
