Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, Thought-provoking, Well-Written
Review: Some people can run faster than others, and some can run very fast, indeed. Some can jump higher than others, and some can jump very high, indeed. Some people can throw a baseball faster and more accurately than others, and some few are extraordinarily fast and accurate. All of this is obvious. Equally obvious, to most of us at any rate, is the fact that no matter how hard most of us try, we simply lack the inherit ability to be professional baseball pitchers. We lack the basic physical assets necessary to pitch in the major leagues. Obviously environment (nutrition, exercise, etc.) affects how well we could pitch, and obviously most of us couch-potatoes would be better pitchers if we worked really hard at it, but we would never be qualified to pitch for the Yankees, however hard we tried. Simply put, there is a genetic component to the ability to play baseball. Why, then, should it seem so strange that there is a genetic component to intelligence? "The Bell Curve" argues that there is, and that between 40 and 80% of intelligence is accounted for by this genetic component. Other than our desire, our *wish* that everyone be equal at birth, what reason is there for thinking that they *are*? "The Bell Curve" goes on to say that people who are more intelligent *tend* to be more successful at most jobs, and this tendency is higher in jobs that are more intellectually challenging. Isn't this pretty obvious? Don't we all know people who seem to pick things up more easily, and see more deeply into problems, and come up with better, more fruitful conclusions? Call that anything you like - "intelligence," "giftedness," "IQ," it doesn't matter. The point is, some people consistently perform better, and "The Bell Curve" makes a sustained, interesting and persuasive argument that we can predict who they are with impressive reliability by means of testing.
Rating: 
Summary: What's Next?
Review: The Bell Curve is a sorry little book that does nothing more than reintroduce outdated racial sterotypes in a pretty, academic-like wrapping. What's next for Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray? A revival of Phrenology?
Rating:
Summary: I didn't like this book.
Review: Its theories and analyses seem very unconvincing. But maybe that is because I am black, of lower intelligence and thus can't ever be expected to understand such piercing scientific fact. So all I can hope is that along the fateful road of neo-Darwinism that is set extinguish people like me, someone in this world will intervene. Perhaps my artistic abilities will be of value to evolution; perhaps my sagacity or physical agility. Or how about my leadership qualities? But alas, these too may be the exclusive domain of those who sit atop the bell curve, sounding the death knell for people like me. So if you are reading this, I am very sorry for wasting your time with my low level thought processes.
Rating:
Summary: Does the bell curve destroy hope?
Review: Though many have pointed out some of the statistical flaws in "The Bell Curve" since its publication, serious people can no longer doubt that the main ideas proposed by the authors are highly likely to be true. Anyone with an above average intelligence who has lived in neighborhoods and attended schools with people of lower intelligence can attest to the idea that intelligence is largely innate. But the real issue is no longer whether intelligence is largely genetic or correlates well with socioeconomic status, but rather whether or not these ideas should become a part of our social consciousness. There is a kind of this-worldly eschatological hope in the idea that all people are truly equal and will some day attain the highest levels of human life. At this point in our history, the question is whether it is in our best interest to destroy this hope, or whether we should embrace the kind of natural caste system that "The Bell Curve" proposes.
Rating:
Summary: Professors criticize best seller by Mark Friedman
Review: Racist and useless were the words SF State professors used to criticize the book "The Bell Curve" in a panel discussion Thursday called "For Whom the Bell Curves." The book, a New York Times' best seller, has brought forth a new debate over the connection between intelligence and race. According to the book's jacket, the authors, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, are "exploring the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic, or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. "The authors also demonstrate the truth of another taboo fact: that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups." Murray and Herrnstein came to these conclusions after studying and interpreting other people's work. Six professors from various departments participated in two panel discussions, "Visions of Race and Genetics," and "Politics of Science," to discuss some of the book's questionable findings. During the discussions, criticism arose over the authors' finding that IQ and performance are connected and determined by heredity and their claim that Asians are the most intelligent race. The book also said that since intelligence is inherited, money spent on social programs like welfare and Head Start is worthless. Even if heredity played a part in intelligence, the environment also has a role and there is no way to eliminate that factor from intelligence tests, said biology Professor Michael Goldman. The panel criticized the authors for not explaining what intelligence is. "(The authors) say they do not need to define it," said black studies Professor Laura Head. During the three-hour discussion, Head called the book "a piece of propaganda clothed in the skirt of science." The book should be placed in the same category as other forms of racist attacks on immigrants, the war on crime and the suggestion to re-open orphanages, Head said. Other attacks on the book came from the authors' blaming of the victim rather than the educational system that may have influenced a child, Head said. Although Head has only browsed through the book, she has seen this kind of pseudo-science before. In the 1920s, the United States gave intelligence tests to immigrants and when they failed they would deny citizenship to them, Head explained. In an October National Public Radio interview, Murray said, "The facts (of the book) are not as scary as a lot of the misinformation out there. It is time to lay a lot of this stuff out on the table." Political science Professor Rufus Browning said the book is dangerous because it looks like a real scientific study. "(The book) is designed to reinforce people's biases," he said. Journalism department Chair Erna Smith focused her criticism on the media's coverage of "The Bell Curve." She said although there were a number of articles on the book, journalists only criticized Murray's and Herrnstein's suggestion that the government eliminate Head Start programs and other welfare policies. She said she couldn't find any stories to support the book's claim that Asians are the smartest race. "Race in the news media is seen as black and white, as if there's no one else," Smith said. Dean of Faculty Affairs Gerald West said that in Larry P. vs. California the courts decided that all intelligence tests are racially biased and therefore can not be used in schools. Since 1971 when the case was decided, no intelligence testing company has been able to prove their tests aren't racially biased, he said.
Rating:
Summary: Proven Racists
Review: Both of the authors of the Bell Curve are already proven racists. I've done some research at a website about the book and it's been proven that Murray (co-author of "The Bell Curve") had participated in Cross burnings in the past. Also, Herrnstein was picketed at Harvard University for lecturing his racist views. These are facts. The book is nothing more than ambiguous psuedoscience.
Rating:
Summary: This is the best book I have ever read.
Review: The book is very well written. The conclusions of the book are from solid data. No matter how people interpret the author's opinions, genes are involved in human life including intellegence. For everyone who wants to be successful in his/her carrier, one can not miss this book. However, if one gets disappointed by reading the book, remember, all of the research results in the book is the fact and one can not do anything about it.
Rating:
Summary: Insights to the future of Western Civilization
Review: The difference in intelligence between the races is obvious to anyone who cares to notice. One need only examine the contributions of Western Civilization, the Caucasian Race, to the advancement of mankind to reach this conclusion. The Negroid race has made relatively minor and insignificant contributions to science, literature, philosophy, or technology. The book simply reinforces and puts a number to what objective history already teaches and which is that the Negroid race is on the average 15 points lower in IQ that the Caucasian Race. The most important aspect of Hernstein and Murray's research is not that differences in intelligence between races exist but rather in the consequences that ignoring these differences has on the future of the human race. Given that intelligence is inherited what are the consequences of interracial marriage to the advancement and survival of the human race? A further manifestation of the sycophantic devotion to egalitarianism is the rise of the career woman. This phenomenon now channels the more intelligent women to activities that cause them to delay having children and having fewer children. The less intelligent women on the other hand have more children since the government supports them. The rise of the career woman and interracial marriage threaten our civilization in that they both lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population. This insight is the most important contribution of "The Bell Curve" to the study of the future of our civilization and the reason I strongly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Important Questions
Review: To the average reader, this book may seem enlightening, well-researched, and accurate. Careful scrutiny reveals something different: 1. The book assumes that intelligence is the highest attribute one can have; that it outweighs all others. This assumption is only an assumption, not a universal human truth. It is a subjective opinion. 2. This book assumes that mental energy is best used when focused on IQ-type intelligence. This assumption is, again, subjective. It gives no credit to other ideas or the possibility that emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and other factors are as important, as indicative of "worth", and as valuable to society. The idea of raw "intelligence" as the highest mental energy is not shared by all cultures or individuals. 3. The studies in the book are not objective and are biased in many ways. I will illustrate just a few: A: In their assessment of Asian intelligence vs. "American" intelligence, they compare students of both groups. The results show that the Asian students have higher IQs, and according to the authors, that makes them more intelligent. But the authors coveniently, perhaps too conveniently, overlooked the fact that in many parts of Asia, only the most able students proceed on through the grades--students who do poorly are weeded out in earlier years and trained in other areas. So by high school, only the smartest students are still enrolled in academic schools. Naturally, if you compare these students with American high school students, who are not weeded out (so you have a mix of very bright to rather dumb and everything in between), the Asian students will statistically appear smarter. But are they smarter genetically? No, it's just that their less intelligent kids are not included in the study. And of course, factors such as cultural work ethic, which greatly enhance IQ, are not properly considered. B. What of the fact that Native Americans, who genetically are closest to Asians, and who generally have a lot of European genes mixed in, also score lowly? Conveniently, they are not even included in the author's studies. There is a similar issue with Hispanics. 4. This book entirely ignores the well-documented position that race, as a genetic code, does not really exist. Race is primarily a social/cultural construction. Other than phenotype (physical appearance) in some cases, race does not significantly exist. There is not much difference between the blood, the organs, the muscle, the tissue, and the brain of humans of all races. This is not mere opinion, but based on years of study. 5. The idea that intelligence is passed down through genes can be refuted by many studies and is extremely subjective, not factual. 6. Even if everything in the book were accurate (which it is not), what would be the point? Intelligence is ethnically based, so . . . what? What are they trying to accomplish? I see only harmful affects and intentions, especially as the differences they note between races are relatively small--we're not talking about a race of geniuses vs. a race of babbling idiots. And what of individual merit--of the brilliant (and stupid) people of all ethnicities. If we are to make policies based on ethnic intelligence, these people will immediately be placed at a disadvantage. Perhaps you feel you can refute some of my points, but if even one of them is valid then the authors of this book have a lot of explaining to do. I do not believe they are simply ignorant and I believe they intentionally overlooked some of these points, counting on the reading public not to notice (which they mostly didn't). I have many, many other concerns about this book, but only a limited space here. I believe all of this should be kept in mind by anyone who wants an accurate reading of this book.
Rating:
Summary: If I could give it an additional star, I would. Excellent!
Review: I first heard of the Bell Curve over four years ago while attending one of my social science university classes. The Bell Curve got so much positive attention as a revolutionary, critical review of issues so current and pressing within our society, at the time, and today that I felt I would really appreciate reading it and reviewing the authors scientific efforts. As I studied the book (text) over a period of months, I could not help notice all of the off-the-cuff commentary, quick-shots really, by people who, obviously, had not studied the text nor the issues covered within the text. I heard claims of racism, subtle racism disguised as science, claims, to my complete astonishment, such as, "dirty little book, that's all it is". There seems to be some confusion, amazingly, as to what this book is all about. I guess that for some reason the standard remedy of "read the book" just doesn't seem to work here. I have noticed that a common trend among many of Murray's negative commentators: their ostentatious inability to distinguish the difference between the physical characteristic of "Ethnicity" and the sociological characteristics describing "One's ability to succeed in life". I continually read that the Bell Curve is about the relationship between "Intellect" and "Ethnicity"; this simply is NOT the case. In fact, as you will find, upon studying the text, the Bell Curve IS about the relationship between "Intellect" and "One's ability to succeed in life". I suppose that sociologists, psychologists etc... who hold dearly to conventional beliefs and "understandings" about sociological phenemon have, in light of Murray's and Hernstein's study, found themselves in a difficult spot and deeply disturbed. But so, I imagine, did followers of Archimedes when Newton developed his three laws of motion, refuting the conventional wisdom of the time that motion necessitated a force. And so, I imagine, did followers of conventional wisdom of the time, when Galileo presented his study, upholding the Coprenician system of planetary orbits. NO, in fact, they didn't like Galileo's findings at all, so much so that they forced him to renounce his SCIENTIFIC findings! It is scary to me, but when I, a student of the Bell Curve, see these commentators on telivision or read of them in the papers.... speaking of "dirty little books", "racism disguised as science" etc..., I have the feeling that If this were not the 20th century, and if we did not have the constitution protecting our right to publish scientific findings, these very same negative commentators might just try to force Murray to renounce his scientific findings, keeping us all in the dark for as long as possible. Well, fact is: the Earth does rotate around the Sun, folks. Read the book, get a telescope, know the truth.
|
