Rating: 
Summary: At least read it before saying that you don't like it
Review: Herrnstein and Murray's book has 552 pages (not including the appendices), and I bet that I learned something new on almost every page. The book brought a maelstrom of controversy and attacks when it was published, and be warned, the book is probably the most polemical book out there that is as widespread and written by such distinguished academics.The authors dare to broach the subject of what they call 'g' (some measure of general intelligence - which can be assumed to be distributed via a normal curve when tested on the general population of the U.S. or some subset of the population), and push the envelope, so to speak, to the breaking point, by mixing the idea and measurement of this 'g' with differences in the (our, the U.S.) population according to race, those who have committed crimes, those who have neglected or abused their children, and so on. The type of social science done in this book is astoundingly good, even though the reader is often left wanting more from a given subject. On the other hand, covering everything more thoroughly would have soon resulted in not a thick book but many volumes - the 552 pages could have been devoted to just one of the sections. The research and analysis that the duo did shows a sophisticated level of scholarship - as does the book's style. The Bell Curve is accessible to the interested and intelligent person, not just a circle of ivory tower academics. The Bell Curve could be used, in my view, as an introduction to statistics and regression analysis. Statistics is not a difficult subject, but becomes unbearable for some students because it's not explained well. Herrnstein and Murray wrote appendices that explain types of regression and so on, so the average English professor who has actually decided to read the book may want to read the appendices first. The numerous charts and graphs in the book are sometimes difficult to decipher at first glance, but the ideas are apparent and written down if the reader cannot interpret the graph. Has anyone thanked the authors for this book? Murray is the only one that can be thanked at this point (Herrnstein died shortly after writing the book). The motivated reader will find some uncomfortable insights and truths in the book about society and perhaps his or her self. It's not without its flaws; but reading the book is a great experience. Herrnstein and Murray have my gratitude. econ
Rating:
Summary: Great book, a must read for those who want the truth
Review: Well, this is a book for those peoples who want to read the truth and not emotional stupidity. Firstly,
1] The facts show that blacks as a group do bad, not indivisually. i.e there can be extremely smart blacks.
2] Many people claim this is white racist garbage. They are obviously wrong. What do the authors have to gain by showing that North East Asians are smarter than Northern Europeans. Have they been paid by Japanese corporations to say this? Are they German National Socialists (Nazi) to claim Jews are smarter? I do not understand why would someone claim some other group is smarter than tham to make themselves look superior? Are they eggs (White outside, yellow inside)?
3]Besides race is a biological fact. Race was not invented by whites. Arabs, Japanese and even blacks have been racist much before Europeans went on to build their gigantic empires.
4]As far as the environment affecting I.Q, well Eastern and Central European children who suffered under the second world war did not show any fall in I.Q. Jews and Chinses/Japanese and Koreans came penniless to the U.S.A. Many Chinese were labourers treated worse than black slaves. But they have become more prosporous than even Nordics today. Besides if blacks are malnourished than how can they be so well represented in so many sports? How can Mongolian peasent children with a per capita income of $200 be more smarter than Afro Americans with a percepita income of $15000? Only genes can explain that. Japanese and Germans never saw a drop in I.Q after being harrased during the World war. Germans and Japanese in Brazil have lifestyles similar to people back home in Germany or Japan after entering Brazil penniless. Jews have faced anti-semitism for ages and now being 0.25% of the worlds population they form 25% of the Billionares in the world.
5] One reviewer claimed that Asians tend to come from the intellectual elite of their nations. But that mostly holds true for people coming post 1965 from countries of South-East Asia, South Asia and the Middle-east. That does not explain for the Chinese and Japanese whose ancestors entered as labourers. Besides the Chinese in China scored a bit higher than American-Chinese. Wherever Northern Eurasians have settled they have brought prosperity e.g Whites in Canada or Australia or the Chinese in Singapore or Taiwan. Compare them to the blacks in Haiti or Jamaica. In the Americas, Nordic White majority nations like Canada tend to have better std of living than Southern white majority nations like Argentina (difference is slight)who in turn are prosporous than Mixed Hispanic or Native American who in turn are better off than black nations. Besides Protestant ethics though an important factor cannot explain why Catholic Quebecans have a std of living more similar to Protestant North America than to Catholic Mexicans or Brazillians. Smart peoples build First worlds wherever they go, dumb people build third worlds whrever they go. With the end of communism, Eastern Europe and China, Vietnam and N.Korea will become as rich as the West and Japan.
Can any liberal answer that?
Rating: 
Summary: Statistics can be misleading...
Review: I first used this book when I was teaching "Introduction to Psychology" to college freshman at a University in Virginia in the mid-90's. I used this as an example of how statistics can be used to lead whatever agenda the user wishes, and how to think critically about what is being presented. The use of this book caused some controversy due to the racial overtones that the statistics led the authors to comment on, and it was a fun and challenging opportunity to show that the group norming data used here is on its face meaningless to individual people. One of the basic premises of the book is that race is a determining factor in the scores on various intelligence tests. One of the many flaws of this statistical hypothesis is actually quite easy to demonstrate. Draw three bell curves that overlap on a chalkboard. Label the curve at the farthest right "Asian", the middle curve "white", and the farthest left curve "black". Now place three random points on the board at various places within the curves. Ask the class to state the race of the person represented by any of the scores. Obviously, you can't. I recommend this book for the sole reason that it illuminates much of what is wrong about the use of statistical studies of people, and how they rarely reflect life. I also think the authors do a credible job of presenting information on valid statistical models. However, the challenge with statistical studies is in the value and validity of the conclusions postulated as a result of the data. In this area the authors fall a bit short in my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't square with my own experience in the real world.
Review: First of all, the research and statistical methods employed in this book seem to be above board and beyond reproach. Moreover, the correlations between positive traits and higher I.Q. seem quite reasonable and what should be expected according to common wisdom.
My problem with this study is that everything in my own life seems to be in complete contradiction to these findings. I have always scored rather highly on both standardised tests (PSAT, ACT, GRE) as well as, dedicated I.Q. tests (such as that administered by MENSA.) Plus, I graduated from both high school and college with honors (twice.) That is predicted by this book. My confusion lies in the fact that I have pretty much been rejected and sealed out of any significant participation in the economic life of this society inspite of all this. You see, instead of being sought out and rewarded for having a high I.Q. and high academic performance, I have found just the reverse has been true. I have found a strong negative bias against high I.Q. and high G.P.A. candidates (at least in industry in the American Midwest.) I have lost track of the vast number of snide remarks that I have recieved from personnel office personnel and potential employers upon discovering my test scores and grades (which they themselves requested.) I am ALWAYS told that high I.Q. and high grades do not mean anything. Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, but it does stand in stark contrast with what this book would seem to predict.
Faced with someone else's statistics about I.Q. and success (not I.Q. and ability) and my own personal experience in the real world over the last 20 + years, I'll have to go with the evidence of my own eyes and ears, which is the fact that this society has a strong negative bias against "smart" people.
Of course, if the authors are trying to emphasise class membership based on IQ this really doesn't fit me either- I started out in the lower working class, and inspite of a high IQ and academic success I have been kept in the working class. Meanwhile, extremely mediocre intellects are appointed to the Presidency from the upper classes by upper class judges....
Rating:
Summary: Bold, daring, controversial
Review: I read this book seven years ago and am just now getting around to reviewing it. IQ is definitely one of the most deciding factors in how far we go in life; but I think the book overlooks other contributing factors that also shape who we are: common sense, emotional intelligence, etc. Biology is not necessarily destiny. Our upbringing and environment also play a crucial role.
Rating: 
Summary: I want facts, and evidence, not myths !!!
Review: The Bell Curve was an honest shot at the truth from a limited "team" of specialists Hernstien and Murry. Their shoddy conclusion however, are an embarrassment on the scientific community as a whole (myself included).
...This book has some information worth considering but look at all kinds of evidence and not just statistics (which often lack external validity). READ THE EVIDENCE The book is based on a study of a large population who are given an AFQT test. based apon these test results hosted by statistical manipulation (such as the fact that THE SCORES DID NOT LAND IN A BELL CURVE !!!!!! They had to statistically manipulate the evidence so that it would fit into a limited and out-dated paradigm. Examine the evidence. Upper-class "intelligent" people don't commit crimes, right? The "cognitive elite" have commited genocide and exploitation all over the world. And not its because of racial mixing. The claim that white people commit less crime is a bizarre statement.
Use your head !!!
Rating:
Summary: Do your history and examine the evidence
Review: The thing that you must understand is that all theories make sense within a certain paradigm. If you accept a concept as being true, you have to accept certain other things in that paradigm. For example: 1) Do you believe that every generation of people gets 15 points smarter (ie. you are 15 points smarter than you parents, your kids are 15 points smarter than you, ect.) 2) Do you believe that your mind's capacity can be reprented by a number 3) Do you believe that Northern Europeans used to be much "smarter" than the rest of Europe (and the world) until recently These are all things that you believe if you believe in paradigm in which pychometric tests make sense. This book is based upon that paradigm. I am a Masters student in Applied Cognitive Psychology and have studied other aspects of this issue. Psychometrics is falling apart because of its dubios structure and political foundation. Its a big business, which is the only reason that it is still around. Bell Curve although well written is based upon a foolish, outdated concept with a heavy HISTORICAL political agenda. It was a best-seller for a long time because it put "science" behind what people want to believe. Paradigms get cracked and patched up for years before they are finally replaced by a newer more relevant paradigm. I would suggest reading "Inequality By Design" . Whatever side of the debate you are on, you will get much more from reading that book instead.
Rating: 
Summary: Insipid narrative, short of proof or reference
Review: I had opened myself up to some revolutionary thinking when I started reading this book, but was sorely disappointed. Although some of their points do make sense, there is lack of any substantial proof to substantiate the authors' hypothesis. Some of their views are downright outrageous, when they preach that the public systems of the United States (which as per them, is currently tailormade for the less intelligent) should become such that the genetically inferior should be naturally reduced, if not eliminated.
Rating:
Summary: THE BELL CURVE RINGS MANY MENTAL BELLS
Review: While reading The Bell Curve, many "bells" went off in my head because it made me think, objectively, about all of the bad behavior that I have witnessed in all the places that I have been in my life. By "bad behavior" I of course mean all the things mentioned by the authors of The Bell Curve. I now realize that, with few exceptions, this behavior is committed by those of low intelligence (or low IQ or low g-factor etc.). In grade school, not one school yard bully stealling lunch money (or stealing anything for that matter) that I remember was of high g-factor (g-factor evidenced by academic/artistic success). In high school, not one dope smoker/drug user that I remember was of high g-factor even though some of these pot smokers came from upper middle class families. These particular families had other children who had high IQ with academic/artistic success, and guess what? These other children committed no aberrant behavior, such as drug use. So much for the theory that family environment causes bad behavior! When I enlisted into the army for a technical specialty, I was sent to a duty post in Germany and it was one of the most desired duty posts amongst army pesonnnel. There was a combat arms unit barracksed on the other side of the post from us technical personnel. The combat arms personnel accounted for only 10-15% of the personnel on the entire post. According to the JAG spokesman (Judge Advocate General) ALL of the post's violent crimes and the vast majority of other aberrant behavior (DWI, theft, drug use) were committed by personnel from the combat arms unit. Again, so much for the theory that nice, happy and fun environments make for little social problems! The military decides qualification for job specialties based on a test called ASVAB which is for all intents and purposes an IQ test. Technical specialties require high ASVAB scores. Guess what kind of training those who do not score high on ASVAB get offered? You guessed it; combat arms. Therefore, is it any wonder what the source of most of this aberrant behavior is? People of low IQ. Even in my technical unit, the ocassional DWI, drug test failure or domestic violence always involved those who were perceived to be somewhat "duller" than the rest of us. The Bell Curve authors hit the nail right on the head. Low intelligence is at the heart of every social ill. Not race, as so many liberal/left critics claim, not social background or family atmosphere but low intelligence. However, The Bell Curve authors have made a critical error in supposing that the high IQ among us are going to control the low IQ. Dead wrong. The low IQ people are the ones whose birth rates have stayed the same while higher IQ people's birth rates have dropped off precipitously. This will mean that, more and more in the future, the low IQ will out vote the high IQ. Let's be honest, they already are outvoting high IQ people. Low IQ people do not create wealth (i.e. careers, businesses). Rather, they live off others who do create wealth by way of the tax code; at least to some extent. For example, half of Social Security, virtually all of health care and a significant percentage of local school budgets come from corporate taxation. Many of middle America and poor America would not have homes, cars, health care and public education on their own efforts. They are clearly living off of others who keep wealth in the stock market. They can do this because of their control of the voting booth. They simply outnumber corporate shareholders. These taxes would normally have been distributed to shareholders. Unproductive people are low IQ people and productive people are high IQ, for the most part. As one can see, low IQ people live off of high IQ people because they can legally force it on high IQ people. I was amazed at how the authors completely missed this aspect of society. They also did not comment on how low IQ people debase just about every thing they touch: modern culture is predominately pop-culture and everyone knows that it glorifies gratuitous sex, violence and other perversions. Who are the main purchasers of pop-culture? Who is responsible for dangerous drugs in our society, both the supplying and the consuming of drugs? Who accounts for most of the unpleasant behavior (loud stereo music, revving of car/motorcycle engines, shouting conversations that can be heard several streets away)that shows up in our nice residential neighborhoods and causes good people to move away? High IQ people? NO, low IQ people!! Although the authors acknowledge the high birth rates and declining birth rates of low and high IQ peoples, respectively, they dont seem to realize that societal ills are only going to get worse because of the growing numbers of low IQ peoples. Maybe this book is a good first step in acknowledging the problems facing society and someone else should continue the debate. Everyone should read this book for themselves simply because of the erroneous criticism leveled at it when it was first published.
Rating:
Summary: A veritable wrecking-ball to the egalitarian edifice
Review: The hyper-vulnerablility which the liberal establishment displayed when this book was published only served as additional confirmation of the book's findings. Almost none of the logic-free vituperation that greeted the Bell Curve's publication centered around the psychometric data presented therein. Instead, the authors themselves were attacked, usually as "racists," and even more audaciously by Jesse Jackson, when he said "the last time such racist tripe received celebrity was in Nazi Germany." This is an important logical misstep, and one Jackson isn't alone in committing. Although I'm fairly certain IQ tests weren't administered in Hitler's Germany, it would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the Bell Curve's contents if it turned out they were. This is the fallacy known as guilt by association, in which a person refuses to believe something simply because "evil people" believe in it also. Claims must be evaluated independently of the company who keeps them. Hitler enacted environmental laws, but the legitimacy of environmental laws isn't affirmed on the basis of whether or not Hitler once believed in them. Those who tacitly concede the genetic component of IQ, yet claim "IQ isn't everything" have woven themselves a tatty straw man -- neither author, nor any proponent of hereditarianism, claim this. For those who claim this data is "oppressive," prove it. Generally speaking, it has been the predominately low-IQ underclass that has financially oppressed the middle and upper-classes that support the underclass's opulent transfer payments. In short, the claims made in the Bell Curve stand or fall on their own, apart from Third Reich bogeymen and appeals to pity, emotions and the consequences of accepting such claims. The main thesis of the Bell Curve is that scholastic performance, job placement, criminality and even automobile accidents correlate strongly with IQ. Of course, because the Bell Curve's data shows that some racial groups (mainly blacks and Hispanics) are overrepresented on the left half of the Bell Curve, liberals will be quick either to deny that IQ means anything, or that it does, but that the IQ-gap can be explained by socio-economic standing. But as Herrnstein and Murray point out, wealth attainment and IQ are closely correlated. That is to say, one's IQ is largely a casual factor of their socio-economic standing, not the other way around as egalitarians so often assume. I recommend this book, especially to be read in tandem with Philippe Rushton's "Race, Evolution and Behavior" and Michael Levin's "Why Race Matters."
| 
