Rating: 
Summary: disfortune...
Review: The unfortunate thing about this book, and really about all the positive reviews posted here, is that they are all fundamentally flawed. That is, any philosophy or line of thought which points to biological determinism is impossible to truly justify and thus, should be considered inconsequential and irrelavent to intelligent discussion. The fact is, this book is only what it is because of its support from all these self-described "rationalists" who are really just racists and/or fascist-market capitalists. There is not a whole lot in this book that holds up under critical examination unless the examiner is not making any attempt at criticism in an attempt to justify the hate and destruction of systems and societies which they are afraid to leave behind.
Rating: 
Summary: There is no mistaking this book's controversy ...
Review: ... so I'll talk about something a bit different from the rest of the reviews below. This book is VERY well organized and other non-fiction books would do well to use this book's organization as a model. Each part, which consists of several chapters, is prefaced by an introduction of the following chapters. Each chapter begins with a brief synopsis of the chapter's argument, and in each chapter, there are wonderful charts and graphs. The appendices are amazing. For example, the book is statistics-heavy, so the first appendix is a primer on statistics. Of course, I am only talking about style here, not substance. If you're wondering why I gave this book 3 stars, it's because the books substance unfortunately doesn't match the style. Okay, okay, that requires some explanation, doesn't it? I guess I'll have to talk about the book after all. Basically, but simplistically, the authors argue that Asians score highest on IQ tests, then white folks, then mexicans, then blacks. Assuming this is true (which very well might be the case given that the barrios and ghettos where many mexicans and blacks have crappy schools and crappy environments), the authors make two critical errors: confusing IQ and intelligence (though the book denies this), and worse, confusing correlation with causation. EVEN IF blacks, whites, Asians, mexicans, and other groups have different IQs (though this is highly debatable), it does not therefore follow that these lower IQs were caused by inferior intelligences. It's relatively established that many factors go in towards contributing to a high IQ score, among them nutrition, parents, neighborhood, etc. A low IQ score may be indicative of a problem in search of a remedy, not the result of an underlying condition. Also, EVEN IF it could be proven that certain ethnic and racial groups did have lower IQs, and that IQs were perfectly correlated with intelligence, the million-dollar question still remains: "so what?" Intelligence is but one factor to success, and unless we are planning on summoning Hitler from the dead to exterminate "inferior" people, who cares if someone has "inferior" or "superior" intelligence. In fact, I have little doubt in my mind that Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci, and Albert Einstein would each score higher on a standard IQ test than Dale Carnegie, Bill Gates, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan, but does this mean the first group is *smarter* than the second? This is highly debatable. And if they are, would you rather be in the first group or the second? (I'm sure the answer varies from individual to individual). Last, why is it even important to talk about the differences of the two groups? To ask the question is to answer it. It's not. I could ramble on, but I'd only be repeating what other people already wrote below. Recommendation: Don't buy the book, but do browse its organization if you plan on writing a non-fiction book, and do browse (or even read) Appendix 1 if you need to review (or learn) statistics.
Rating: 
Summary: A flaw in the Bell Curve
Review: This is undoubtably a very well researched book with a lot of solid evidence but there is a flaw in the authors interpretation of IQ which alters dramaticly the conclusions of much of what they say. Unfortunately it is something which is quite technical but I think it is so important that it needs to be understood by anyone reading this book. The first thing you must understand in interpreting IQ scores is that they are a RELATIVE measure. They measure how intelligent someone is in relation to the population in general, they do not measure how intelligent someone is per se. If everyone woke up tommorrow morning twice as intelligent as they were the night before then NO-ONES IQ SCORE WOULD CHANGE, even though the countries intelligence would have increased dramatically. The second thing you need to know is that the the variation in IQ scores is fixed and therefore does not show changes in the variation of intelligence. If everyone woke up one morning and found that their intelligence was more average (intelligent people becoming stupider, stupid people becoming more intelligent), then no-ones IQ score need change and the total variability in IQ scores (standard deviation) would remain exactly the same as before. As you can see a lot of differences in intelligence can be masked by the statistical technique used to produce IQ scores. But is this important? The answer is YES! Do you think that the links to low IQ shown in the Bell Curve (eg. crime, illegitimacy, welfare reliance) relate to a persons absolute level of intelligence or their IQ (intelligence in relation to the rest of society)? The intuitive answer would be that it is the level of intelligence, not the IQ score per se that matters for such things and I think most people will agree with this. So what has been happening to peoples intelligence (as opposed to their IQ) over the years? The answer is a great deal. Much of this has been thoroughly researched by James Flynn and others. Intelligence has been increasing in virtually all the countries where the figures have been studied, and dramatically so, by as much as the equivalent of 1 IQ point a year. This has been called the Flynn effect. But even this is not the whole story, the increase in intelligence has been uneven. The Flynn effect has been largely due to dramatic increases in the raw (ie. unconverted to IQ) test scores of those at the lower end of the scale while increases for those at the top have been very modest. Stupid people are getting cleverer while highly intelligent people are roughly as intelligent as they always were, and this has been happening for a century as far as we can tell. Many explanations have been put forward for this from diet to television, but no-one really knows the reason, at least not yet. So the Flynn effect will be exerting two changes on the intelligence of people in the USA. It is making people more intelligent and is also (because of the uneven distrubution of increases towards the low end) making peoples level of intelligence more similar to one another. For the reasons I give above neither of these effects can be noted merely by examining IQ scores. So how does this effect black IQ scores? Because the Flynn effect disproportianately effects those at the lower level (where blacks are disproportianately found) the average black will be becoming more intelligent more quickly than the average white person will, however if the whites at the low end also increase at the same rate then the black-white _IQ_ gap will remain the same. Yes, black people can be becoming more intelligent AND more similar to the white level of average intelligence without any of this being reflected in IQ scores!
Couple this with the fact that what really matters is level of absolute intelligence, not IQ and you will see that there is a whole story not being told in the Bell Curve, especially in relation to the conclusions towards the end of the book. It thoroughly dissapoints me that so much of the reaction towards this book has been politically motivated and attacks its fundamental premises (eg. IQ is meaningless, cultural bias etc.) which are actually quite sound. The "devil" is in the detail but so many of its critics are so repulsed by the Bell Curve that they seem to be almost in a state of shock in which they cannot think straight and their critical powers seem to suffer. Basically the Bell Curve is the truth, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Much more important than just a book about race
Review: Contrary to popular perceptions this is not a book about race, nor is it a book about what might be called "eugenics". It is actually perfectly possible to accept the major thesis of "The Bell Curve" without accepting that there is a genetic basis for differences in intelligence, racial or otherwise. This is a point that many commentators miss, perhaps deliberately. I will sum up my personal interpretation of the central thesis of the book as I see it; 1)Intelligence is a real human quality which affects the potential to which an individual can rise. 2)In the past society was structured in ways so that a persons socioeconomic position was only quite loosely related to intelligence. Position in society was determined by many things such as "old school tie" discrimination, racial discrimination family background and other things not largely related to IQ. 3)Today by far the most important determinant of a persons socioeconomic position is IQ, much more important than socioeconomic background of parents, race or anything else (for example, although blacks earn much lower wages than whites, blacks and whites with equal IQs earn equal wages). A large part of the cause of this is an increase in the complexity of work. A result of this trend is that wealth is increasing because the country's human capital is being used more efficiently. 4)Intelligence is hereditary (not neccessarily completely in the biological-genetic sense, but quite possibly so), smart parents have smart children and vice versa. This has a variety of causes but education is NOT an effective remedy for equalisation. Most of the adult difference in IQ is already present prior to school age (even as young as three) and does not alter much. Programs aimed at pre-school children have also failed to raise adult IQ levels. 5)Increasingly people are marrying and/or having chldren with partners of a similar IQ level because job and income stratification lead them to come into meaningful contact only with those of similar intelligence. This is related to 2) and 3). 6)This is effectively leading to a "caste system" in american society based on IQ. Increasing social problems (crime, drugs, extramarital births etc.) are occuring in a large low-IQ "underclass". This low-IQ underclass is produced BECAUSE america is a meritocratic society. Unlike in the past (see 2) those born in the underclass with above average intelligence are quickly sucked up the socioeconomic ladder and out of the underclass leaving the average IQ there even lower. The most striking thing in this analysis is something which defies the current political paradigm but which is actually quite logical when you think about it; MERITOCRACY CAUSES INEQUALITY. You can have one or the other but you can't have both. There was a time when more meritocracy reduced inequality (eg. the extension of universal education) but the pendulum has now swung. This has even led to legislators introducing anti-meritocratic measures in order to reduce inequality (eg. affirmative action), even if they don't know that that is what they are doing. This meritocracy/equality dichotomy is probably the most important insight I gained from reading this book, not only because it is not how people are taught to think about social matters today but also because it explains observations about society which without it would be a mystery.
Rating:
Summary: THE FACTS ARE ALL AROUND YOU. IT IS ALL TRUE.
Review: I am Latino who is more Spanish then mixed. My nieces married different races. One married an Anglo. One married a African American and one married a Latino. They had childern and all were raised the same. In school the childern from my niece who married a Anglo have out performed both other nieces childern, especially the one who had married an African American. There has never been an black country that has not brought it's people out of poverty. In the Western hemisphere Haiti is the poorest country with lifestyles parroting Africa. The mixed population of the Dominican Republic is better off then their pure black neighbors on the island of Hispanola. There is also a lie that Eygpt was a Black civilization when it was clearly Arabic. In fact their own hieroglypics show black slaves. If most liberals do not believe in God then why don't they follow the laws of Darwin that prove that there are different variations of species? Like there are different intelligences in birds, dogs, apes and other species wouldn't it also make sense that the same would be a factor in humans. I was raised in an area with a high degree of Asians and Latinos. In elementary school we started off with the same level of learning degree and family backing. When we went into middle school the Asians and Latinos had to merge with the Whites from the other neighborhood. The Asians that we went to school with started to pull ahead from both of the other groups. When we went into High School the same Asians I had gone to school with had pulled far ahead of the Whites and further ahead of my peers the Latinos. The Whites pulled ahead of the Latinos. The Latinos who were more Spanish pulled ahead of the mixed Latinos. When most Latinos I knew who went to college were at the same level as the Blacks in class. The African Americans had an even harder time in class. They had been from High Schools that had large Latino populations yet the Latinos from their schools were smarter and did better then their black counterparts. Yet some of those Latinos were recent immigrants and could hardly speak the language. The African Americans had difficult times grasping abstract concepts and sometimes had harder time with reading and language skills. Most of those who are trying to state that we are all on the same level never grew in minority areas and are not really aware of the true facts. One thing I remember was the Asians I had grown up from the poor areas. They even had racially ideas of intelligence amongest themselves. The Japanese on top followed by the Chinese then the others, with Filipinos on the bottom. How can two groups, raised the same in the same neighborhoods, the Latinos and Asians grown so far a part once in middle and high school. It was not enivironment or family since we were from the same areas and our families had the same ideals of education.
Rating:
Summary: The book is an excellent read
Review: I remember the big brouhaha this book caused when it was first published (circa 1994).
I was intrigued, but I didn't bother to read it because (based of the reviews I read) I thought it was just too racially antagonistic. Besides, I thought, even if some of it's true, what good does it do to belabor a point that causes pain to so many and would likely exacerbate racial tensions. To my surprise the book is actually very well written and has a clear purpose. The book is about IQ in general and how one's IQ shapes the individual and the society at large. It is scholarly in its use of statistics, facts, references and lengthy explanations. The book goes to great length to be sensitive in all references to racial differences. Actually the issue of race is only a small part of the book, and the author repeatedly reminds the reader that the difference in IQ among individuals is far greater than the differences in IQ among the races. Based on numerous studies, it puts the hereditability of IQ to be in the range of 60%. Of course that still leads 40% for environmental factors. And of course IQ doesn't necessarily translate into success. Ambition, work ethic, personal disposition, socioeconomic status of the parents, etc., all play a role in determining a persons place in society. The book stresses that IQ must be considered in drafting public policy to address social problems like unemployment, welfare, crime, poverty, job training etc. Much of the material will continue to be debated, but the book at least opens up a discussion that has been closed for too long.
Rating:
Summary: (An Attempt at a) Critical Review
Review: Five stars for the range and completeness of topics discussed (addressing most angles), but one star for some of the stark conclusions drawn based too much on statistical models and too little on the real world. I would recommend the book based on its wide discussion of intelligence and its importance, but only for the critical reader.
Herrnstein and Murray make several strong points backed up by convincing data:
=> The division of classes over time and possible consequences
=> The relationships with cognitive ability and: poverty, schooling, family (and marriage) illegitimacy, crime, welfare, etc.
=> As much as we (politically correct society) do not like to admit it, there is, right now, a difference in cognitive ability among classes, and probably among different race populations, in America.
=> Strong case for g loaded tests for the hiring process
=> The decline in quality of education for the individual over the past one hundred plus years, but the rise in the education for the population as a whole during the same time period
=> America's recent neglect of the "gifted" students in heavy favor of "low cognitive ability" students and its possible consequences
=> Pros and cons of affirmative action regarding their analysis of cognitive ability
=> And many more But I question a few of their assumptions, most notably regarding heritability of cognitive ability. I think the influence of the environment in fostering IQ was downplayed and oversimplified, and a few of the studies that led them to their estimate of the heritability of intelligence (such as using identical twins raised separately as a direct measure of the genetic component) were questionable regarding their oversimplification. Intelligence seems to be far more variable and based on the environment than Herrnstein and Murray conclude using their data. Obviously genetics plays a big part, but in my opinion its role is based more heavily on the environment's ability to foster its growth. I got the impression that Herrnstein and Murray focused more on the 1 to 1 statistic world rather than the complex factors of the real world. Their heritability assumption, among others, led them to their conclusion that the difference in cognitive ability among ethnic groups would remain if everything other than genetics were equalized (although they do say it would be smaller). This is a dangerous conclusion to feed to the masses (withholding much inherent racism) and one I do not think should have been drawn without more concrete, real world proof. Statistics are great, but tend to over simplify, and at times reading through the book conclusions were drawn too much based on statistics while ignoring the real world and its complexity.
From what I have seen and read about, I can believe that there is a difference today in cognitive ability among different ethnic populations, but I do not believe it is inherent. When you have a concentrated amount of a race living in ghettos or in other poverty areas, while other races concentrate in Middle America, there are going to be huge discrepancies in access to proper education and thus an environment that fosters cognitive ability's growth. This does not mean that intelligence is inherent. (Do not be confused, this is not Herrnstein and Murray's argument).
The most important point that I think should be drawn from this book is one that Herrnstein and Murray convey right after the cover page in a quote by Edmund Burke. It basically reminds us that just because a subject or an opinion is considered taboo at the time, it does not reflect its validity, and that all options, popular or unpopular, should be sought after in the name of Truth. We sometimes seem to forget this.
Rating:
Summary: I don't like all the conclusions, but facts are facts.
Review: There is an interesting correlation between the style of the negative reviews of this book, and the ones you'll find on The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, probably the world's most respected biologist. When mainstream science, even stated conservatively, goes against deeply-held and cherished beliefs, many people will jump to scarecrow arguments to attempt to discredit a deeply relevant and well-supported text. Even though my education is in psychology, I was not aware of what were even at the time (early nineties) empirically-derived observations essentially accepted without dispute by the psychometric community-- that there are in fact race differences in IQ. Of course, this is NOT the central theme of the book, it's simply the one that causes the most heartfelt emotional reaction. I'm reminded of fundamentalists who reject macroevolution but ignore or tacitly accept microevolution because they find it less threatening to their core beliefs. They only really go nuts about the stuff that hits close to home emotionally-- even though both concepts are equally well-established empirically. I would like to mention for the person considering purchasing this book to keep in mind that the authors stated their case conservatively-- they actually PULLED punches because they wanted their case to be so unequivocal and unambiguous that what they were stating could not be reasonably questioned by anyone analyzing the data, without presenting new data of their own (in other words, without using the scientific method themselves and bringing new data to light that contradicts an entire century of research that unabiguously supports their conclusions). There is no social agenda here that I can find. I found it to be very even-handed. I personally find a lot of the inexorable conclusions here depressing, as they indicate that many of our social problems are likely to be much more intractable than the political rhetoric would have you believe. But they do NOT advocate eugenics or any other racist or oppressive policy. And they DO repeatedly state that people of all races are represented in the full range of IQ's, from the dullest to the brightest. They also point out that two ethnic groups, of which neither of them is a member, have significantly higher IQs than whites. They do rather unequivocally advocate that we stop specifically subsidizing the births of children (of all races) who are irrefutably and apparently intractably at an enormously higher risk for every social malady that exists. That alone would be an enormous step forward. Read this book. Even if you violently disagree with whatever generalizations about this work you have heard, if you refuse to read it and consider the contents, and continue to think that there is no possible way this work has any validity, I invoke the observation of Carl Sagan: "The truth should require scrutiny." Your beliefs about the subject should withstand scrutiny if you are a scientific-minded person. This book and it's cautiously-worded conclusions do. It's detractors arguments uniformly do not, and the caliber and style of their arguments lead me worry that the barrier between religion and government really has been broken down, and the new state religion is called Political Correctness. I am certainly not a racist, and I conscientiously attempt never to prejudge anyone and chastise myself if I slip, like most other well-educated and intelligent people. But I am less and less inclined to cower before the demonstrably incorrect received wisdom of a self-appointed intellectual ruling class. The American Dream and the American way of doing things, and the vitality it has brought us, is being undermined through unsubstantiated dogma turned into Federal policies. It could cost us our future in a very real sense. Whatever course we go in the future, we desperately need to deal with facts rather than ideals, as painful and upsetting as it may be to ALL of us.
Rating:
Summary: Just plain old good horse sense
Review: What H&M have exhaustively researched in their book simply reiterates what I've always known: blacks (on average) are inferior to whites. Racism exists because races exist. Shocking isn't it? Racism is not skin deep; black people are not white people with black skin. Just as there are physical differences so too are there mental differences. Political correctness is a disease born out of a desire not to offend anyone. I want to thank H&M for having the courage (yes, genuine bravery) to stand up and speak for all the millions of people suffering because of affirmative action, state endorsed tokenism, and the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind -the equality of all races. Nobody benefits from these lies except minorities and mediocrities who have neither the inclination nor the aptitude to be decent human beings. Truth, to coin a phrase, can be very brutal. Until we face up to the truth we will not develop as a civilization. Already, living in England, I can see the demise of a once great empire. In another thousand years, tourists will visit London in the same way that tourists visit the great pyramids of Egypt. I've kept my name anonymous for obvious reasons. So much for free speech.
Rating:
Summary: Overrated rehashings
Review: There is little disputing the statistics cited in this book,but statistics are overrated and pliable to interpretation anyway,so they are meaningless except as curiosities.The only part of the book that proved anything is the stratifcation of society.When has any society not been stratified?That our society is now in a different pattern of stratification than what has been previously known matters not.It is not an inherently good or bad thing.Society will adjust to it with time as societies always adjust to new patterns.This book tries to correlate I.Q. and what effect I.Q. has on the chance to be successful in life.What is success?Being Wealthy?Being satisfied with life?The authors don't tell us.Success is defined by what the dominant culture deems sucess i.e. what the dominant and prominent members of society have achieved.It has no correlation with any definable reality,only perceptions and prejudices.This tangent of the book overstepped its bounds and was bound to fail,and it did.Rich people off themselves every day and many abuse drugs and alcohol and require medication to ease their depression.So their status,education and money makes these individuals sucesses in life?This book focuses exclusively only on the type of success that late 20th century man and overly obsessed capitalistic and greed is good culture deems successful.The one part of the book that is truly ridiculous and biased is the attempt to correlate the committing of crime with with low intelligence.Anyone who has ever paid any attention to our judicial system knows what an utter farce it often proves to be.There are two judicial systems,one for the masses and one for the wealthy,connected and famous.On the rare occasion that a societal elite is incarcerated it is usually a 6 month vacation at a country club.Remenber Michael Milkin,he of the multi billion dollar S&L scandal?His "punishment" was 2 years in a place that resembled a resort more than a prison.Yet the courts are filling up prisons faster than we can build them with people(Poor and minority almost exclusively)whose great crime is possession of drugs.By the way just as many wealthy people do drugs,its just that they can pay doctors under the table for the good stuff and even when they do get caught with poor man drugs their $1,000 an hour lawyers get them off.So a wealthy man like Milkin or Jim Baker can wreck thousands of lives and get 2 years while potheads and people addicted to drugs,people who generally harm no one but themselves,get 8-10 years for the crime of being poor and being stuck with a public defender-which means you may as well represent yourself,you couldn't do worse.This book is intellectually shallow and plays into our human laziness of lumping people into convenient groups.So what if the overall I.Q. of one group is higher than another,it tells you nothing about any particular person you may meet.There are plenty of black Ivy League students,lawyers and doctors and there are plenty of Asian,Jewish and White people working at Taco Bell.People have to be judged on their own merits but as long as books like this are written it only panders to the worst qualities of the human species:that of ranking and wanting to feel superior to others.However dressed up,scrubbed and perfumed with a scientific air,this book stinks.This book is more or less a variation on the same old nonsensical and tragically drawn conclusions that plagued the latter 19th and the whole of the 20th century.Why was this book written?It sure looks a lot like so much other politically wrought rubbish that passes for science.The truly frightening development of the last 150 years is how the so called age of science has in reality been more an age where governments,intellectuals,political groups and would be leaders and dictators have hijacked science to fit their agendas,while totally corrupting public discourse and understanding in the process.Many of our once distinguished and honored scientists are seen today for the lackeys of money and power they really were.Has science in general come to this?As merely another tool for politicians,ideologues and wackos with some agenda?Say it ain't so,science! Say it ain't so!
|
