Rating: 
Summary: Please read this excerpts of TBC and think:
Review: Page 308:(Authors speak about the Flynn effect:The massive IQ gains in some countries during the last century.For more information read "The rising curve")"Does a 15-point IQ difference between grandparents and their grandchildren mean that the grand-children are 15 points smarter?Some experts do not believe that the rise is wholly,perhaps not even partly,a rise in intelligence but in the narrower skills involved in intelligence test taking per se". OK.TBC is full of charts about the dulls and the smarts,about IQ gains and IQ drops.All that data is collected by IQ tests,and authors never doubt that IQ tests really shows to us the intelligence.But,suddenly,when they must confront with the embarrassing (Embarrasing for a "naturist",of course) fact of the Flynn effect they say that 15 IQ point are not really a rise in intelligence.I think that this is a really unfair play.More.Page 657:"For IQ tests,coaching and practice are not a significant issue because coaching and practice effects exist only under conditions that virtually never apply".OK.Now read in the page 408:(They speak about the huge IQ gains in the childrens who participated in the Milwaukee project)"...Charles Locurto and Arthur Jensen have concluded that the program's substantial and enduring gain in IQ has been produced by coaching the children so well on taking intelligence tests that their scores no longer measure the intelligence or g very well".Great.That's really face I win,tail you loose. Nevertheless I think that this is an interesting book,with valuable ideas.But we need much more research and much more efforts to criticize our own concepts.And this reflections are pertinent too to the "other side",the nurture side.We must left our nature-nurture trenches and let the facts speak,is the only way to reach the (Always provisional in science) truth.
Rating: 
Summary: A thoughtful, well-written, well-researched blockbuster!
Review: From The Bell Curve: "This book is about differences in intellectual capacity among people and groups, and what those differences mean for America's future. The relationships we will be discussing are among the most sensitive in contemporary America--so sensitive that hardly anyone writes or talks about them in public. It is not for lack of information, as you will see." "To try to come to grips with the nation's problems without understanding the role of intelligence is to see through a glass darkly indeed, to grope with symptoms instead of causes, to stumble into supposed remedies that have no chance of working." "We are not indifferent to the ways which this book, wrongly construed, might do harm. We have worried about them from the day we set to work. But there can be no real progress in solving America's social problems when they are as misperceived as they are today. What good can come of understanding the relationship of intelligence to social structure and public policy? Little good can come without it." This is a courageous effort. And, of course, the authors were correct about the misperceptions of their work. The book had hardly hit the street when the jackals attacked with their screams of "racism" and their ad hominem attacks. But, the science behind the book is impeccable, and the facts irrefutable, and the tests replicable. The conclusions? Well, if the arguments of the "politically correct" antagonists which were directed at this book and its implications, were applied to the animal world, they would be arguing that a dachshund is perfectly capable of running with the greyhounds, and that a rottweiler is as gentle as a spaniel, or that a thoroughbred is as capable of pulling a plow as is a percheron, and there is no reason that a clydesdale should not be allowed to enter the Kentucky Derby. Because, you see, they are all the same species, and therefore they must be equally endowed. What nonsense! To allow for racial differences is not to malign anyone as being inferior. That there are, on average, physical differences between members of the races of man is so obvious that only a fool would deny it. Why should there not also be mental or temperamental differences as well. This is an excellent work, by two scientists who are simply reporting what they have found to be true. It is worth your time. Joseph Pierre
author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece in describing the underpinning of civilization
Review: This explains in incredible detail how important intelligence is to a properly functioning society. We all know deep down that more intelligent people make better citizens than less intelligent people, and the authors simply use overwhelming, objective data to prove this point. Of course, there are people who personally do not like the idea that some people are "endowed by their creator" with more than others, or think somehow that it is unfair. It is a shame that these people must become ascienticial - I say this because no true scientist could possibly read this book and not come to the same conclusions as the authors.
Rating:
Summary: Move aside political correctness
Review: This book has stirred up controversy because we live in a time where political correctness has shifted way too far from common sense. I'm tired of people saying statistics can be manipulated any way you want to. That is an ignorant observation. Facts are facts and if research is done carefully and logically, then the results cannot be disputed. This book plainly shows tireless research and an impressive accumulation of information. But what can we draw from the findings? To say that all Asians are smarter than Whites and all Whites are smarter than Blacks is ridiculous and certainly not the direction of this book. What is laid plain is on the whole Asians score a little higher than Whites on IQ tests and Whites score a little higher than Blacks. Raw intelligence is certainly a desirable human trait and plays an important role in how a person develops in life. However, other factors such as motivation, environment, parenting, etc. also are critical in shaping people. Simply said, the more positive aspects of these traits you have going for you, the better your chance is for succeeding above others. The question of why is there a racial division in intelligence can be answered by looking at history. When you look back in time as to where various groups and societies stood in terms of discovery, inventions, education, and other noble human endeavors, it's plain to see that being a member of the groups that had advanced farther than others would tend to predispose you towards having higher intelligence, especially since intelligence tends to be hereditary. I believe this whole common sense observation was what The Bell Curve was trying to get across to us.
Rating:
Summary: The Bell Curve
Review: While completing my BA in Psychology at Cal State Fullerton I had an independent study the focus of which was the newly released book, The Bell Curve. I was amazed at the anger stirred up by the book. Even more amazing was the fact that when I talked to individuals (including a department head) about it and asked them if they had read it, they usually replied no but asured me they had read the reviews which they deemed sufficed to condemn it. The thrust of H&M's argument has no racial intent. They are focused upon the evidence that genetics is anywhere from 40%-60% the determinate of intelligence. That intelligence is a filter of the university system which collects all the most intelligent at the best universities. These intellectual elite end up being the controllers of our society through their positions in business and education and government. They in turn inter-marry and have above average intelligent babies which follow their same path and become the rulers of their generation. All of these elite live in a diff world from Joe & Jane avg thus the gulf btwn the have and have nots widens. Society is stratified and "classed" on the basis of intelligence (the genetic 40-60% continually refined. They feel a return to the principles of the Declaration and our founding fathers is critical to the preservation of our nation and free and independent. The whole idea of valuing people on the basis of intelligence and Darwin's debunked theory of evolution with its corollary of the survival of the fittest and the filter or strainer of natural selection is flawed. Instead... we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... jesus is greater and kinder and more inclusive than Natural Selection an unscientific theory that has always promoted racism and discrimmination... Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't quote Darwin but he did quote the Declaration and the Bible, Jesus Christ. You decide which system is more beneficial to mankind... hard unforgiving debunked Darwinism or merciful, kind, loving Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: Sure, it's worth reading
Review: The stats, the stats, the stats...I dunno, I've read countless other books with just as many "stats" that support other conclusions, conclusions which support naked-eye observations about the way this society works. The Bell Curve, as evidenced by the responses, does touch on the race issue. It does suggest that one's upward mobility is dependent more on the intelligence of the individual (internal factors) than on circumstances (external factors), and that this is to a high degree. I've read just as many books that point out observable realities in contention with such findings. For example, some people can move on from mistakes, while others, who make lesser mistakes, are never able to move on. Part of this is the fact that some are better "connected" to sources of support -- some have more "access" to resources to help them move forward, while others are more "on their own," with less sources and resources. Some are permitted to mismanage millions, and move on to lead out in new ventures. Others go over on their credit card balance one month too long, and they're denied more credit. And on, and on...part of why we enjoy Dilbert comics is that the secret is out -- people "at the top" do make stupid decisions that, by virtue of the fact that they are at the top (by whatever means got them there) are considered good decisions, and then, when those decisions fail, it's more often the $30K assistants that are "let go," while the $300K executive who made the stupid decision can cash in options and move on to share his brilliance with the next company. The Bell Curve is not bad reading, info is info. But I hope that folks who are really interested in social issues will not stop after reading this book and make conclusions about how our society works before gathering info from other contributions that are themselves buttressed by "stats." For starters, I'd highly recommend the following two books for some perspective on my reservations to embrace Bell Curve conclusions wholesale: - "Choices and Chances: Sociology for Everyday Life," by Lorne Tepperman and Susannah J. Wilson, and - "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980," by Charles Murray (interesting that he should "contribute to" The Bell Curve and author Losing Ground, which, in my reading, suggest fairly distinct conclusions. I guess the data is open to interpretation...)
Rating:
Summary: An Important Book That Must Be Taken Seriously
Review: From all the negative commentary surrounding this book, one might get the impression that this is a book about race and genetics. It is not. It is a book that explores the role that intelligence plays in the formation and stratification of society. The book's main thesis is something like this: In society (America) there exists measurable differences in intelligence levels among individuals. These differences may be adequately discerned by using objective mental tests. The result of these differences in intelligence are profound. Individuals at the low end of "the bell curve" of the intelligence distribution exhibit higher rates of criminality, illegitimacy, poverty, and other social pathologies. Those with higher I.Q's, however, have the best jobs, engage in less criminal activity, and largely inhabit the upper class of America. Indeed, as the authors point out, one's I.Q. and not one's race, gender, or present social position will largely determine the type of job one will have. Society has thus become (or is fast becoming) a meritocracy according to intelligence. Those with high I.Q's (120 and above) will be the future lawyers, doctors, accountants, technicians, scientists, engineers, academics, and the like. Those who posess substandard cognitive abilities will find modern society relatively more difficult than those with high intelligence. The issue of race is covered mainly in one chapter. I must say, contrary to the critism, the authors handled this politically correct issue with much civility and restraint. If the book is read with care, one will notice that conclusions are not made where the evidence does not warrant them. The authors simply present the most current and relevant evidence (from both sides) and either conclude that additional evidence is required or they provide a conclusion that is warranted. One point that bears repeating on the issue of race and intelligence: every race is represented throughout the distribution of intelligence. That is, though certain groups (races), may be found more frequently on the distribution in certain parts, individual members of all the groups are represented in all parts of the distribution. If we then accept the fact that individuals always differ with respect to intelligence and we understand the previous sentence, I see no reason to fear the data presented in this book with regards to race and intellligence. For the two previous sentence make clear that one's race does not determine one's cognitive ability and the authors make no claim to the contrary. The book as a piece of scholarship is first rate and highly readable.
Rating: 
Summary: Slow reading but well written
Review: One need not resort to statistics to disprove "The Bell Curve". One need only look at the huge army of famous, successful journalists, politicians, & academes allied against it. The fact that so many close-minded idiots could be so successful disproves the authors' main argument that IQ and success are directly related. So, in an unintended way, they have proven their point. The 5 years since this book's initial publication should give us time to reflect on the furor that surrounded it, and which has continued on only a slightly diminished level to this day. It also gives time to see the wide array of arguments - and vast they are - which have been leveled against it: 1. How can there be racial differences when there is no such thing as a race gene? This of course is in complete contradiction to the same people who call for "race-based" remediation measures such as affirmative action. To paraphrase an earlier reviewer, there does not need to be separate cocker spaniel genes (my breed of choice) and Doberman pinscher genes for one to tell the difference. There is no "black gene" or "white gene". Different races of people (or breeds of dogs) simply represent different frequencies of certain genes. Any particular gene theoretically can appear in someone of any race; different races simply happen to have different frequencies of certain genes. 2. Races only separated recently in human history, so they could not exhibit such vast differences in intelligence. Then how is it they show such vast differences in appearance? Why should intelligence be distributed any more evenly than, say, skin color? Why are most people from Europe white, most people from sub-Saharan Africa black, etc? But the biggest point this book (the furor over it, anyway) has made is that in many ways society is no more open to different ideas today than it was during Galileo's time. There is a certain party line from which one may not vary. The party line may change when a new party takes over, but each new party establishes its own dogma. It rules based on assumptions that may or may not be true. You can't question the assumptions or you call into question the validity of their power, much like Darwin's theory called into question the validity of the Church. In this sense, liberalism is the new religion, and liberal columnists are now judges at the Inquisition. Variance from accepted dogma is heresy. People who oppose it aren't simply wrong, but evil, and their beliefs will tear society apart. Msrs. Herrnstein & Murray aren't simply guilty of bad science (if it is bad science), but racists & heretics - they must be destroyed. My experience with such accusations is that when people have resorted to making them they have run out of arguments to support their views and are grasping for straws. The other significant feature of the critics is that, like Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky tape, they squiggle and squirm all over the intellectual landscape to avoid giving a straight answer. They never refute points directly and almost never actually quote the book. Oft-times they even admit (as did one Dr. Laura Head of San Francisco State U. at an academic "symposium" about the book) to not having even read it ("I skimmed through it", she said). This would be like reviewing a movie after just watching the trailer. If Roger Ebert did that would anyone trust his opinion? "Studies" are often stated as refuting the book, but the columnists never actually quote the studies. Minor studies showing some small fallacy in the researcher's evidence are presented as completely disproving the book. Piltdown Man was a hoax, but the theory of evolution still stands. This book contains so much scientific evidence from so many sources that disproving one won't unravel the case they've made. Critics present some "new" research as disproving the book when the authors made allowance for such studies, revealing that the critics never actually read the book (this was the case with a study on pre-natal development). Then, of course, there are the scientists. As much popularizers of science as scientists, per se (Lynn Margolis, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) who completely deny any correlation between genetics and intelligence. While all of them are (or, in Dr. Sagan's case, were) good scientists, their aspirations to public fame can be expected to color their views on the whole issue. Saying how they really feel might keep those huge book fees & paid speaking engagements from rolling in. But how can such smart scientists be wrong, especially when it's their area of expertise? Even great scientists can be wrong. Albert Einstein long denied the idea that something like a black hole could exist, even though his theory led directly to that conclusion. Black holes are accepted fact nowadays, and Dr. Einstein stands corrected. Scientists stand in the difficult position of having to follow wherever the trail leads them. Oft-times even they are reluctant to continue on that trail when it occurs that they will be repulsed at what they find. Scientists do not live in the lab, and it's quite possible, even likely, that they have moral philosophies of their own and their own world-view. This should be expected. That it might offend the world-view of many that intelligence is, in part, genetically determined should be expected, refreshingly even. No one ever said science was morality, except maybe Dr. Sagan himself. When the first biologists discovered - or learned - that the new head of a lion pride kills the young, did anyone accuse them of liking that fact? When some scientist discovered that naked mole rats were incestuous did someone accuse him of harboring a secret lust for his sister? Science, in that sense, is most certainly not morality. Facts are facts whether we like it or not. They simply are. Drs. Murray & Herrnstein are, at best, bad scientists. At worst, they are right.
Rating:
Summary: A book of science, not propaganda.
Review: Just as it was predicted on its cover The Bell Curve did stir up controversy. I started reading it with a heavy dose of skepticism, but I found its arguments, its conclusions and the researches they are based on flawless and utterly believable. It did convince me that intelligence in some limited ways IS measurable. What disturbs me the most about the controversy surrounding this book is its misguided narrow focus that actually takes away the attention from the frightening conclusions that have serious implications about the kind of society our children will live in. The Bell Curve is about social stratification, about the process that is turning the social gap between the haves and the have-nots into a gap between the can-dos and the can-nots. The picture is not pretty. It seems that we are moving toward a Brave New World by natural selection. This book is not about race. Although race is undeniably part of the problem, it is not what this book is all about or what it should be read for. While it is absolutely true, that based on solid (and I repeat SOLID) evidence The Bell Curve points to a difference between the average IQ of blacks and whites, it also points out, based on the same solid research, that the average IQ of blacks as a group is growing faster than the average IQ of whites. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Blacks started with a disadvantage, they have to play catch-up, and they are doing a pretty good job at it. Only we cannot really say that as it touches on the essential schizophrenia of black politics. On the one hand it is not acceptable to say that blacks are inferior in any respect, while on the other hand whites (and the Jews and the evil Koreans) should compensate them for all the disadvantages that their mal-treatment caused them to develop. Like everybody else in politics, politicians of black interest want to have their cake and eat it too. Should you read this book? ABSOLUTELY! It is one of the most important books of the decade, just like Losing Ground was of the eighties. It will not make you happy as the picture is bleak but it contains knowledge that we all should have. The authors do not (really) show a direction. They do not have answers to the problems they describe. They do not have to. This is a book of science, not propaganda.
Rating:
Summary: Jeremiah meets advanced stats
Review: This is a profoundly disturbing book. A lot of books that take on tough subjects are disturbing, but make their point; this one almost invariably bothers readesrs, but for the wrong reasons. Several reviewers complained about the welter of statistical arguments. Unfortunately, the argument used by the authors is based on statistical reasoning -- it couldn't have been stated in any other way. Others complained, much more reasonably, about the conclusions with regard to race, which I personally believe the authors emphasized, not because of its overwhelming importance, but because the argument would be read that way and they might as well get it out of he shadows themselves. The arguments that are hard to resist are: (1)Intelligence is real. I recall when I started teaching general psychology in the 70's (at West Point), the text gave great weight to a ppoorly supported and largely pointless argument that intelligence is the result of learning, and hence doesn't exist -- it is merely a score on a test designed to differentiate learning. We (most of us) toook this feeble argument at face value because it was fashionable at the time to do so. The authors debunk this interpretation; however, many readers will be unwilling to convert. (2) More than ever before, economic well-being depends on intelligence. The big money requires education, which depends on educability, and (here is where the problem lies) educability depends on intelligence. (3) The result will inevitably be a division in developed nations between intelligent, educated haves and less intelligent, less educated have-nots. Whether intelligence is the core issue or not, we see this happening even now. How large a proportion of any population can fry hamburgers? (4) By the way, there are ethnic differences. They speculate that the differences are influenced by the mechanisms of genetics -- an ethnic group that values education, for example, will create pairs that self-select for intelligence and so procreate in ways that produce brainy offspring. If your ethnic culture suggests other reasons for mating, the offspring will TEND to reflect that preference. If you are innocent of statistics (as most people are), it is easy to reject this book. I suffered through many a semester; this book disturbs my sleep.
| 
