Toe’s review of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life > Likes and Comments

What I Think About the Book

In college, three professors (two in anthropology, one in a Civil War colloquium) indoctrinated me with the belief that “The Bell Curve” was not only wrong, but idiotic and evil. I hadn’t heard of it, hadn’t read it, and had no reason to disbelieve their assertions. But I couldn’t shake the thought that it was odd three separate professors went out of their way to denounce the same book. Surely there are countless tomes filled with false information that one can safely ignore. So why would they all condemn this one? It was literally the only book mentioned across multiple classrooms in my college experience. I made a mental note that I should read it to be well-educated.

Fast forward 12 years, and I still hadn’t finished it. It is thick and dense. I read “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead,” also by Murray, and thought it decent. In March 2017, students at Middlebury College shouted down a prepared speech by Murray. The same protesters pulled a female professor's hair so hard she had to wear a neck brace for merely being near Murray. Ridiculous. On April 22, 2017, Sam Harris hosted Murray as his guest on the "Waking Up" podcast in an episode called “Forbidden Knowledge.” Murray and Harris both possess and displayed profound intellects. They raised intriguing ideas. I realized I had heard a lot about this book, but had never actually read it myself to judge the claims being made. That’s no longer true.

Overall, I am impressed. The book is extremely well written. The language is clear and easy to follow for such a complicated and touchy topic. The authors have command of their subject, and I never got the impression they were confused, failed to consider a critical objection, or intended to obfuscate. Their clear thinking and clear writing are right up there with the Henry Hazlitt’s, Thomas Sowell’s, and C.S. Lewis’s of the world. They even introduced a fantastic rule for determining the impersonal third-person singular pronouns: Unless there are obvious reasons not to, use the gender of the first author. No more “he or she,” “his or her,” or the unseemly “s/he.”

I admire how the book is written at multiple levels of depth. Each chapter has a summary of the key points, followed by longer expositions of the claims and underlying support. That is a brilliant organizational structure. They qualify their claims and present them first as succinctly, then as comprehensively, as possible. (As a minor downside, the book has a "Note to the Reader," "Preface," and "Introduction." Really? Come on, boys. Enough throat-clearing. Pick one and get on with it.)

As to the central claims in the book, I am not in much position to critically judge them. But they comport well with my experiences. (Watch youtube videos of (((Christopher Hitchens))) debating Playthell Benjamin from 2006; it is maybe the single strongest piece of evidence supporting this book.) And they have convincing explanatory power. As environmental disparities diminish, the role of genetics as differentiator expands. If genetics play any role, then equality of outcome is a fool’s errand. We all know smart people and less smart people. We know that intelligence helps you succeed in a wide range of occupations and tasks. Intelligent Jews in business, science, medicine, and media are so common as to be a stereotype; Asians, particularly adept at math, are another. Picture the following: valedictorians; salutatorians; high SAT scorers; the makeup of math, science, and engineering classes at elite universities; winners of the Scripps National Spelling Bee; medical doctors; billionaires. Who do you see? Durable stereotypes are based on truth or else they wouldn’t exist.

This book does not scare me. The conclusions leave no room for moral condemnation. If anything, inherited traits are exculpatory in that no one can control them, choose them, or be faulted for them. And if it is meant as racist propaganda for white supremacy or the KKK, it makes odd assertions: It says that Jews and Asians are generally smarter than white people. Finally, if IQ is largely genetic, then perhaps at some point in the future, through technology like CRISPR, we can gift all newborns with extremely high intelligence. Who cares if teams disproportionately composed of Jews and Asians first develop the technology? We all benefit.

The policy prescriptions in this book reveal no signs of racism. If the authors had their druthers, they would: Treat people as individuals, recognize that generalities say nothing about specific individuals, celebrate upstanding citizens across the entire IQ spectrum, shift educational affirmative action to socioeconomic status rather than race, eliminate affirmative action in the workplace, expand school choice, reallocate funds towards gifted students, stop subsidizing births to anyone, rewrite immigration policy on the basis of competency and benefit to America, and simplify governing laws and regulations. Sounds great to me. Treating people as individuals is the exact opposite of racism.

And the modern usage of the term "racism" has worn thin. We've gone way beyond irrational prejudice and political or legal inequality, which are unacceptable to decent people. The term used to have moral and ethical connotations. Now Webster defines racism as: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." So does "primary determinant" mean "majority" determinant or just "plurality" determinant? By that definition, if I think IQ is 51% genetic, and 49% environmental, then I am a racist. But if I think that IQ is 51% environmental, and 49% genetic, then I am not? What if I think IQ is 40% genetic, 30% nutrition, and 30% early childhood stimulation? In that scenario, genetics is the single largest factor, but is it the "primary determinant" considering most of the makeup of IQ is not genetic? Would that make me a racist or not? If I notice that all the top athletes in the 100-meter dash at every Olympiad in my entire life are black, and conclude "black people are the best sprinters in the world," does that make me racist? If so, my choices are either: Be racist or be ignorant of obvious facts. I guess the only way out of this conundrum is to recognize that "race" is not synonymous with "genetics." But what is race if not a series of genetic markers that manifest themselves phenotypically? With these unanswered questions circulating, I ascribe no moral or ethical connotation to accusations of racism hurled against the authors of this book. The authors say simply this: People differ by genetic capabilities, which no one chose, but you should treat all people as individuals and treat them well. What could be more reasonable and justified than that position?

I fear those who reject this book do so more out of ideology and discomfort rather than dispassionate analysis. The authors argue that intelligence is between 40% and 80% heritable. Do those who disagree believe that intelligence is 0% heritable? That is the only way to avoid any possible “racist” implications. But 0% heritability for intelligence is a stronger claim than any made in this book; and it is unsupported and implausible. On what basis should we assume that all racial groups are exactly equal in IQ distribution when they are so obviously unequal along many other heritable characteristics? It seems hypocritical to accept that blacks may be innately faster and better at basketball than Asians, but reject even the possibility that Asians may be innately better at math.

I am open to new information criticizing the claims in the book, but I would require specific page citations to the claim allegedly refuted. If something is incorrect, explain why, and let’s examine it. In my observation, the denouncements have been emotionally hysterical and therefore entirely unconvincing. As Ben Shapiro (who, as luck would have it, is a brilliant Jewish political commentator) would say, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Accusations of racism are fruitless. All they do is amplify “mokita,” the Papua New Guinean word for “truth that we all know, but agree not to talk about.” Enough mokita. Let’s speak our minds politely but truthfully and let the chips fall where they may.

AMEN!!

The meaning of the word "racist", as many other words, depends on a lot of things, the context, the reader/listener, the intention of the author. But the word is not meaningless. You can't simply dismiss it due to it's fluidity.
For many people this book being racist simply means they are offended, and we have to take that into account. Fact doesn't care about feelings but we do. The author wrote this book because they do too. They did not write it just out of curiosity. They did so in the hope that it will introduce changes that eventually will improve people's lives, hence their feelings.

This is an excellent review.

Excellent review - chapter by chapter synopsis and follow up personal notes - thank you!