The Bell Curve:
Links and Resources
PSYCH 457: Psychological Testing
Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Pacific Union College
The Bell Curve by Herrnstein
& Murray is an important text both in the intelligence literature in
particular and psychology and society in general. The content of the book
is relatively unremarkable. I agree with what others have observed; that
what is true in the book is not new, and what is new in the book is not
true (though of course there are some old lies in there too). However the
popularity of the book suggests that many Americans were all too pleased
to find a guilt-reducing excuse for their own relative affluence and advantage.
I think it is important for psychology students to familiarize themselves
with both the fairly well supported assertions in the book, as well as
the unsupported assertions, ideologically based interpretations and outright
distortions.
I require students in my Psychological
Testing course to read Stephen J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man prior
to extended sections of The Bell Curve. Links to Reading Questions
that I provide them for both texts are included on this page. I also provide
a selection of links to documents located on the World-Wide Web that pertain
to The Bell Curve. I do not pretend to be neutral in my view of
the book, though I do try to be fair. Many of the links are to negative
reviews of the book, though some positive links can be found as well. I
also include a link to my own brief summary of what seems to me to be the
supported (though distorted), and unsupported claims of the Bell Curve.
In my class I also have students read both positive and negative reviews
of the book.
Reading Guides
Mismeasure of Man
The Bell Curve
The Bell Curve Debate
Official
Psychological Responses to the Bell Curve
Interviews
-
Charles
Murrray (An interview with the author of The Bell
Curve in Skeptic Magazine).
-
Robert
Sternberg (An interview with the widely respected Yale
psychologist on The Bell Curve in Skeptic Magazine).
Book
Reviews & Reactions
-
Two
Views of The Bell Curve (Opposing reviews of The Bell
Curve published in Contemporary Psychology, APA's journal of book reviews.
One by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., and the other by Donald D. Dorfman).
-
Review by
Richard Nisbett (The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence,
and the Future of America )
-
Review by Howard Gardner
(Cracking Open the IQ Box)
-
Boston
Book Review
-
NY
Times Book Review: (It's a Grim Message: Dummies Fail
More Often by PETER PASSELL)
-
NY
Times Book Review: (What Is Intelligence, and Who Has
It? By Malcolm W. Browne)
-
Review
by Thomas Sowell: (Ethnicity and IQ)
-
The
Bell Curve and the Pioneer Fund. (Transcript of the ABC
World News Tonight story)
-
The Pioneer Fund Speaks
Out (People behind the Pioneer Fund respond to what they
depict as false charges)
-
Letter to the
Editor of SCIENCE about The Bell Curve
-
BOOK REVIEW:
The Bell Curve Cracks (Inequality by Design-Cracking
the Bell Curve Myth, by Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martin Sanchez
Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss. Princeton University)
-
Untwisting
'The Bell Curve' (Supportive article in Harvard Newspaper
about a joint appearance of Murray and Gould)
-
Obituary
of Richard J. Herrnstein (by Charles Murray in the National
Review)
Affirmative
Action
-
Ten Myths About Affirmative
Action (Every once in a while you read something and
think - "Gee - I wish I had written that!" This was my response to this
essay by S. Plous of Wesleyan University, originally published in
the Journal of Social Issues, Winter 1996; Volume 52, Issue 4, pp. 25-31.
I particularly like his discussion of Myth #10, and his typology of four
different kinds of Affirmative Action Programs).
Supported,
Distorted and Unsupported Assertions in The Bell Curve
By Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D.
I disagree with the social and political agenda of The Bell Curve, and
with critical elements of its interpretation of the psychological literature
on intelligence. People do vary in their performance on IQ tests, and this
performance is related to important outcomes. There are "race" group IQ
differences, and IQ tests predict academic outcomes for African-Americans
as well (or, as poorly) as they do for white Americans. However there is
no basis for the conclusion that The "race" group differences are genetically
based, or that Americans should just accept social inequality and attribute
it to inborn and immutable intelligence differences.
I think that one of the tactics of the authors of the Bell Curve is
to state well established findings as harshly as possible in an effort
to provoke opponents into making intemperate and indefensible attacks.
Another tactic is to include very brief and modest disclaimers, which are
later used as cover to defend against attacks on their more extensive,
bold and unsupportable treatment of controversial assertions. {For example,
in their introduction they inconspicuously acknowledge that the very existence
of "g" is debatable, since it is a circumstantial inference from statistical
observations (p. 3). From then on they proceed to assume that all reasonable
psychologists agree that "g" is a real entity that is the physical (indeed,
metaphysical) basis of what is commonly meant by intelligence. If questioned
on this, Murray would almost certainly point to his earlier caveat and
argue that he made the requisite disclosure of the equivocal basis of "g"
- however the impression left on most readers, a result of the clear intent
of the authors, is that "g" is the real basis of intelligence, and that
anyone who challenges this notion is a crank).
Below, I summerize what I consider to be some of the assertions made
in the Bell Curve which are well established (but unfairly explained),
and some of the assertions which I believe to be unsupported.
Assertions Supported
(but not fairly explained) in the Bell Curve:
-
IQ tests
are not biased against minority groups. This is
true in the sense that the best available evidence suggests that IQ tests
predict their criterion (academic performance) as accurately for minority
groups as they do for majority groups. However, considerable evidence suggests
that race and ethnic based bias operates on the criterion as well.
-
A significant
fraction of the individual differences in IQ scores is explained by genetics
(40-60%). Of course, this is as easily phrased
"a significant fraction of the individual differences in IQ scores is explained
by non-genetic factors".
-
African-Americans
score significantly lower than white-Americans on IQ tests (12-15 points).
The fact that a significant fraction of individual variation on IQ is explained
by genes implies precisely nothing about the cause of this group difference.
The magnitude of the group difference could plausibly by explained by well-documented
environmental differences in the lives of many African-Americans and white
Americans. I think it makes more sense to work on closing the environmental
gap before concluding that the IQ gap is a result of genes. Additionally,
the biological significance of racial categories is in considerable doubt.
It is likely that the reliable genetic difference between African and white
Americans is not substantial enough to bear the weight of complex and profound
social differences like IQ, academic, income and occupational outcomes.
Assertions made,
but not supported, in the Bell Curve:
-
IQ scores
(and "g") can be identified with intelligence. In
fact, there is a growing body of evidence that intelligence is multidimensional,
and that IQ is associated with only one of these dimensions. IQ is probably
better identified as academic ability.
-
IQ scores
can not be improved by enrichment programs or social changes.
There is no evidence to support this presented in the Bell Curve, probably
because no such evidence exists. Even if IQ were completely determined
by genetics (which, of course, it is not) this would not preclude the possibility
of environmental impact on IQ.
-
IQ differences
between African-American and white Americans are largely genetic.
There is no evidence for this claim (or insinuation). In fact, while environmental
variables appear to be a reasonable explanation for the "race" group differences
in IQ, there is no clear evidence to support any specific cause for the
group difference.
-
Attempts
to decrease rates of poverty, un and under employment, crime and other
social problems through government programs are doomed to failure because
they are largely due to biologically determined IQ deficits.
Again, there is no evidence to support this claim.
On the contrary, there is evidence that social programs like affirmative-action
have had a beneficial impact on some problems.