The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray has a clear issue in any social matter. It is unneeded, superfluous, unnecessary. It is at best an icing on the cake for the condemnation of nearly every social program in the United States.
Regardless of this book having been ever published it has been known for decades that no social program has improved the lot of any group. It has been know that neither a re-doubling or a re-direction of the effort has improved one thing. That this book demonstrates WHY these efforts have failed is only providing the theory on top of the facts.
Although not presented as a theory (not presented as much other than a collection of data,) The Bell Curve qualifies as a theory. The scientific theory does not preceed facts, it explains facts. The facts are not in need of the explanation of IQ as the long challenged cause of discrimination. As one of the many social engineering means of tilting the playing field toward the incompetent while calling it leveling IQ tests have been banned for decades to NO change.
Affirmative action has been the only solution. Ignoring ability and ignoring performance, ignoring every job related criteria as a basis for pay and promotion has been the only means of leveling results. This is called the quota system by race, ethnic group, even by the female majority so as to guarantee what does not exist in nature exists in legal reality.
It is well known that every social program for the last thirty years that has attempts to remove this difference in results has failed completely. It is further known that every attempt to re-double any such effort has failed. It is further known that any variation upon what has been attempted has failed.
Most simply nothing has worked for the last 30 years. That The Bell Curve might be the theory to explain the failure is a secondary point. There is no reason to advance this study to the premier reason for trashing most aspects of the welfare system. Finding fault with this book will not make repetitions of the last 30 years any more effective.
Similarly using IQ as the supra-explanation for that failure will neither sink nor salvage the thrust of the political social agenda. The best it can do is sink the entire IQ concept and continue as usual or the other best it can do is accept the entire IQ concept and continue as usual as they must be taken care of.
Rather neither concept is a proper guidance. Note when we tour the public parks and even the zoos we are reminded, "Please do not not feed the bears." And why? Because the bears forget how to forage for themselves, as though the stream of tourists will ever end. Why we treat bears better than humans is beyond me.
Of course saying that humans should forage it no more than saying they should be self reliant and not dependent upon the public dole no matter how good it is as it takes away the incentive to being self reliant. That the bears with in IQ off the bottom of the scale will loose a talent is a very strange parallel between humans in the same predicament. They are being fed and therefore the lose the ability to feed themselves.
That IQ may explain this is hardly in quesition. That the facts of the last thirty years, the fact of the entire Great Society have supported this is not in question.
I hold humans are more resourcesful than bears. Bears need to recognize cars, open windows and food and not to take too much in the way of fingers else the food drops off for a few months. Humans need only exchange data on the right answers to the welfare questions and they are in fat city relative to the bears.
But please do not feed the bears. Feed the indigent instead. It harms the former and helps the latter. For what reason the difference no one can discern. Certainly the idea of humans "foraging" evokes "News At 11:00" showing children in dumpsters rather than theirs parents in employment lines and NOT demanding career executive positions for the time spent in line.
Jobs are not easy to come by. That MacDonalds and the rest work hard to offer introductory jobs is something to be appreciated and not to be scorned.
It is work. It is opportunity. It is income. Above all it is a future like it or not. That you do not like the future job you have before you is NOT justification to decline it. That IQ might say burger flipping is in your ball park does not limit you to that as the best you can do. It means only that you have accepted it.
If you have accepted being fed from the cars like the bears continue to do so. If you are for enforcing the "do not feed the bears" laws then continue to do so.
Neither party should forget this is entirely a self-perpetuating feeding that was chosen KNOWING it would enslave the recipients of the feeding. Yes, we treat bears more humanely than we treat our own poor. But then that is the way of the welfare state.