This is not a critique of the book rather a commentary upon those who critique the The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. There are two camps, those who to some degree or other consider the findings of interest and supportive of the positions expressed in the book. The other group flat out condemns the book as racist at the very least.
What separates these two opinions is that the former have read the book and the latter have not.
We have seen this before. They are the censors and the book burners. Although the "did not read" group has refrained from clear calls for censorship if not burning but they share a belief in common with the book burners. They devoutly believe they can know what the book says without reading the book.
And how do they know? For example they have "heard" something of the background of Murray (they never seem to know anything about Herrnstein though). Why he takes money from an organization that had some very unmodern ideas some sixty year ago. Some centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church refused to look through Galileo's telescope as he was a known Copernican.
Consider the condemnation is the R word, racist. That of course is addressed only in chapters 13 and 14. Further the detractors can not be passed the simple claim it is racist as they have no idea what the chapters say.
The order of these two chapters is significant. First comes a general discussion of the racial difference in IQ followed by a demonstration the cultural differences follow the IQ differences. Were chapter 14 left to stand on its own it would clearly have exposited the known cultural and social differences and left them unexplained.
As it is exposited the book first addresses the difference that exists and then demonstrates it explains the otherwise unexplainable social differences between the races. What it does demonstrate is that equal IQ of all races have essentially the same social characteristics and thus that IQ is a better predictor than race.
Those who are blessed with infused knowledge of the contents of the book never learn is that it removes the race component from the discussion. It invalidates race from all social debate. But then, that is what distinguishes the sides in the discussion, those who condemn the book have not read the book.
The first barrage against the book appears to have been in the October 31, 1994 issue of The New Republic. None of the contributed articles, sixteen of them, gave the slightest indication the authors had read the book either but they uniformly repeated the "racist" allegation.
When there is some justification other then identifying the authors as known Copernicans as evil the reasons are fallacious in themselves or again demonstrate a failure to have read the book. For example, one author admits that social attempts to raise IQ by education have not succeeded but then calls the efforts on again off again. And in doing so they ignore accepted studies of those programs showing no benefit.
In the January 95 issue of Scientific American it contributes its less than sterling reputation in recent years to this frenzy of ignorance. Associate Editor, Timothy Beardsley provides a series of quotations about the book from people who also give no indication of having read the book or at most chapter 13. But those who have heard of this article, not having read it either, proudly proclaim an article by a writer who has advanced to editor is evidence against the book.
What all share in common is a knowledge that the question has been answered long ago, that everything has to be environment and nothing can be heredity save for race. They know IQ can not be heritable. But do they really? No!
What they do know is that it is a truth that can not be spoken. They know that no study demonstrating it can be admitted to be true. They know the only way to stop what they know is true from being stated publically is to attack it.
Is this too harsh? Consider the attitude of those who condemned Galileo's telescope and The Tropic of Cancer. Show me where it is different. They will not look. They will not read. The WILL condemn.
They will call names. They will call heretic, pornographer, racist. Any and all may be true but where is the difference today? I see none. Is anyone willing to tell me why the brain dead fundamentalists who are attacking The Bell Curve are different from any other brain dead fundamentalist?