The Bell Curve: an impression

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by sociologist Charles A. Murray and psychologist Richard Herrnstein

I remember hearing about this book – many times – but never as a debunked work. It was presented as a work of science. It has popularized the term “bell curve” in statistics for gosh darn sakes. Sorry Karl Friedrich Gauss I have never heard a “normal distribution” called a “Gaussian Curve.” Not even once.

Now, not that many years after their 1996 work was published, Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein’s book just seems

…a little racist, right? And as it turns out it is not a peer-reviewed work, and widely panned by scientists today.

The Bell Curve’s paraphrased summary below includes some concerning language.

“Breaking new ground and old taboos — among them, IQ’s relationship to crime, poverty, ethnic differences in intelligence; and what policy can do — and cannot do”

This summary is pitching the book as a maverick taboo-crusher with cutting-edge insight, just getting on in there and “telling it like it is.” It says: People are just dumb – and (gee, what can ya do) race is a delineator.

Doesn’t sound very unbiased, methodical, or scientific. And also, like very racist. Maybe this should have tipped off some of its 1996 readership but I’m not here to judge the past.

I’m wondering why I’ve never heard negative things about this book.

Responses to “The Bell Curve: an impression”

  1. Bradley foundation funded

    Like

    1. Thank you, Jake! I didn’t know, I’m always amazed at how much money goes into smear campaigns!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It was used often by conservatives in the early to late 90’s, otherwise known as bigots, used as a tool to attack public education. Rightwing talk show hosts and politicians liked to use this book written with a “predetermined” answer to defund public education to attack teacher unions. Because their answer was “biological” nothing can be done.
    Pure white supremacist bigotry. All bigotry is biologicaly based, now matter how many graphs or numbers you put into the analysis.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree, “biology” as a justification usually doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Many arguments like this one start with a preexisting set of beliefs, like racism, and their conclusions don’t do justice to the data.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to SmallWords Cancel reply