is as relatively unchangeable as the authors claimed. really measures (other than the ability to take I.Q. Peer reviews found shoddy reasoning and mathematical errors (all in service of the book’s thesis). Reviewing “The Bell Curve” in The New Yorker, Stephen Jay Gould called attention to the authors’ questionable use of statistics and cherry-picked data. In the years since its publication, the book has been roundly discredited on moral, political and scientific grounds. These “findings” were presented as good news: Why should intellectual achievement be considered the hallmark of success? Why should black people interpret this neutral data as a statement of their inferiority? No, the authors maintained, with breathtaking condescension: They will develop their own alternate sources of esteem they might, for example, console themselves with their athletic “dominance.” (“the wrong women”) to have more children.
(They allowed that environmental factors play a part in I.Q., but held that the “balance of the evidence” put a genetic factor of 60 percent “on the low side.”) Social programs like welfare or early education intervention ought to be scrapped not only because they were fruitless but because they encouraged women with low I.Q. differences between the races were mostly innate and mostly intractable. Herrnstein, arguing in two notorious chapters that I.Q. Yes, that Charles Murray, who in 1994 co-authored “The Bell Curve,” with Richard J. Just when the world seems poised to boil over with political rancor and outrage, along comes Charles Murray - right on time - with a new book titled “Human Diversity.”
0 kommentar(er)
