This book is a shibboleth of sorts.

And I'll tip my hand: I've read it once in its entirety; and in part several times.

I'm much less interested in its findings than I am in the virulent reaction it generates. The findings generate many strange phenomena surrounding belief systems.

To me; the basic finding is that as judged by traditional anthropological groupings commonly called "race"; it can be demonstrated that consistent statistical differences occur. The authors focused on IQ; but I'd contend that such differences can be shown in virtually every physical/mental attribute in any two or more identifiable groups; so this seems non-controversial. Average shoe size between Japanese cub scouts and Australian cub scouts; e.g..

I'll start by admitting that my own particular group and sub-group don't come off particularly well; but so what? In the US; I'll either make it or not; and it will largely be up to me.

Again; I'm not interested in the findings but in the reaction to them. What sacred cows were disturbed; and how/why did they become sacred in the first place?

I discussed this at length with my wife yesterday and it has inspired a surplus of mental activity; such as it is.


[NOTE: New comma key shipped this AM! Soon no more clumsy semi-colons!]

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have not read The Bell Curve, but have read a few things about it.

To the extent its authors suggest that human traits, including mental traits, are to some extent heritable, and hence potentially connected to concepts of heredity such as "race", I find this perfectly sensible. Of course, there could be rational controversy about the specifics, but that does not seem to be the issue. Rather, the objections, as far as I can tell, seem to to be purely ideological.

As an liberal individualist and a Christian, I subscribe to the principles of equality under the law, the universal brotherhood of mankind, and also "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Hence, it makes sense to me that we often have a legal and moral obligation to judge people as individuals, and not as representatives of a collective, even (perhaps) when there might be an advantage from doing otherwise. That, after all, is how I would like to be treated. And, as an opponent of the principle or "might makes right", I don't think that being stronger or smarter gives one the right to be a bully anyhow. To the extent that I have an "anti-racist" philosophy, it is based on such principles. Beyond that, I have no particular need to believe that the average Irishman is just as smart as the average Ashkenazi Jew.

Hence, I could dodge this issue by arguing that the revelations made in The Bell Curve are not particularly useful to a moral or ethical person, since he has to treat people as individuals anyway.

What makes such issues hard to dodge is the widespread ideological assumption that any unequal outcomes are necessarily caused by racism, or some other kind of ism. Such assumptions, to the extent not based on reality, can have negative and unjust consequences. Problem is that no-one can challenge such assumptions without being called a bigot. Which, as far as I can tell, seems to be what has happened to the authors of The Bell Curve.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 19 Aug 21 | 01:15PM by Platypus.