The Bell Curve Fallacy
“The Bell Curve”, a book written in 1994 by Richard Herrnstein – a professor of psychology, and Charles Murray – a writer of political science, purports to explain the social strata of humanity, mostly in terms of cognitive differences between races. Although the book has been dismissed by many as pseudoscience, it remains a sacred writ of racism and social Darwinism. The best argument against the ideas expressed in the book came from people like acclaimed evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin; and all backgrounds considered, Gould and Lewontin are probably in a better place to understand the subject than either Herrnstein or Murray. Actually, Herrnstein’s and Murray’s thesis is so weak and underdeveloped that someone like myself, with considerably less education, can shoot it to pieces. That is exactly what I plan to do.
As noted, neither Murray nor Herrnstein are geneticists, yet they herald biological differences, i.e. “ethnic” or “racial”, as a primary cause of intellectual differences. One has to wonder then, how do they define these racial differences?
“How are we to classify a person whose parents hail from Panama but whose ancestry is predominantly African? Is he a Latino? A black? The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves.” (p. 271)
What? How is that scientifically viable? There is relatively large genetic/biological diversity amongst the population of people who identify themselves as “black”. I say “relatively” because ALL genetic differences amongst all human beings account for less than one percent of the common genome. The socially recognized relationship between genetics and racial self-identification is a manifestation of culture, and is entirely subjective. Race itself is a social construct, not necessarily a reflection of genetic makeup. To remind you, Herrnstein and Murray are NOT geneticists, do not anywhere in The Bell Curve cite genetics literature, and yet use genetics as the foundation of their argument!
Furthermore, if race is qualified by self-identification, then this suggests something other than a biological correlation to intelligence. It suggests that something about self-identification itself – which is a reflection of one’s surrounding culture – is the correlate to intelligence. What is it, then, about self-identifying as “black” that decreases one’s performance? Could it be awareness of low expectations for one’s race, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy? Could it be that all people who self-identify as black necessarily experience the hardships of discrimination, manifest at least in diminished access to the same resources as people from other groups?
Similarly, the term “Latino” is almost exclusively a United States classification, meaning that the subjects of the Bell Curve study focused on people who speak Spanish or come from Spanish-speaking families or cultures in the United States. It is a given that second only perhaps to physical appearance and gender, a person’s language becomes justification for those in the majority culture to discriminate against them – the assumption being that an inability to communicate signifies some intelligence deficiency, rather than the obvious truth of there being a language barrier. Because there are people of many nationalities and ethnic backgrounds who upon assimilation into North American culture took on the “Latino” classification, we must assume that any correlation between Latino and intelligence has to do with the conditions of that assimilation and not any common biological traits.
Conversely, does self-identification as “Asian” force upon one the stereotype that they should excel academically, or sacrifice all else for the approval of the family? Does self-identification as Asian create for people some sort of obligation – implicit or explicit – that they should perform at a high level?
Finally, does self-identification as “white” leave one in a sort of untethered middle ground, a place of privilege where no expectations are placed on one for their race or their culture, but only on one’s individual merit? So-called “white people” have countless advantages, to do with their position as the dominant culture – in the United States, Europe, and in current and former states once colonized by people from Europe. Invariably, white people – by default – have greater access to education, wealth, and political power. Not to mention the simple benefit of being a constituent of the cultural “mainstream”, placing them in a position to be well-informed of those aspects of the mainstream culture that are likely to be featured in “standardized” (i.e. based on a white standard) tests.
All of these things should have been considered by Herrnstein and Murray, in order for us to even consider the legitimacy of any correlation between how they classified race (as self-identified) and intelligence. Least of all should the discussion have turned towards biological reasons for the achievement gap.
With regards to that biological argument, it is never mentioned which genes correspond to intelligence, probably because the authors (like myself) simply do not know. If that connection was made, then they would have to show how those genes differ between ethnicities so as to manifest as differing intelligences. They would also have to show that these genotypical differences are exclusive of the phenotypical differences, which are either the results of environmental influence (e.g. mutation) or random manifestation. The authors never bother to explore the issue in such depth, yet are quick to draw the line between genetics and intelligence, basing their thesis on equally superficial data. Were they to go so far as I’ve suggested they must, the question of “Why?” emerges. What will it mean if it was determined that the differences in intelligence between one “race” or another is based on the random selection of biochemical configurations? This is a moot point, however, since the authors can’t seem to be bothered with actual science.
Once again, it needs to be noted that there are often greater genetic differences amongst people who identify themselves as “black” than there are between people identifying themselves as different “races”. The question of “what determines blackness” needs to be asked, and yet it isn’t. If “blackness” were defined as “of African ancestry”, then there are a number of people who do not identify themselves as black, but who have this in common – amongst them the “Dalit” of India and Sicilians. In dealing only with “self-identified” black people, the authors are removing a vast number of people from the study who share those genetic characteristics that one may use to identify a person as “black”. Therefore the study is misrepresentative of the whole continuum of so-called “black people”, if “black” is defined by genetics.
I could also mention how everyone on earth is of African ancestry, and yet at some point during the prehistoric diaspora all of these so-called differences emerged. These differences came about due to the varying selection pressures placed on people by the different environments to which they migrated. Are not, then, all of these supposed differences the result of environmental factors? At what point, then do we regard these differences as inherent? Upon the institutionalization of racism.
The Bell Curve also glosses over some of the strongest cases for non-biological factors in determining intelligence.
“Other kinds of bias discussed in Appendix 5 include the possibility that blacks have less access to coaching than whites, less experiences with tests (less “testwiseness”), poorer understanding of standard English, and that their performance is affected by white examiners. Each of these hypotheses has been investigated, for many tests, under many conditions. None has been sustained.” (p. 285)
These three factors – less access to education, poorer understanding of English, and less experience with tests are of great importance in determining the validity of these intelligence tests, yet only a paragraph is devoted to them, regarding them as negligible. More interesting is that the book is heavy on citations everywhere, but in this paragraph, there are no works cited, and the reader is expected to accept this conclusion at face value. MANY tests, under MANY conditions, and yet not one citation? Strange, isn’t it?
Herrnstein and Murray do NO testing of their own, and rely entirely on intelligence testing statistics already performed, most of which did not occur even within ten years of the writing of the book. Also, the literature is considered valid without considering the possible bias/racism underlying the research itself.
The authors go on to make another incorrect statement:
“Everyday experience suggests that the environment confronting blacks in different sectors of American life is not uniformly hostile” (p. 286)
What do they mean by this? I take it to mean that the authors disregard the fact that American life IS inherently more difficult for black people than for white people, be it through overt racism or covert conspiratorial agendas. The general idea of this book, that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites is one prevalent throughout American culture, whether based on this kind of “research” or on related stigmas. That alone engenders a more “hostile” or disadvantaged environment for blacks people. Affirmative action wasn’t created to inconvenience white people. The Civil Rights Movement was not the end of racism. In its [racism's] submersion beneath the public radar (i.e. ever since overt expression became taboo) it has in many ways become more dangerous, because it is easier to ignore, yet still manifests in unfair practices. There is no public sphere in American life in which this is not true; that is to say that racism and disenfranchising practices exist in every sector of American life.
With regards to the role of socioeconomic status, they state:
“The trouble is that socioeconomic status is also a result of cognitive ability, as people of high and low cognitive ability move to correspondingly high and low places in the socioeconomic continuum. The reason that parents have high or low socioeconomic status is in part a function of their intelligence, an their intelligence also affects the IQ of the children via both genes and environment.”
The assumption here seems to be that socioeconomic status is based on intelligence, and intelligence is based on race, so therefore socioeconomic status is somewhat negligible in determining intelligence differences. This is the same as saying that proof that the chicken came first is because it came from an egg, and only chickens lay eggs. This is the kind of circular logic present throughout the book.
Also, there are a few important underlying points to be found in this paragraph, that the authors completely fail to recognize. Socioeconomic status, particularly amongst black people, is not a condition created in one or even two generations. Socioeconomic inequality goes at least as far back as slavery. Starting with the prohibition of education for slaves, seguing into the widespread lack of education amongst them after Reconstruction, then leading into the institutionalized racism of post-Reconstruction America up to the present, there has never been a level “playing field” for black people so as to be able identify intelligence as the primary determinant of socioeconomic status. There is no control group.
Where socioeconomic status – however such a thing is measured – is the “same” between races, they may share many common disadvantages. However, there is always a uniquely black dilemma, fostered by racism and a long history of inequality. Even if two families – one black and one white – had equal incomes, living in identical houses in the same neighborhood, with the same amount of children, the same jobs for both parents, in fact all things identical with the exception of “race”, the black family would still be at a disadvantage, not because of genetics, but because of the aforementioned dilemma. It is the very dismissal of this dilemma, the downplaying of racism’s impact, that allows it to propagate. This is not to say, however, that all disadvantages amongst the black population are the solely the result of racism, or even of socioeconomic status. There most definitely are genetic determinants of intelligence, but they exist mutually exclusive of race, which as anyone with any sense knows is a social construct, one that real science dismisses.
The authors also ask the question: “How do African-Americans compare with blacks in Africa on Cognitive tests?” Their conclusion, again based on raw statistics, is that “African blacks are, on average, substantially below African-Americans in intelligence test scores.”
Furthermore, they state:
“…the main point is that the hypothesis about the special circumstances of American blacks depressing their test scores is not substantiated by the African data.” (p. 289)
In most cases, Africans are MORE disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status, which includes education and access to resources (e.g. technology), which can account for the differences between them and African-Americans. If anything, this data strengthens the argument for socioeconomic status being a major determinant in intelligence differences!
The book cites work by the “controversial” Arthur Jensen, who argued that black people were intellectually inferior in terms of “g”, which stands for general intelligence, i.e. that value which transcends all the other sub-types of cognition such as spatial or reaction time. Jensen said that where tests were “better” at measuring g (and it is not specified how one test can be better than another in this regard), the disparity between black and white scores was higher. This indicates that in terms of overall intelligence, black people are inferior. Herrnstein and Murray go on to argue that although there were philosophical arguments against the need for such testing, no experts who reviewed the data could refute it. What’s peculiar, however, is how Herrnstein and Murray automatically see these results as evidence of the intelligence differences being determined by genetics, as opposed to the possibility that all the black people tested shared a common environmental disadvantage.
The Bell Curve is also rife with contradictions. If intelligence is determined mostly by genetics, and genes do not change in a person from birth to death, this means that IQ cannot change either. However, on page 303, the authors cite research by Arthur Jensen, saying:
“[Jensen] found that in black families in rural Georgia, the elder sibling typically has a lower IQ than the younger. The larger the age difference is between the siblings, the larger is the difference in IQ. The implication is that something in the rural Georgia environment was depressing the scores of black children as they grew older.”
Really? THAT is the implication? Are they serious? When I read that data, I interpret it to mean that due to gradual improvements in the environment, such as improvement of socioeconomic status or decreasing racism, later generations are less inhibited and thereby have more fertile ground for their IQs to develop. Their conclusion, on the other hand, contradicts their assertion that environmental factors are a smaller factor than genetics. As has always been the case everywhere throughout the United States, this rural Georgia environment will not be equal between black and white people; black people will still have a relative disadvantage, mired in discrimination.
As an aside, I would like to put forth a few interesting observations I’ve made. From 1986 to 1989, Murray was given an annual grant by the Bradley Foundation of $90,000, rising to $113,000 by 1991, and then to $163,000 following publication of The Bell Curve. (source: Wikipedia) Why is this significant? The Bradley Foundation is a wealthy, influential, right-wing foundation known for – amongst other things – researching potentially damaging information on President Bill Clinton with regards to his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Before that, they sought to discredit Anita Hill, the woman who brought sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas. At the time Thomas was being nominated by President George H.W. Bush for the Supreme Court. There are a few interesting things to note here.
On one hand, the Bradley Foundation worked hard to dismiss charges of sexual harassment, as they confliced with the conservative agenda. Clarence Thomas, despite being a black man, is someone whose personal ethics and politics are regressive in ways that are destructive to black people. He is simultaneously a weapon for conservative agendas and “proof” that those agendas are not racist in nature, making him doubly dangerous. On the other hand, the Bradley Foundation sought to exacerbate the negative sentiments towards Bill Clinton, in line with the conservative platform and its purported moral highground. Clinton is renowned for being a favorite amongst liberals and especially African-Americans. Interesting how their attitude towards sexual harassment changes to fit their agenda.
According to an ABC news report, $3.5 million was contributed to researchers cited in The Bell Curve, and almost half of the research cited to support the most controversial racial conclusions of the book, came from the Pioneer Fund. Now what is the Pioneer Fund? “The Pioneer Fund is a controversial non-profit foundation established to, in their words, “aid in conducting study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race” (source: Wikipedia).
By and large, the prospect of eugenics has been used to further ideas of “racial purification”, the general idea – although not stated explicitly – being that that certain races are inferior, and therefore should be “weeded out”. Now here’s a curious coincidence. The Bell Curve and similar literature was funded by a group pushing conservative political agendas that aim to further disenfranchise and inconvenience minorities, justifiable on the basis of social Darwinistic ideology. At the same time it is funded by a group that implicitly suggests that minorities should be artificially selected out of existence, using eugenics. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I will say that perhaps all of these connections truly are a coincidence, although the thesis of the book would suggest otherwise. I will leave that open to interpretation.
In that the focus of the book is the difference between so-called “blacks” and “whites” (these two terms ignoring The many differences within each “race”), it could be seen as a case for white superiority, rather than a holistic argument for genetic cognitive differences across the spectrum of all humanity. Perhaps the authors didn’t feel like investing the time and effort it would take to compile such a massive study. Perhaps a truly comprehensive look at these supposed differences would’ve have become too large and too technical for the lay reader. If this book was intended for the lay reader, then the streamlining of the research is even more destructive, because then it becomes a mainstream reference. If “The Bell Curve” is one of the only books accessible (in terms of ease of reading for the average person) by the general public, while more comprehensive texts are mostly accessible by the academic sphere, The Bell Curve becomes the standard.
Also, I would say that I am more inclined than the average person to read this kind of literature, and yet even I feel it to be a chore to read the book in its entirety. How easy, then, is it for the average person predisposed to the underlying racist ideologies of the book, to gloss over the text and draw from it only those “facts” needed to support their preconceptions?
In the end, given the authors’ plethora of oversights, conclusion jumping, assumptions, and circular logic, a person can draw one of two conclusions about The Bell Curve. Either the motivation behind it is the propagation of racism, or racism is the transcendent context in which it was written (perhaps to some degree unbeknownst to the authors themselves). Herrnstein and Murray are either very determined and very clever racists (clever because they toss in enough seeming “objectivity” to deflect accusations), or grievously ignorant, a possibility that brings their very credibility as academics into question. Whatever the truth is, it is clear that “The Bell Curve” is not a dependable reference on the differences between people – in terms of intelligence or otherwise.