Product Description

This work offers a perspective on the causes of the social and economic problems that plague contemporary America. It examines the relationship between ethnicity and intelligence and presents the view that America's population is becoming polarized between an educated elite and uneducated poor.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #51985 in Books
• Published on: 1996-02-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 912 pages

Review
Prof. Earl Hunt"American Scientist"The first reactions to "The Bell Curve" were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known in the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, "Mokita." It means "truth that we all know, but agree not to talk about." ...There are fascinating questions here for those interested in the interactions between sociology, economics, anthropology and cognitive science. We do not have the answers yet. We may need them soon, for policy makers who rely on "Mokita" are flying blind.

Customer Reviews

Has any book been more misrepresented?
When this book was first published I read quite a few "reviews" of the book and attacks on Charles Murray in the media. Having read the book, it seemed to me that none of the people attacking it or its author had actually read it. It's clear that many of the people reviewing this book here haven't read it either.

Contrary to what you may have heard, The Bell Curve is not some sort of racist polemic. It has one chapter, out of twenty-odd, on the subject of race and IQ and the discussion in that chapter is backed up by solid data and hedged with the usual ifs and buts that psychologists always bring up whan discussing IQ.

So what is the book actually about? Well, the authors' thesis is that as life has become both more mobile (e.g. greater equality of opportunity) than in the past, the intelligent and well educated people end up at the top of society and the less intelligent and well-educated at the bottom. This has led to problems for those at the bottom. I could elaborate, but you can read the book for yourself.

I was not 100% convinced by the authors' views on IQ, and their analysis of American society didn't address the fact that the USA is one of the most economically unequal societies in the world. Also, I think they could have been rather MORE daring sometimes, but I guess they were trying hard not to offend anyone. Nevertheless, the authors' deserve praise for raising some original questions and trying to address controversial topics in a mature way.

Anyone in the UK who enjoyed the book might also like 'Mind the Gap' by Ferdinand Mount, which is not about IQ but also addresses the problem of the widening gap between rich and poor, specifically in Britain.

Bell Curve shows the importance of individualism.
Lest it be misunderstood and I fear that is precisely what the critics of this book are doing, the whole point of Bell Curve is to show how important it is to treat people as individuals, not groups. However, this group-specific treatment is precisely what is happening in the current multicultural American educational system. The point is that because different groups (ethnic, racial etc.) perform differently in different subjects, we should not insist on quotas and precentages to be met in any area of public life. This is, in my opinion, the correct reading of the book and the lesson to be derived from it. Naturally, those who wish to use this book in order to gain from it ammunition for their racist thinking will do so, but they are doing harm to serious scholarly research.

If I could give it an additional star, I would. Excellent!
I first heard of the Bell Curve over four years ago while attending one of my social science university classes. The Bell Curve got so much positive attention as a revolutionary, critical review of issues so current and pressing within our society, at the time, and today that I felt I would really appreciate reading it and reviewing the authors scientific efforts. As I studied the book (text) over a period of months, I could not help notice all of the off-the-cuff commentary, quick-shots really, by people who, obviously, had not studied the text nor the issues covered within the text. I heard claims of racism, subtle racism disguised as science, claims, to my complete astonishment, such as, "dirty little book, that's all it is". There seems to be some confusion, amazingly, as to what this book is all about. I guess that for some reason the standard remedy of "read the book" just doesn't seem to work here. I have noticed that a common trend among many of Murray's negative commentators: their ostentatious inability to distinguish the difference between the physical characteristic of "Ethnicity" and the sociological characteristics describing "One's ability to succeed in life". I continually read that the Bell Curve is about the relationship between "Intellect" and "Ethnicity"; this simply is NOT the case. In fact, as you will find, upon studying the text, the Bell Curve IS about the relationship between "Intellect" and "One's ability to succeed in life". I suppose that sociologists, psychologists etc... who hold dearly to conventional beliefs and "understandings" about sociological phenemon have, in light of Murray's and Hernstein's study, found themselves in a difficult spot and deeply disturbed. But so, I imagine, did followers of Archimedes when Newton developed his three laws of motion, refuting the conventional wisdom of the time that motion necessitated a force. And so, I imagine, did followers of conventional wisdom of the time, when Galileo presented his study, upholding the Coprenician system of planetary orbits. NO, in fact, they didn't like Galileo's findings at all, so much so that they forced him to renounce his SCIENTIFIC findings! It is scary to me, but when I, a student of the Bell Curve, see these commentators on telivision or read of them in the papers.... speaking of "dirty little books", "racism disguised as science" etc..., I have the feeling that If this were not the 20th century, and if we did not have the constitution protecting our right to publish scientific findings, these very same negative commentators might just try to force Murray to renounce his scientific findings, keeping us all in the dark for as long as possible. Well, fact is: the Earth does rotate around the Sun, folks. Read the book, get a telescope, know the truth.