Talk:The Bell Curve/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

poor education in US

the education system in the US is pretty poor. I went to high school in the US from Africa. I was an average student in Africa. When I went to the US I had to do tests to see where I should fit in academically and I was two years ahead of the yanks - they thought I was a genius. the US education system seems to have declined over the last century which explains the narrowing of vocab gap (as in the wikipedia article) while the social situation of blacks has improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotation re: Herrnstein and Murray opposing welfare

The Policy recommendations section contains the statement that "Herrnstein and Murray recommended the elimination of welfare programs," followed by a quotation from the book that doesn't support that statement. The quotation criticizes policies that subsidize births among poor women ("extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies"), and I don't see anything in the quotation that opposes welfare policies in general. Either the quotation or the introductory sentence needs to be change. Herrnstein and Murray may oppose welfare in general, but the quotation given doesn't support that. MrVibrating 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could change it to something like "social welfare for pregnant women and women with children." I reverted you because the wording "women who have babies" sounds odd and I just thought you were trolling or something... (sorry)

I see your point so can we compromise and agree on some normal-sounding wording and conveys the idea? futurebird 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. First, let me emphasize that my edit regards the relationship between the sentence and the quotation. I'm not taking a stand on what the authors or the book says, just what that particular quotation says, so if they actually oppose welfare in general, feel free to keep that statement followed by a quotation that backs that up.

I think you misread my edit, which said "...encourage poor women to have babies," not "women who have babies" (although the latter phrase appears in the quotation itself). The point I was trying to make is that the quotation shows they oppose policies that encourage poor women to have babies. The quotation doesn't show that they oppose welfare in general for pregant women/women with children, just welfare that encourages them to have babies. The phrase "social welfare for pregnant women and women with children" is closer, but it still conveys too broad a point.

How about "welfare policies that encourage poor women to have babies children"? MrVibrating 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change the sentence to what I posted directly above this. It seems the reverts were caused by a misunderstanding. MrVibrating 09:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that "have babies/children" is ambiguous--it could refer to giving birth or just to having children in their care. I'm going to change it to something unambiguous. MrVibrating 09:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't argue for a genetic interpretation of racial gaps.

As has been pointed out before on this thread by Aron.foster, "The authors don't state 'blacks and hispanics have... due to genetic factors', they state that blacks and hispanics have a lower median intelligence, regardless of the genetics." I would like to discourage Wikipedians from editing this article without having read the book, in order to avoid making mistakes like claiming that Herrnstein & Murray argue that racial IQ gaps are genetic. They make no such argument, as anyone who reads chapters 13 and 14 should be able to see. Harkenbane 17:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They admitted that it was a possibility, despite mountains of evidence for other causes. This is why they are often described as racist.: because they still consider it a legitimate open question. futurebird 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence on both sides of the argument, and the ad hominem argument that "they're racists" should be avoided. Herrnstein and Murray do ask an excellent question when they discuss the genetic issue: Why do we care? It's generally accepted that intelligence is partially heritable and that there is a difference in intelligence between the races. If you found out today that intelligence was/wasn't genetic, what would it change? They claim current programs attempting to improve intelligence have failed. A (lack of) genetic link wouldn't change that. If there is a genetic component, it's not as if humanity will abandon all reason and begin a racist killing spree or the Holocaust anew. Aron.foster 05:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a genetic component, it's not as if humanity will abandon all reason and begin a racist killing spree or the Holocaust anew.

I don't know about that, considering the fact that arguments about the inferiority of black people were originally made (historically) to justify slavery, unequal treatment and subjugation, it is hard to say how such arguments would be used. In fact, the policy changes they suggest amount to having lower expectations for people based on race and class due to the apparent immutability of their intelligence. futurebird 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what would happen if the genetic component is discovered. I believe in the inherent evilness and idiocy of humanity, and we're going to find an excuse to kill each other regardless. The utility of research on race and intelligence is a continuing debate.

I'm very curious as to how you interpreted their policy recommendations. Ending a welfare state that encourages dysgenics, ending IQ-boosting programs that have proven ineffective, and exploring the problem of intellectual stratification seem rational to me, and far from what you claim of encouraging intellectual and social class disparity. Aron.Foster 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

a genetic explanation, or more specifically, the merest hint of a genetic explanation, is a huge boost to the conservative agenda. these people are beyond hope, so the argument goes - thus we need not feel any guilt, or even concern ourselves, with their current social conditions. and the more general thesis, if one takes murray's word, if accepted, allows this attitude to be applied to all disadvantaged areas of society regardless of race. problems of inequality become irrelevant, as does much social welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.140.166 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite. If people are genetically destined to be poor, then the government can't use incentives to get them to try harder and be richer, and might as well put them on welfare. The logical flaw in your argument is when you say "these people are beyond hope...thus we need not feel any guilt." This assumes that conservatives are heartless and don't care about people's suffering. A genetic explanation for wealth would have lots of implications, but your scenario isn't one of them. MrVibrating (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I worry a lot about the "everyone's an idiot but me and everyone I know" argument that is so often brought up in debates on the Race/Intelligence issue. Time and again, I am amazed how firmly people believe that only they (and everyone they know) can understand that a genetic component of intelligence wouldn't change anything about how we should treat each other. I believe we've reached a point in society where it's generally accepted that by being human, one is entitled to certain rights. Although there are benefits for doing more than just existing (get a job -> money, don't commit crime -> not being in jail, raise a family -> raise a family), people who argue against the existence of basic human rights are shunned, almost without exception. We're free to argue on the definition of human and on what those rights entail, but I cannot conceive a political or social change that will result in all people below a certain intelligence having their freedom of speech revoked. Ironically, H&M argue your (87.242.140.166's) point. In Chapter 21: The Way We Are Headed, page 509, they predict

• An increasingly isolated cognitive elite.
• A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent.
• A deteriorating quality of the life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution.

I don't agree with them on this point. As an uber-conservative, I feel very little guilt and concern for the poor. As cold as that sounds, please understand that I'm uneased by the thought that I should feel guilt for enjoying the success I earned because there exist those who are less successful. Yep, I had a good upbringing and was blessed with above average smarts, but most of where I am today is because of hard work, and people of any race and any intelligence can do that. Now, I don't want to do away with all government assistance for the disadvantaged; on the contrary, I understand that a high quality of life for the lowest rung of society can produce a better society. I just believe that the raising of that rung should be (strongly) tempered with the knowledge that the higher it is, the stronger its draw. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

comment

I want to take this article in good faith, by which I mean, it is an opportunity to explore in a sophisticated way a complex and highly controversial debate. I see that some editors are going to great pains to ensure that the book itself is represented accurately and that is laudible. My concern is this: the criticisms of the book are painted with too broad a set of strokes. I see that the notes and bibliography cite The Bell Curve Wars and The Bell Curve Debate - these are two books that provide a range of critiques of TBC, many of which go beyond "it is racist" or "it is stupid" to more nuanced discussions of how Americans think about race, the intersection of social and life sciences, the intersection of academic research and public policy, and so on. I see this article as an opportunity to explore all these issues. Doing so would mean moving beyond an approach favored by many people - that there are two sides to an issue - to see that there may be hundreds or thousands of sides, and sometimes the most interesting sides are not "it is right" or "it is wrong." It has been a very long time since I looked at those books myself and I do not have them (or cannot find them0 so I am not the right person to start incorporating more material into this article. But i would like to suggest to more active editors (1) to think of other ways to structure this article besides position/criticisms/response to criticisms and (2) to take seriously the claim, made by many defenders of the book when it was first reviewed in the popular press (e.g. NYT), that its value was to "open up debate." My point is that the debate that it opened up - if indeed we are to take this claim seriously, and believe that this was an important debate - must go far beyond "Blacks are/are not less intelligent than Whites" and "IQ is/is not inherited." I am sorry my memory is vague but I do recall that the best essays in The Bell Curve Wars and The Bell Curve Debate raised much more interesting questions. So what if we really were to take seriously the claim that much of the value of the book was to open up this debate? Right now, I am sorry to say, the article does not reflect that. But couldn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sampling Bias?

I was listening to a story on the radio the other day and it was mentioned again about the differences between whites, blacks, and asians. It occurs to me that all of this testing has been done in the USA, has it not? Doesn't it stand to reason that Chinese Americans might have vastly different results as a group than would Chinese from the countryside in China? Same might go for Kenyans vs African Americans. I was just wondering if any of the editors of this article were aware of a secondary source of such cricitism on the sampling bias in this book, as I think it would add interest to the article. Sandwich Eater (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bell Curve used the American NLSY and AFQT for much of it's analysis, yes. Have a look at Race_and_intelligence#Research for a more worldly perspective. For the race/intelligence issue, I agree how that worldly perspective is required, but this book is written from an American perspective for Americans. As such, I don't think including data on how native Africans (arguably) score lower on intelligence tests than their African-American bretherin will do much to improve the article. Aron.Foster (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

my response to the critisism

I presented a statement of fact, explaining why the change was made. That is hardly OR or editorializing. Quote got it wrong, and made it look dishonest. I could have gone on to explain the errors on the tests. Just another non-expert trying to disprove those who are. Saros136 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, find a cited, reliable source which makes the criticism and the section can go back in. Just applying Wikipedia policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is from the Bell Curve. I provided it to clarify things. Saros136 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Then why suppress it?

I'm really disappointed that so many people have offered so many "opinions" about this work and yet seem so unfamiliar with it. Madge for example, makes a highly emotional assertion that the authors compared deprived minorities with advantaged whites in an effort to arrive at some desired conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few people really seem to understand WHAT the Bell Curve was about. Race and demographics were peripheral. The "controversy" this work has caused does more to reveal the ossification and fear governing American scholarship than any work of modern times. Few of its critics even appear to have read it. Ironic that a work which did so much to advocate help for the "cognitively disadvantaged" should be so feared and hated by that very group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manxtime (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My favorite chapter is the last, A Place for Everyone. It is what the book is all about. Their fear is that the information economy will create a cognitive elite that dominates, and low mental ability is increasingly a handicap. The latter will be left out-unless things change. The book ends ...of all the rewards we can confer on each other, the most precious is a place as a valued fellow citizen. Saros136 (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Murray's response to the APA report

This would be germane in an article about the APA report, but I say it is WP:UNDUE in an article about the Bell Curve.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The response by one of the authors of The Bell Curve to an investigative report about that book is certainly germane to this article. --Jagz (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The response is about the APA report, is a criticism of the APA report and thus is not germane to the article on the book itself, no more than comments or criticisms about Murray's political leanings would be germane to this book, although they may add some background info. The info needs to be curtailed somewhere.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of author's response to investigative report

Should the following response by one of the authors of The Bell Curve to the APA investigative report about that book be included in this article as shown here [1]?

"Charles Murray responded to the APA report:

Actually, there is no direct evidence at all, just a wide variety of indirect evidence, almost all of which the task force chose to ignore."

Comments by editors of article

• Yes, it is reasonable to include the author's response to the APA investigative report in this article. --Jagz (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• No this comment is given without the context of a full analysis of the APA response, and as such, would if it belongs anywhere, belong in the article about the APA response, and not here. Also, citing one of the very few dissenting critics of the APA response adds WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a very small minority.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not now, nor I doubt will ever exist, a permanent article on the APA investigative report, and one reason is because it is covered in this article. The quote is from Charles Murray, one of the two authors of the book. --Jagz (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[2] There is one such article.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by outsiders

• No. Reading through the entire section, this quote feels ambiguous and out-of-place for the following reasons

1. "there is no direct evidence at all" - it is unclear whether this phrase refers to a specific point in the APA report, to the report as a whole, or is meant as a backhanded reference to the original Bell Curve theory.
2. there is no discussion of the rational the APA task forced used to analyze the work; even the footnote (which lists an assortment of factors the APA supposedly did not consider) does not state why the APA should or shouldn't have considered them.
3. the sudden comment from murray at the end of a discussion of the APA task force report sounds almost defensive

I will add that I feel this entire section has a pro-Murray/Herrnstein slant, in that it primarily states points of agreement between the Bell Curve and the APA report, and on the single point of difference it cites (the genetic question) it goes out of its way to minimize the APA report's position. is that intentional?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. It's useful and fair to include someone's defense against criticism. I think it should clarify that he's talking about race, since it's a little vague. Life.temp (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. However, you should try to flesh it out to present the context and the subtlety of the issue. ImpIn | (t - c) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

External links - Should this be added?

I removed the following external link sincethe autor himselv apparently added it:

[http://www.godheval.net/bellcurve.html The Bell Curve Fallacy]. A layman's argument against the Bell Curve

should this link be added? Nsaa (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. And we might want to look at the links section and do some pruning too. It seems to attract everyone's blog entry (no matter how brilliant) on what THEY think of the Bell Curve. I think we need to avoid all but the most top-level sources. And there is plenty of criticism out there for this book coming from highly respect scientific sources. futurebird (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

sentence totally unclear

A sentence in the last paragraph of "flawed assumptions" makes no sense to me:

Heckman writes that a reanalysis of the evidence used in The Bell Curve contradicts this story. The factors that explain wages receive different weights than the factors that explain test scores.

If anyone knows of this Heckman study, could they please make the sentence clearer? --Aniish72 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Even though this article addresses criticism that has being raised against The Bell Curve, it has a much too positive 'feel' to it. First the article presents the data of the Bell Curve without even commenting them (despite the fact that it's been shown numerous times that they are flawed), then it's being said that the book received "a great deal of positive publicity" giving the impression that the subsequent criticism was unjustified, and then we get the report by the APA, which concludes that actually, yes, black people are duller than whites. I strongly recommend the authors of this article read Inequality by Design and put The Bell Curve into perspective! --Suspekt (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

.... not to mention the fact that at the end of this article the critics are ridiculed and the author is given the "last word" with a presentation of 'facts', as if they would unequivocally settle the debate in Murray's favour! --Suspekt (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

On the contrary, I felt that TBC's critics were frequently treated as if their conclusions were valid or generally received as valid. This was quite obvious in the Flawed Methodology and Contradictory Findings sections, where the interesting and defensible conclusions of various publications were stated and cited as if they were true and correct, without acknowledgement that these conclusions are participating veiwpoints in an academic debate. For example, the findings of Michael Hout, et.al. were quoted as follows:

"that if IQ scores are corrected, as Herrnstein and Murray did, to eliminate the effect of education, the ability of IQ to predict poverty can be made to look dramatically overstated, (emphasis added) by as much as 61 percent for whites and 74 percent for blacks. In other words, according to Hout et al., Herrnstein and Murray's finding, that IQ predicts poverty much better than socioeconomic status does, is substantially a result of the way they handled the statistics."

But Hout's objection to the statisical procedure used by H & M really begs the question, for if one does not remove the effects of education, ( that is, the effects of class related differentials in educational opportunity,) (!) how could the independent effects of intelligence be observed? How does this amount to dramatic overstatement?

There was one other example of a breach of neutral stance which should be corrected. I was particularly struck by the remark in the Fuelling Racism section which includes the phrase "Charles F. Murray lookalike Francis Galton." How could saying Murray is a lookalike for Galton be seen as other than intentionally disparaging?

I have enjoyed the stimulating reading found on this page. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• That ridiculous remark has been removed since, although I don't really see why it is disparaging to say that somebody is a lookalike of Francis Galton, who after all was a genius with important scientific contributions (and I think his eugenic thinking should be seen in the light of the times in which he lived). In any case, this article will need a lot of work before it becomes NPOV and encyclopedic. As it is now, it contains too many POV statements (from both sides). --Crusio (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At least two POV issues

Firstly, a disproportionate part of the article focuses on attacks against the book. The many defenders and their often better scientific credentials are given little space in comparison.

Secondly, the article repeatedly points out that Murray was not a psychologist. Why should he be? The book deals with intelligence and its effects on society, what political policies should be used, etc. Had the book been written by two psychologist with no qualifications in political science (Murray's field), then there would have been a venue for attack. As is, the team had very well balanced qualifications for the task at hand. (Certainly, much more so than many pure political and social scientists who very often make too far-going claims in areas they are in no way qualified...) 188.100.204.157 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

General tone of comments

I have just skimmed through the existing comments, and there is a very strong trend of pre-conceived negative opinions and "We must disprove this book!".

Please bear in mind that the goal is a neutral description with regard to the book it self and a factual evaluation of scientific fact/theories (where appropriate). Setting out with the pre-formed goal of writing a negative article, let alone one which makes unsupported claims about racism, is simply not acceptable within the WP framework. (Nor is it ethical, nor within the realms of "intellectual honesty".)

If there are factual errors, point this out. If there are errors in reasoning, point this out. If flawed data have been used, point this out. If your personal opinion is that the book is racist, keep it to yourself. 188.100.204.157 (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fueling Racism

The first sentence of the second paragraph in Fueling Racism ("Some critics point out that 17 of the researchers whose work is referenced by the book are also contributors to Mankind Quarterly, America's leading eugenics magazine, which reprints articles such as Eugenics And The Jew by Francis Galton.") doesn't cite a source. The following sentence seems to be a logical continuation of the preceding statement, but its citation fails to support the first sentence. I suggest that the first sentence be restated or removed. Also, "some critics" sounds like weasel words to me. I apologize for not editing the questionable statement myself, but I am new to editing on Wikipedia and thought a conservative approach would be best until I learn the ropes. -- Helion Omega 05:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helion Omega (talk • contribs)

following this remark I have added "citation needed" remark. As is the article goes beyond being critical to the point of being bashing. 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.14.188 (talk)

A point to consider

The issue of race and intelligence is a red herring and red rag to a bull. The research is an analysis of the relationship between intelligence and achievement within homogeneous racial groups, most of the data seemingly being on Caucasians. That racial differences in intelligence distributions are raised and how these should be interpeted has no bearing on the criticism of the main thesis. Maybe this point would help people pick their way through the controversy.

--Cumudgeon (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

completely biased

The article is chock full of external links critical against the book, but virtually none in support of the book and its conclusions. This article smacks of bias against the book. Machn (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A question

Is this article supposed to provide readers with a neutral view of the book, e.i., its thesis and the evidence presented to support it, together with arguments pro and against it that are not rhetorical insults (for example, instead of "This book is crap" of logical data-supported arguments against it that would lead the reader to that conclusion; or another example: instead of "This book is totally awesome", to present the supporters argument to why it's awesome so the reader himself can decide, based on the data), or its just a hate site dedicated to insulting the book with propaganda rather than evidence and creating an unbalanced view by only reporting the negative reception and censoring all those in support of the book? --69.121.51.151 (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to the Bell Curve or to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Error in a table? (Economic and social correlates of IQ)

Assuming I am reading the table, "Economic and social correlates of IQ", correctly, each row should sum to 100%. If this is the case, there is an error on the second row which sums to a number that cannot be explained as a "rounding error". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.246.206 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Concern about the explanation why the bell curve is used as a symbol

The following is stated in the introduction:

"The book's title comes from the bell-shaped normal distribution of IQ scores. The normal distribution is the limiting distribution of a random quantity which is the sum of smaller, independent random phenomena. The message in the title is that IQ scores are normally distributed because a person's intelligence is the sum of many small random variations in genetic and environmental factors.[original research?]"

The normal distribution does indeed describe the distribution of the sum of many random variables (see Central limit theorem). The explanation above seems to suggest that for each individual many factors come into play and makes the IQ of one person normally distributed. This interpretation is not correct, since the normal distribution arises because many individuals are measured. Thus the statement 'IQ scores are normally distributed because a person's intelligence is the sum of many small random variations' is misleading.

If this misleading interpretation is given by the authors of the book it should be clarified by a citation. Otherwise this paragraph should be reformulated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.196.139 (talk • contribs)

I think the meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear as it is: within a population, each person's IQ is determined by numerous genetic and environmental factors, with the result that IQ is normally distributed in the population. Of course you can alter the sentence if you think it is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, IQ scores are normally distributed because they are designed to be so. However, the mental abilities that IQ tests tap into are in all probability normally distributed. In any case, some source should be cited to back up the claim in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding problems/issues with the article

I'd like to open an active discussion on the problems present in the article as it now stands. My initial reading tells me what while the article is currently of an acceptable level of quality, it has the following issues:

1. The end of the article focuses on Murray's response to his criticisms, but does so largely by pasting in multiple tables with only a cursory explication of their intent. Would the article be better served by talking about Murray's responses in slightly more detail and eliminating the charts entirely. They seem bulky and out-of-place as part of a subsection of "Responses", while the two charts in the main article are reasonably well-placed.

2. The section about disputes of the book addresses many of the books detractors individually, and also notes the widespread antagonism among those who believe the book had a racist agenda. As noted though, some people feel like the book has a racially-charged undertone throughout all the chapters which is an indication of bias. Is there a review of the book that says this in so many words? Also, a professor from Arizona has expressed on this talk page that the scientific community in the field feels like the book's tone (especially the confident portrayal by the authors of their results) is out of place and that the book was hasty, so to speak, in a field where more research is needed before such conclusions should be safely drawn. Is there a place that validates his claim of scientific consensus on this matter, and can it be cited?

3. Having skimmed the talk page I see that there are ongoing disputes about NPOV (as there will always be given an article that has such controversial subject matter.) Of those, are there still offending sentences? I'd like to be vigilant about searching for such places, because just one can mar an article and it's credibility. What are some things people have noticed? Does the article suffer from a NPOV problem in overall tone or construction? I know that some have claimed an NPOV problem because the majority of the article is devoted to discussing criticism of the book, but I think that the article at the same time portrays the book in a pretty positive tone -- not to mention the fact that a lot of the books "notability" comes from the controversy surrounding it, and therefore from the responses and criticisms to it.

4. I also note that many of the quotes in the section on criticisms of the book lack sources, notably the first few of professors and others who have condemned the book. Also, the initial paragraph of the Responses section discusses the book receiving good reviews by a number of major media outlets. The only source cited, though, is a blistering attack by FAIR (the article is called "Racism Resurgent") on the book and its alledged agenda . I would much rather cite the links to individual articles and link the FAIR article on its own merits, rather than as a summary page for positive articles with which FAIR clearly disagrees.

Any other thoughts on this? I'd like to be able to submit this article (at some point in the medium-distance future) as an excellent article and a candidate for featuring, but I think a lot of work needs to be done yet -- both major hammering and minor tweaking. Kazandim 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, a professor from Arizona has expressed on this talk page that the scientific community in the field feels like the book's tone (especially the confident portrayal by the authors of their results) is out of place and that the book was hasty, so to speak, in a field where more research is needed before such conclusions should be safely drawn. Is there a place that validates his claim of scientific consensus on this matter, and can it be cited?

Never read another book where the author had a smug, matter-of-fact tone regarding a controversial issue? I envy you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.246.79 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to start a new topic on a talk page. This is a minor concern, so I'll leave it here. Under Response->Criticisms->The importance of IQ for life outcomes, the following sentence appears as its own paragraph:

One early critical book was The Bell Curve Debate.

I think someone ought to either delete the sentence or (preferably) expand on what criticisms The Bell Curve Debate raised and how it was significant to the debate. --98.234.112.127 (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of APA report material

See [3]. Please explain. The APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" was of course a direct response to the Bell Curve debate so I find your edit summary strange.Miradre (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also the your quote is misleading. The APA did not discuss policy implications. They certainly discussed the state of research. "Public discussion of these issues has been especially vigorous since the 1994 publication of Hermstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, a controversial volume which stimulated many equally controversial reviews and replies. Nevertheless, we do not directly enter that debate. Hermstein and Murray (and many of their critics) have gone well beyond the scientific findings, making explicit recommendations on various aspects of public policy. Our concern here, however, is with science rather than policy. The charge to our Task Force was to prepare a dispassionate survey of the state of the art: to make clear what has been scientifically established, what is presently in dispute, and what is still unknown. In fulfilling that charge, the only recommendations we shall make are for further research and calmer debate."Miradre (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

APA report

I've removed the claims added to the article by Miradre [4].

For one thing, the report doesn't "reject" any such criticisms of the Bell Curve. In fact, the report explicitly states that "we do not directly enter that debate" (about the Bell Curve). This is at best a violation of WP:SYNTH. At worst it's purposefully misleading.

The other portions of the inserted text are also problematic in that the report says no such thing. The only possible exception concerns whether the tests themselves are biased - however even here the report states that "biased test design" explanations are plausible although in some controlled studies this bias did not seem to contribute substantially to explaining the Black/White score gap. Then the report says "for a different view see Helms, 1992". The report then says "Moreover, efforts to devise reliable and valid tests that would minimize disadvantages of this kind have been unsuccessful." - so it's not the tests aren't culturally biased, it's that culturally unbiased tests are very hard (or impossible) to design.

Frankly the text inserted by Miradre is a pretty blatant way to mis-characterize the report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is you who mis-characterize the report and use selective citations. The report certainly comments on the science. But not on policy.

To quote the context of your selective quotation more completely: "Public discussion of these issues has been especially vigorous since the 1994 publication of Hermstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, a controversial volume which stimulated many equally controversial reviews and replies. Nevertheless, we do not directly enter that debate. Hermstein and Murray (and many of their critics) have gone well beyond the scientific findings, making explicit recommendations on various aspects of public policy. Our concern here, however, is with science rather than policy. The charge to our Task Force was to prepare a dispassionate survey of the state of the art: to make clear what has been scientifically established, what is presently in dispute, and what is still unknown. In fulfilling that charge, the only recommendations we shall make are for further research and calmer debate."Miradre (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And yes, the report certainly states that "IQ can be measured, is largely stable during life, is in part heritable, is not biased at least for blacks in the US regarding future achievements, and is a useful predictor of future life achievements".Miradre (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Full quote regarding possible bias against blacks: "From an educational point of view, the chief function of mental tests is as predictors (Section 2). Intelligence tests predict school performance fairly well, at least in American schools as they are now constituted. Similarly, achievement tests are fairly good predictors of performance in college and postgraduate settings. Considered in this light, the relevant question is whether the tests have a "predictive bias" against Blacks, Such a bias would exist if African-American performance on the criterion variables (school achievement, college GPA, etc.) were systematically higher than the same subjects' test scores would predict. This is not the case. The actual regression lines (which show the mean criterion performance for individuals who got various scores on the predictor) for Blacks do not lie above those for Whites; there is even a slight tendency in the other direction (Jensen, 1980; Reynolds &:Brown, 1984). Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans."Miradre (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What does policy have to do with it? The report is responding to the controversy but not entering the debate. Nowhere does it say "we reject these criticism of the Bell Curve" or anything even remotely similar. You made that part up.

I don't see the need to address the rest of the statement - which yes, misrepresent the report - since that's pretty much a show stopper right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The report certainly entered the scientific debate "The charge to our Task Force was to prepare a dispassionate survey of the state of the art: to make clear what has been scientifically established, what is presently in dispute, and what is still unknown." But not the policy debate. Your selective citation was highly misleading. All the things I stated was also stated in the report: "IQ can be measured, is largely stable during life, is in part heritable, is not biased at least for blacks in the US regarding future achievements, and is a useful predictor of future life achievements".Miradre (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The report does not "reject" any of the criticisms given in article text. This is your own, idiosyncratic (and flawed), interpretation of the report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point there. They do not directly cite a critical source. But many of their statements and affirmations are clearly in response to and rejections of many of the criticisms against IQ. But since they do not cite the critics in this section directly I will not press this.Miradre (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You summary of the APA is tendentious to say the least. There is also no reason to include it since it doesn't treat the book explicitly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole report was created in response to book and the debate afterwards. No, it did not enter the policy debate but well the science debate.Miradre (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead section quotation and interpretation by popular media

I am not seeing how the following statement in the lead section is supporting the so called claim by "popular media" as writen in the article.

It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.

I mean racial differences such as different color hues of skin obviously have something to do genes and or enviroment. It can only be internal or external factors determining this.

If ones your mother and your father have the same skin color then you will most likely have the same as well - because you share the genes of your parents. The environment may play into this question of racial differences in a more longterm sense. As individuals and groups each tend to adapt to their natural environments over time.

That the "popular media" interprets this in another, more sensational way is noteworthy in the article here, but it does not change what is actually written in the book.

I hope this makes sense. Regards, 50.93.104.94 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence exists...

...and is accurately measurable across racial, language, and national boundaries.

:O !!!!!111 --70.142.50.36 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK-- Then consider: What type of intelligence are we looking at? H&M, in the book refer to only one type of intelligence. Of course, at the time they wrote the book, the idea that there are multiple type of intelligences was just beginning to be examined. Furthermore, we really cannot measure "intelligence" directly. We merely measure a phenomenon (or now phenomena) indirectly. To put it another way, whether or not intelligence exists is beside the point. The questions are how we measure intelligence, what does it measure, and how does that get contextualized in the social environment. Another large methodological problem is that, when you run statistical tests of association such as correlations or regressions, you can only control for the variables that you've asked about in your test instrument (survey, for example). As such, other possible confounding variables necessarily get ignored. I don't want to start a "religious" qualitative/quantitative war here; however, I really feel that H&M's quantitative research would have benefited from strong qualitative analysis to identify other confounding variables that might have gone overlooked (and therefore not controlled for) or qualitative research to contextualize what they found. The APA task force largely gets at these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.18.251 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Murray's definition of "race"?

How did Murray define "race?" Strangely, that question doesn't seem to be addressed in this article. Please supply. P0M 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from my reading of the book in 2002, he used the terminology of craniofacial anthropometry, i.e. Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, as his descriptors for the races present in America, although he excludes Hispanics from the white/Caucasoid category on most (? can't remember for sure) things. I'll note that those terms are largely outdated now and I'm surprised in retrospect by his choice to use terms that originate with a very specific science like skull measurement. This doesn't really answer your question as to how Murray/Herrnstein defined and define race, since I'm 99% sure they didn't mean to use terms like Negroid and Mongoloid in their narrow scientific meaning. Rather my 5-year-old impression is that they intended "race" to be self-explanatory, in the vein of saying, "Everyone knows the difference between a white man, black man, and Asian man." Kazandim 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid are not outdated terms. Hispanics are not considered Caucasoid because they are a hybrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.168.246.79 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Once I find my copy of the book I'll get the exact quote, but H&M use a very simple method of determining someone's race: they use the race with which they identify themselves, i.e. someone's Asian according to H&M if they check the 'Asian' box in the ethnicity section of the exam/study. Aron.Foster 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a Hybrid. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic as in the USA ethnicity includes Caucasian, black, Asian, and mixed races. You should learn what a Hispanic is before making those claims. Thank you. [[User:Secret --24.127.196.139 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)--24.127.196.139 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)killer|Secret killer]] (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthropologically speaking, Hispanics are a mix of prehistoric mongoloid immigrants (native American people's) with caucasoid (especially Spanish/portuguese) immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.33.203 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthropologically speakign what you just said makes no sense.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, The Bell Curve does not use the term "race", but instead refers to ethnic identity. Page 271 : "The studies of 'blacks' or 'Latinos' or 'Asians' generally denote people who say they are black, Latino or Asian– no more, no less." Serotrance (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

Article claims with no citation: "The book also argued for reducing immigration into the US which was argued to lower the average national IQ." Can anyone pinpoint the section of the Bell Curve that says that? Looking up "Bell Curve" and "immigration" in Google showed me this blog post on the National Review posted in 2006 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/134471/charles-murray-immigration/john-derbyshire), where Murray denies ever having published anything on immigration up to that point. Furthermore, nothing he suggests in that article imply that he would restrict immigration on grounds of IQ.Serotrance (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

From a purely logical perspective: Assumed Conclusion

This was a common fallacy when I was doing work in logic at university. It was mainly committed by those of the religious or faith based thinkers in the religious studies program: Assume your conclusion, and then try to prove it without first vetting that assumption itself.

Obviously there are many, many problems with the Bell Curve, and many of them seem foundationally intractable. This leads the logic type conclusion to necessarily be that the Bell Curve's core arguments are inconclusive. Moreover, if even one premise turns out to be false, the entire argument becomes invalid. From what I've read, the soundness of the book is indeed sound, since the authors are smart enough and well versed enough not to make formal logical mistakes. However, many of their premises seem at the very least questionable or flatly false.

Dwdallam (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"the soundness of the book is indeed sound" - o rly? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Using Racial Language in the Entry

Good Day Writer(s),

I wanted to point out that since the article appears committed to showing racism inherent in the book, it would be good not to perpetuate racial categories in the encyclopedia text with words denoting racial categories such as "Black," "White," and such. It would be good to use words such as "racialized" and "racialized as Black, White, etc." instead of those used. These, by contrast, demonstrate the flawed categorization of people into races (hence "racialized").

Thanks to your ears, and a very good day to you all.

Meester Roderick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Racism is NOT inherent in The Bell Curve. That is a logical fallicy which has been trotted out since 1994 and pretty much shot down every time. Doesn't mean there isn't bias built into The Bell Curve sampling and conclusions -- just that calling it racism does not cut it. 10stone5 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The book can be approached on its own terms, and critiques of the book for the purposes of updating this article can be cited to their specific language. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead poisoning and the critique of "The Bell Curve"

I am very new to Wikipedia editing, so if this is not the right way to take part in discussing an edit, please inform me what I should be doing instead. Now to the issue at stake. I added to the "Responses to the Bell Curve" section of the "Bell Curve" article, a reference to an article on lead poisoning and the bell curve by Rick Nevin. (And no, I am not Rick Nevin; I am not in his circles; and I don't know him personally.) I simply gave the following reference: "Lead Poisoning and the Bell Curve" by Rick Nevin, 9 February 2012. It was removed. I respectfully request that it be reinstated. It was said that it could be if it could be shown that the article has some traction, and that I should start a new section here.

Well, the lead poisoning angle is certainly not the only way the "Bell Curve" has been critiqued, but it is among the serious responses. The seriousness of lead poisoning with regard to such issues as environmental racism is also put forward in the detailed book "Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution" by Markowitz and Rosner, 2002 (although I don't recall if they refer to the Bell Curve). It was also raised in "The Guardian" by George Monbiot, who did refer explicitly to the Bell Curve controversy: see his article entitled "Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime. It seems crazy, but the evidence about lead is stacking up. Behind crimes that have destroyed so many lives, is there a much greater crime?" January 7, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export. (He also gives various references.)

For that matter, both the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control refer to the effect of low-level lead poisoning on the central nervous system, and especially on children. A report on the WHO website refers to the "disproportionately" bad effect on "poor and minority children". (See the section "Blood Lead Levels in the United States" in the document at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/plpyc/chapter2.htm#BLL.) I presume that WHO and CDC won't deal with things like the "Bell Curve", but Rick Nevin's direct response to the "Bell Curve" was discussed in the British "Guardian" and the "Washington Post" and accepted by the well-known writer and activist George Monbiot, who lists other references. Meanwhile, it is reported in "Metrotimes" that testing has shown that, at this time, 10% of children in Detroit have lead poisoning. (Detroit is among the worst areas in the US for this.) This issue not only has traction; it has fangs; and those fangs are still clamped firmly on our necks.Comvoice2 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no response to this, so I assume that it is reasonable to go ahead and repost the reference to "Lead Poisoning and the Bell Curve."Comvoice2 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove the global bell curve and give it is own page

As the title says!!

as the consensus says!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This (unsigned?) comment is a bit cryptic. I think there was just editorial action in the other direction with good consensus quite recently. I don't think the book The Global Bell Curve is notable enough for its own stand-alone article, given how much of the related reliable secondary sources I read and how little mention they make of that book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I actually think that it might be justified with a stand alone article for the Bell curve, and then an article specifically about the Bell Curve Debates, where this book would fit in. It feels very odd to have a section on a semi-related book in the article on this book, it kind of begs the question why there arent sections for the dozen of other books that participated in the debate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning label on article?

Shouldn't there be a warning label at the top of the article noting that its unbiasedness and accuracy is questionable? I think it's the most biased and misleading Wikipedia article I've seen, and while I was pleased to see in Talk that somebody has noticed this, for Wikipedia's reputation's sake, there ought to be a warning on the article too. Erasmuse (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What specific problem do you think the article has? How would you fix it, and what sources would you use to improve the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gregory Clark as evidence for accuracy of The Bell Curve?

Should we add in the article how Gregory Clark has written many books that are very supportive of Charles Murray's thesis in The Bell Curve and other works? See his works A Farewell to Alms and The Son Also Rises to see that. We could also add that modern behavior genetic research in way of GCTA studies and such by researchers like Plomin have proven hypotheses in The Bell Curve and also Gregory Clark's own works. 74.14.75.200 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

see in particular WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE / WP:GEVAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis doesn't particularly apply in this case, neither do the other two because Gregory Clark is a mainstream and valid researcher, i.e. not fringe74.14.75.200 (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Without sources that state " GCTA studies and such by researchers like Plomin have proven hypotheses in The Bell Curve and also Gregory Clark's own works" our claiming that X supports The Bell Curve is indeed inappropriate SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment that opens this talk page section makes me wonder how carefully you are reading the works of Robert Plomin, many of which I have at hand here in my office. Do you have a copy of the latest edition of his co-authored textbook on behavior genetics, as I do? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Judging from the article about Clark it does seem that he is considered a fringe figure in the field of economic history. Has he written anything particularly notable about the Bell Curve? We cant just add links to books that makes similar points without there being an explicit and notable connection.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark is NOT a fringe figure, in fact, no review of his book dismisses him as that and neither are there any overtly critical reviews of his book - and Weiji, I think you're obfuscating the real arguments that Plomin's research supports, just read the conclusions of his published studies74.14.73.162 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"casual observation suggests that reviewers have pointed to at least one distinct fault in the book for every two pages or so". Maybe you shoukld try to read his wikipedia article. In anycase his status in the field is irrelevant unless the two primary conditions for inclusion are met namely 1. relevance for article topic demonstrated by sources and 2. notability in relation to article topic demonstrated by sources. You havent even begun to address these two issues. Show some sources that demonstrate why Clark is relevant for an article on the Bell Curve.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede, took this out

"...and that this is a dangerous social trend with the United States moving toward a more divided society similar to that in Latin America." Find a proper citation, then if this conclusion is provable, go ahead and place back in lede. 10stone5 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is in the book. But dont have it on me right now.. But if you do a google search, is seem to be the true enough. But I will get the book in my hands in a day or two.MicroMacroMania (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Volunteer Marek, you need to explain your recent revert. I gave a clear, highly detailed explanation for my edits. WP:UNDUE covers the removal of material that is only incidentally or indirectly relevant to the subject of an article. It's both rude and inappropriate of you to revert them without comment. Reverting edits without comment only leads other editors to assume that you have no real rationale for making such reverts, and that in turn may encourage them to revert you right back - though I'll refrain from doing that for the moment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You're removing well sourced text. You explain.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again: I gave a clear, full explanation of my edits. You could not possibly have missed it. Or did you not even read my edit summaries before reverting me? Would you usually not read an edit summary before reverting an edit? The material I removed was undue here, and that's an excellent reason for removing "well sourced text." There's no policy anywhere that says one can't remove "well sourced text." It's appropriate to do that in many situations. The material was barely relevant to the subject of the article. I understand of course that it's appropriate to mention criticism of The Bell Curve that has appeared in other books, but it's definitely not appropriate to have mini-articles about those books within this article, thereby straying from the article's actual subject. Your revert was altogether inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the material is relevant; at very least one of the two books is clearly a direct response to The Bell Curve. I have restored a compressed version of the original text and hope that this constitutes an acceptable compromise. HGilbert (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to find a compromise, but I think that the material that was restored here strays too far from the article's actual subject and that TheRedPenOfDoom was right to remove it. The article is about a specific book, after all, not the whole history of thinking about race and IQ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Structure of article

I see another editor is wondering how to title the section about how the book The Bell Curve was received after publication. Those section headings are not mandatory, and indeed the structure of a Wikipedia article about a book is flexible, as what structure is appropriate for the article depends on what book the article is about, but in general following Wikipedia editorial conventions (they are not rules) on how to build an article about a book is friendly to readers. I think we may have to split out into a separate article a mention of another book, The Bell Curve Wars, which is notable in its own right. There are other issues regarding the structure of this article that we can discuss amicably here, and I invite other editors to express their opinions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with a split. There is enough material to do so. But let’s wait for more response. Furthermore the lead says it talks about unplanned pregnancies, that is wrong. The actual topic is birth out of wedlock. MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Should there not be a “popular reception” section?

There should be a split – I also feel that the article is poorly structured and that the “race and intelligence” section should certainly be split up into subheadings. One subheading should contain the supportive articles such as those of Sowell, whilst since the criticisms of critics seem unlike each other, it would be good to have the criticisms of Konner, Chomsky, Dennis and Lane as further subheadings.

Also, a section on the popular response to The Bell Curve is missing, but should it not be discussed how the book was received by the general public??

For instance:

1. How many copies did the book sell on its first printing??
2. Did it increase popular interest in or knowledge of IQ??
3. How widespread was The Bell Curve’s mass popularity if it ever achieved any??

(Luokehao), 03:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If you find sources for that informaiton we can include it. I am not familiar with any.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)