The Corean Chronicles
The Bell Curve Revisited
As Murray and Hernstein, the authors, stated, statistics are not valid for individuals, but well-developed statistics are almost always accurate for large populations. Their statistics appeared to raise disturbing implications in two areas: (1) individuals with higher IQs -- on average -- are more successful in our society, and (2) certain minorities, notably blacks -- on average -- have lower IQs. The authors also claimed that IQ does not change significantly for most people after an early (pre-school) age. Recent research has raised some issues with the last point, but only about the threshold age after which IQ seldom changes, although it seems clear that certainly IQ does not usually change significantly after puberty, and may be determined considerably earlier.
Whether the authors are correct or not should be assessed, not by philosophical predilections or by anecdotal evidence, since exceptions make both bad law and bad policies, but by a broad-based study which addresses such specific issues as:
(1) Is IQ a valid predictor of economic/societal success [not whether it should be, but whether it is]?
(2) If IQ does have validity as such a predictive tool, to what degree is IQ genetically determined, and what other factors can scientifically and effectively be determined to change IQ [i.e., do prenatal care, maternal nutrition, very early childhood education and support, etc., play a significant or a minor role]?
Finally, regardless of causal factors, the authors addressed one simple and basic problem: the fact that, in an information-based hierarchy, those who show higher IQs are more likely to be successful than those who do not. Even if methods and techniques can be developed to ensure all individuals realize their maximum potential IQ, in our society those with higher IQ levels will continue to become an increasingly powerful and self-selecting elite. Isn't that really the controversy? That we have developed a culture where some individuals, no matter how hard-working, will never be among the most successful so long as success is measured by hierarchical power and economic success and that such success requires the skills measured by higher IQs?
We also seem ready to reject any "scientific" method that may indicate some groups will be either more or less successful than others in areas requiring mental prowess, even while we readily acknowledge such inequality in athletic areas. Why? Is it because we are unwilling to admit that most individuals cannot alter their basic mental capacities, and that such capacities are fixed by outside factors and the actions of others?
In the end, much of the controversy over The Bell Curve seemed to have been generated by individuals -- on both sides -- whose beliefs were deeply affected -- those who either wished to use the statistics presented to justify their already-existing negative feelings and actions about minorities or those who rejected those findings because the findings were antithetical to their very beliefs.
Yet, more than ten years after the publication of The Bell Curve, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever addressing the authors' point that, like it or not, economic and professional success in the present-day United States can be predicted largely on the basis of IQ. I have to emphasize that I am not saying this is as it necessarily should be, but the fact that this finding has been quietly buried and remains unrefuted is more than disturbing in itself.
There were studies that provided indirect linkages of IQ and economic success. The direct linkages are between years of education and economic success and between college education majors and economic success. The indirect linkages are between IQ and years of education and between IQ and college major.
The direct Army studies and the statistical evaluations of the indirect education-related studies all show that IQ correlates with success in our advanced society. And why would this be surprising? In what ways (other than some pro sports) could an 85 IQ person earn enough to become upper middle class or rich?
I cannot understand the reluctance of most people to admit that intelligence matters. Everyone agrees that professional athlete Joe's success is due to speed and strength, but they will not agree that electrical engineer Ed's success is mostly due to his 140 IQ.
: 5:03 PM* the facts are unjust, so they can't be true
and
* the facts prove my prejudice is valid
are irrational and unhelpful.
The obvious questions are:
* is this true?
* if so, _why_ is it true?
* what can be done about it?
* do we want to do what can be done about it? That is, can we choose methods of remediation that won't have side-effects worse than what they propose to remedy?
Some simple things might have contributed, and might have largely already been addressed, although it might take a generation to see the improvement. Take early exposure to lead as an example, whether peeling lead paint, or tetraethyl lead in gasoline. Both of those are now prohibited.
Lead exposure, esp. at an early age, is thought to cause significant IQ impairment.
Say that was proven the main factor. Does one really want huge lawsuits against those who manufactured or used lead paint before that particular consequence was known? Or perhaps government mandated regulation of wages to make those unfortunate enough to be of low IQ more prosperous (which usually means taking from those who are succeeding without such redistribution)?
My personal suspicion is that trivial genetic differences are unlikely to account for possibly actual disparities of IQ, given the complexity, versatility, and adaptability of the human brain; and that environmental, nutritional, or (dare one say it) even cultural factors are far likelier culprits. Should that be true, parents that were informed as to hazards and proactive in providing a healthy and stimulating environment would arguably be far more likely to make a difference (being closest to where the problem needed to be solved) than any hypothetical Department of IQ Fairness could ever hope to be.
<< Back to all Blog posts
