My academic colleagues are standing in line to join in Bell Curve bashing. In the issue of Dec. 26, Professor Boli has countered my response to his attack on Murray and Herrnstein, and now Professor Armelagos weighs in on Jan. 30. Boli refers to his long review of the book, and he has sent me a copy of it, but I will not make use of it in the present context, because it has not appeared in Emory Report.
Boli continues to believe that the use of racial or ethnic categories in such a study has no scientific legitimacy, and Armelagos joins him in this. (But Armelagos acknowledges that 50 percent of biological anthropologists and 30 percent of cultural anthropologists defend the use of some notion of race; so the topic does appear to be one of genuine scientific controversy.) Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge (as anyone must) that the distinctions between ethnic groups are blurry. They state that they would not even trouble to use such categories except for the fact that precisely these distinctions constitute so much of policy discourse. They observe that all manner of pundits are trying to give an account of the social conditions of various disadvantaged groups, but these accounts are inescapably flawed because they neglect the role of IQ. You can call it "unscientific" to refer, say, to Hispanics; but it is nevertheless possible to make true statements about the results of IQ tests taken by people so denominated, and such information could prove very useful in understanding their social status. Accordingly, it is by no means obvious that it is illegitimate to make the attempt.
Boli says that the correlation between IQ and many other forms of behavior is negligible, but Herrnstein and Murray find otherwise. Until recently, it would have been ordinary common sense to suppose that being smart helps an individual in many ways, and Murray and Herrnstein's research bears this out.
Professor Boli spots still another instance of incomprehensible ineptitude in Murray and Herrnstein's failure to work with a general theory about the conditions of evolutionary history that result in IQ variations. Murray and Herrnstein believe that no such theory is currently available; so it is not clear why they must use one anyway. Scientific investigations take a plurality of forms, largely depending on the current state of a given science. It would be an odd form of science to proscribe experimental inquiries in the absence of a comprehensive theory. Such a theory is not requisite to support experimental hypotheses. In regard to the question of the environmental and genetic constituents of IQ, for example, Murray and Herrnstein point out that East Asians score consistently higher on average than whites on visuospatial tests, regardless of the enormous environmental variations among both populations being tested. This is strong evidence that there is a significant genetic component in these differences. Similarly, studies of trans-racial adoptions show that the IQs of children adopted under these conditions are closer to those of their biological than to their adoptive parents. This, too, is evidence of a genetic component in intelligence. Boli repeats the claim that there is no evidence to support the notion that there is a genetic component of IQ. I recommend to readers that they examine pages 269-315 of The Bell Curve.
When I refer to a general theory of selective conditions, Professor Armelagos seems to believe that I am referring to a theory regarding the nature of race, and then he proceeds to lecture me on how naive I am. But, as just indicated, I have in mind no such theory, nor do Murray and Herrnstein.
Dr. Armelagos not only misrepresents the book, but -- like Dr. Boli -- also asserts that it is a work of moral corruption. He refers to its "reliance" on "patently racist" studies by Lynn and Rushton, without indicating what "reliance" means. On two occasions, The Bell Curve utilizes summaries of data provided by Lynn, but Lynn's work is hardly the Archimedean point of the book. On one occasion (as I indicated in my original discussion), they consider one of Rushton's hypotheses and conclude that the evidence supporting it is inconclusive. (Boli, too, continues to say that Murray and Herrnstein have adopted the Rushton hypothesis.) No evidence is presented by Armelagos to support his assertion that Lynn and Rushton are racists. I wonder whether his evidence is of the same sort that he fashions against Herrnstein and Murray.
Dr. Armelagos might exercise some caution in establishing guilt by association, if for no other reason that it might backfire on him. He approvingly invokes the authority of Richard Lewontin in the latter's critique of The Bell Curve. But Lewontin is a founder of the notorious "Science for the People," whose crusade it was to attack science and scientists not in accord with the principles on Marxism-Leninism. Lewontin did all that he could, for example, to discredit E. O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology. The mere fact that Gould, Kamin and others have also attacked The Bell Curve doesn't prove much either. They also assert that there is "no evidence" that there is a genetic component in IQ. (Murray and Herrnstein hold that Gould and Kamin have simply refused to consider evidence contrary to their exclusively environmentalist theory.)
The charge of moral corruption is predicated on the claim that The Bell Curve cannot be disguised as science. The claim is poppycock. In regard to the intent of the book, I invite readers to examine especially its preface and two concluding chapters.
I have tried to clear the names of two friends of scurrilous charges and at the same time urge that their book is indeed a work of science. Boli and Armelagos deny that it is. The hurried reader might think that the exchanges between us take the form, "Did not!" "Did too!" It is pertinent to point out, "reliance" meanshowever, that if Murray and Herrnstein are to be dismissed as corrupt, then many other reputable individuals must be likewise condemned. In the book by Rothman and Snyderman, for example, The IQ Controversy, the authors polled 1,020 scholars expert in the issues surrounding psychometry on numerous matters, including their opinion about the heritability of black-white differences in IQ. There were five possible answers on the latter point, and the plurality of respondents (45 percent) judged that the difference is a product of both genetic and environmental factors. (The next highest percentage -- 24 -- held that the data are insufficient to warrant an opinion. Only 15 percent believed that the differences are due to environmental conditions alone.) This group of 459 (the 45 percent of the sample) investigators might be mistaken, of course; but is it plausible that all of them are intellectually dishonest, as Murray and Herrnstein stand accused? In The Wall Street Journal of Dec. 13, 1994, is a letter signed by 52 scientists supporting the major findings of The Bell Curve.
To be consistent, both Boli and Armelagos must believe that all such persons are either imbecilic or corrupt, if not both. Let Boli and Armelagos believe what they will. I would suppose, however, that the figures just cited would prompt readers to be skeptical of the sort of wholesale denunciation that has become so common in contemporary discourse and that has been so injurious to free and honest inquiry.
James Gouinlock is a professor in the Department of Philosophy.