The depiction of Herrnstein and Murray's the bell curve

Abstract

This short paper records the author's reaction to a review of The Bell Curve that recently appeared in Population and Development Review (PDR), one of the leading demography journal in the world and the only one to have printed a review of The Bell Curve. This response, which was rejected by the PDR, comprises four parts: (1) the PDR reviewer's insistence that psychology is not a social science and therefore its discoveries can be disregarded, (2) the reviewer's (indeed all of social science's) hostile reaction to eugenics, (3) the reviewer's equally hostile reaction to The Bell Curve's demography, and (4) the abandonment by the Population Association of America (PAA) of all study of the qualitative aspects of population, though such studies are firmly embedded in the PAA's constitution. Key Words: Demography, population quality, IQ, eugenics. The following is an extended comment on a review of The Bell Curve, which appeared in Population and Development Review (PDR). This comment was rejected by that journal, on the grounds that the PDR does not publish comments on book reviews. This was very unfortunate because the PDR is the only leading demography journal to have reviewed The Bell Curve and because there were numerous errors in review that needed to be corrected. I am accordingly grateful to The Mankind Quarterly to allow my comment to be printed here. This way, some eyes will see it. For those Mankind Quarterly readers who are not familiar with the PDR review of The Bell Curve, let me explain that the reviewer first summarized what he regarded as the five main points of the book, which he described as follows: 1. One's IQ is more important than one's early socioeconomic circumstances in fashioning a wide variety of adult outcomes (e.g., income, poverty, crime, illegitimacy). 2. The economic payoff to high IQ has increased. 3. Occupational and educational sorting of IQ has grown, the American social structure is becoming increasingly rigid. 4. One's IQ is largely a function of one's genes; efforts to promote environmental betterment hold out little promise for improving the distribution of IQ in the population. 5. The mean IQ of the American population is about to decline, if it is not doing so already, because of fertility differentials by IQ and because of the immigration of persons who have, on average, lower IQs than natives. Having made summary, on which I will not comment, the review goes on to claim that the book does not support this apocalyptic vision, and to present numerous criticisms many of which are in my opinion inaccurate or inappropriate. I was accordingly surprised when PDR rejected my letter of comment. I accordingly reproduce below my letter to the editors of the Population and Development Review, which was rejected, together with some additional explanatory comments. My original submission is reproduced in Roman type, and the additional explanatory comments appear in italics. My submission really needs to be read in conjunction with the PDR review which it is criticizing, and although we cannot reproduce here I hope that the interesated reader may consult the relative issue of PDR and consider my observations in conjunction with the review which I desired to criticize. My Rejected Submission to Population and Development Review, Together with Some Explanatory Comments (These in italics) In Population and Development Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, September 1995, pp. 675-677, Samuel H. Preston reviews Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. I wish to make some comments on that review here. This is imperative because Preston makes not a few errors in his review, errors which are probably common to demographers and others and should be corrected. Also, is the only place where the PDR or any other American demography journal treats The Bell Curve in any kind of sustained manner. …