Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth [Hardcover]

"Inequality by design" is written by six sociologists based at the University of California, Berkeley. It exposes Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's notorious "The Bell Curve", a bestselling book published in 1994 which argues that social inequality is based on hereditary intelligence and therefore inevitable. "The Bell Curve" also claims that Blacks and Hispanics are on average more stupid than Whites and East Asians. That such a screed could become a bestseller, apparently selling hundreds of thousands of copies, may say something about contemporary America.

When I first heard about Herrnstein's and Murray's book, I assumed that IQ tests are legitimate, and that the distortion of "The Bell Curve" was simply that the book claimed that IQ was hereditary rather than learned. "Inequality by design" shows that the rabbit hole goes deeper, much deeper. It turns out that "The Bell Curve" is more or less a hoax, and so is the entire "science" of psychometrics it's based on!

In an unguarded moment, Herrnstein and Murray admits that their measure of IQ only explains "less than ten percent and often less than five percent" of the differences in life outcome of the test takers. (Read that again, slowly.) In other words, more than 90% of the differences in life outcomes are *not* explained by the AFQT, the test used in "The Bell Curve" to measure intelligence! Their entire case is therefore bogus. Herrnstein and Murray created a mountain out of a molehill. Further, it turns out that the bell curve itself is an artificial construct. Psychometricians simply assume that the distribution of intelligence in a population is shaped as a bell curve. In reality, the individual test scores on the AFQT don't look like a bell curve - a substantial proportion of the test-takers answered all or most questions correctly. Indeed, 20% of White respondents got all answers right, but on the bell curve, only 5% are counted as "the cognitive elite". It also turns out that the very definition of IQ is problematic. IQ is simply what IQ tests measure - thus, a circular definition. Ironically, if IQ is defined in this way, it's impossible to explain why IQ scores have risen substantially after World War II, too short a period for genetic changes to take place (remember that Herrnstein and Murray believe IQ to be in large part heritable).

"Inequality by design" also reveals what kind of questions the AFQT really includes. (The AFQT is a test administered by the US army to applicants.) The questions turn out to be high school level math and English questions, in other words, questions that measure how well the applicant has mastered a certain kind of curriculum. They don't really measure general intelligence. Of course, Herrnstein and Murray believe that how well somebody does in school is itself a product of hereditary intelligence. But that argument works only if everyone taking the AFQT has been exposed to the same curriculum in schools of the same quality, which is hardly likely. Indeed, older test subjects tend to score lower than younger ones, which is incomprehensible on the heredity view, but compatible with the idea that the AFQT simply measures exposure to high school education. The older test subjects have started to forget what they were taught in high school. There are other curious anomalies in the AFQT, for instance test-takers who didn't respond to any (!) of the questions correctly, or test-takers that were obviously mentally retarded. Also, the scores tend to get lower on the subtests administered later, naturally enough, since the applicants would have been tired by then, and a higher percentage would simply drop out. Whatever the Armed Forces Qualifying Test measures, it's obviously not "intelligence".

In the chapter on race, the authors point out that IQ scores (and/or school results) are always lower for discriminated groups than for groups with superior social status. This is true globally, even when the different groups are of the same "race". For instance, Koreans in Japan score far below average on school tests, naturally enough, since they are a discriminated underclass group. In the US, by contrast, Koreans score about the same as the Japanese (above the White average). Also, Burakumin in Japan have lower test results than Japanese, despite the fact that the Burakumin *are* Japanese. They are descendants of an out-cast group in feudal Japan, and are still discriminated against in many areas. International comparisons also show that when discrimination becomes less widespread, the IQ of the formerly out-cast groups rises very quickly. A good example are the Jews in the United States. Thus, social rather than genetic factors are behind the seemingly damning differences in IQ between different "races". (Leaving aside for the moment that there is no such thing as "race" anyway.) Incidentally, while average Black IQ scores are lower than White ones, Black IQ has nevertheless been steadily rising since World War II, obviously because of the rise of a Black middle class, and obviously not because of widespread intermarriage with Whites!

Other chapters in "Inequality by design" deal with the real causes of inequality, how improving the social environment can boost intelligence, and an alternative analysis of the AFQT.

In my opinion, the book is a good and relatively non-technical introduction to its subject, suited for the general reader.

"The Bell Curve" is a monumental hoax. This book proves it.

Fischer et al. launch a reasoned yet devastating critique on
methodological grounds of Herrnstein & Murray's infamous
_The Bell Curve._ The first half of the book details technical
errors and ommissions from TBC, offering three distinct
arguments against Herrnstein & Murray's basic claims, all
using the same data they used in _The Bell Curve._ Then
the second half of the book offers a substantive proposal
for understanding income and wealth inequality in the United
States, rooted in the same data Herrnstein & Murray used.
Highly recommended.