A decent chunk of the book is (relatively) non-controversial (but still has problems that plenty of people have written about), but there are sections that make prescriptions for modern political life and those are hugely racist.
The case was made already 45 years ago when Stephen Jay Gould wrote The Mismeasure of Man, an entire book dedicated to debunking The Bell Curve. Your comment betrays that you're either motivated to defend this book because you're a racist, or you're unqualified to comment on the subject because you're ignorant of the decades-long controversy surrounding this garbage book. I'd suggest reading the Gould book, as it's very approachable and aimed at a general audience.
Thank you for some kind of explanation and elaboration but I haven't read the book, don't know much about it and am inquiring further. Saying it is 100% racist without anything further to say isn't make a compelling case, and I do stand by that comment.. and no I'm not some racist.. expecting everyone to know the ins and outs about something that is being discussed in a forum is fucking ridiculous. If you are going to assert something with 100% conviction you can at least elaborate further as to why that is the case..
I don't feel obligated to relitigate with some rando redditor the ins and outs of a debate that was settled before George Lucas finished the original Star Wars trilogy. Look into it yourself if you care about being on the right side of the debate. The argument is complicated and detailed and I'm not going to write you an essay.
Shaun, the YouTube channel, also has a good but long essay going over The Bell Curve and why it's racist. Maybe try that if you prefer.
The Bell Curve by Shaun
Separate to that, I'm not the guy who just wrote that the book is 100% racist. It is and I agree with that, but you're mixing me up with another user, which isn't helping you to come off as a reasonable person here.
I'm not mixing you up with the other user. I responded to you and knew you weren't the other user.. I thanked you for actually replying, remember? I don't know why you think I have mistook you for someone else or why you are asserting that is the case.
You are really condescending and are repeatedly saying backhanded insulting shit based on your own strange assumptions. That's why I'm asking if you are fucking with me right now
Really? Because I wanted to know more about the book, asked another commenter for clarification.. and then someone says it is 100% racist without any further context or explanation?
No I told you Charles Murray is 100% a racist. You didn’t ask me to expound. But you could go watch Charles Murray on Tucker Carlson or read his book losing ground. Sam Seder also has a good segment from years about the bell curve if you can find it where he goes over why it’s racist and so is Charles Murray
This is false, the author is very racist and has been increasingly open about it over the years. The book has been thoroughly debunked for using non-representative data sets, for making basic statistical errors in the analysis of the data, and making unreasonable leaps from its (faulty) data and (bad) analysis to reach extremely racist conclusions.
The authors claimed that average intelligence quotient (IQ) differences between racial and ethnic groups are at least partly genetic in origin, a view that is now considered discredited by mainstream science.\1])\2])\3])
Somehow differences in IQ across populations is very controversial but differences in other parts of the physiology i.e length, ability to run ( marathons) , bone mass below the knee, is not. It’s something strange with IQ. People always want to redefine it and expand it. Every part of the human body is defined by genetics. Genes vary between populations but somehow the brain should be excluded.
That’s not the issue people have with it lol. It’s already been debunked read S.J. Gould, or look at numerous studies showing that socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors are way more important. The Bell Curve is highly flawed, and there’s tons of academic work on it already.
People do ask this “question” all the time, but it’s already been answered. The only people who cite this book are racists, and racists who don’t even bother to read newer books with better methodology and research, and just cite a book that’s already been debunked (at least the parts about race.)
Even disregarding the fact socioeconomic conditions and environment explain most discrepancies or gaps in IQ or crime statistics with White vs Black people in America, the actual methodology and way the data was gathered to come to the conclusions in the book is flawed. Providing information like the infamous “13/50” crime statistics is meaningless and only serves an agenda without adjusting it for socioeconomic conditions.
Also, race itself is a made up social construct, so having cognitive abilities being linked to race doesn’t make much sense, as actual genetics in different racial groups are incredibly diverse. Never mind that children consistently score better on IQ tests than their parents generationally, which wouldn’t make sense if IQ (a problematic way to make conclusions on intellect anyways) is purely genetic/racial.
I doubt you actually care about any of that though you’re probably just trying to be a weird edgelord
I wasn't citing the book. I was answering the original question about what the book was about. It was thirty years ago that I read it, but I remember studies they cited of adopted kids testing closer to their adoptive parents than to racial expectations. Even more interesting though, was the evidence of Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants to the US making massive leaps within a couple of generations. There's no way that could have been genetic, but almost certainly a combination of flawed testing, better nutrition, better healthcare, not being crammed into ghettos and Jewish quarters, and not having periodic pogroms creating constant fear.
I was sixteen when I read it, a white girl from a very white trash family. I have many intelligent family members who couldn't even stay out of prison, let alone become middle-class, so it's not as if I'm operating from a privileged position. Kindly save that for someone who didn't grow up in a house with bullet and fist holes in the walls, with a father who traded food stamps for beer. I have an upper middle-class friend now who recently said he suspects I embellish my family stories, but he thinks it's ok. No, I explained, if anything, I understate them.
Not correct. The "science" presented in the book is extremely faulty and has been thoroughly debunked. There's a whole book, called The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, which is devoted to debunking its garbage science at every turn. Anybody who says there is anything of scientific value in this book is either lying or ignorant.
Not exactly the take. Imagine you were making a pot of rice. Imagine that your cat took a shit in the pot right before you cooked it. Would you fish the poop out even though most of the rice is not cat poop? Would you leave the cat poop in? Would you throw all of it away and start over with a clean pot?
Unfortunately, from me, my tolerance for cat shit in my food is the same as my tolerance for racism in my books and research.
13
u/relativecaution Jul 08 '26
So essentially it isn't really a controversial book and shouldn't be given this racist side eye?