Numerous spin-off books have followed, including a republished book by
Herrnstein and Murray (1996), and a set of bolder claims by philosophy
professor, Michael Levin, of City College in New York, in his book, "Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean" (1997).
Professor Levin's book has been criticized for being "the latest book that
attempts to establish an intelligence 'pecking order' that is delineated by
race." I have not read Levin's work myself, but I did read all 17 reviews
of it posted on Amazon.com, which give a pretty good clue to its content.
Apparently, Levin was mugged many times in New York, and he responded by
writing an "objective" denunciation of "blacks" for being genetically
impulsive, unable to learn.
The so-called "bell curve" controversy is over "intelligence-quotient" (IQ)
testing. Comparisons of standardized Stanford-Binet IQ tests purportedly
show average IQ for "blacks" falls "below" the averages of similar test
scores administered to "whites" and to Asians. Not surprisingly, racists
have a field day with this proposition. For a quick review of the
allegations, I refer readers to a succinct, slyly racist, summary of the IQ
bell curve claims, at "Mainstream
Science[?]" (White Supremacist: www.stormfront.org. This reprinted
article is attributed to a 1994 edition of the Wall Street Journal.).
One Amazon reviewer chided Professor Levin's ignoring historical
counter-evidence of his insinuations about "blacks." Reportedly, Levin puts
great stock in data that blacks outnumber whites in prison, for instance.
But the reviewer and I remember when it was the other way around. Levin
takes no notice, reportedly, of the dramatic changes in black society
beginning in the 1960's, which we also remember, nor of the other social
factors unique to blacks. Clearly, Levin ignores the detrimental influence
of enslavement, which left blacks with (a) virtually no remembered African
culture, and (b) an ingrained "One-Drop" tradition of identifying as the
pariah caste. Symptoms might show, I think, in a people stripped of
cultural roots, brutalized for generations, and reduced to society's genetic
refuse pit -- forced, that is, to miscegenate with all sorts of outcast
humanity -- racially defined by the "taint," however slightly, of (their)
"black" blood. (I.e., prior to mid-1967 "One-Drop" was enforced by law.)
Conceivably it might be challenging even to youngsters living this near to
that period in history to throw off altogether feelings of having been
called pariah, and to feel equally "positive," knowing one's ethnic
definition was and remains ultimately "negative." For vivid reflections on
the degradation invoked with the name "African-American," read Professor
Vernellia Randall's essay, On Obsession or When
Being Black is not Enough!
Historically, this same old chestnut of offset racial IQ bell-curves has
hung around unresolved whether "nature" or "nurture" since the U.S. Army
first tested World War I recruits on the Stanford-Binet "Alpha" in 1914.
Even as early as 1910 psychologists had recognized cultural biasing of IQ
test results.
In 1948 the California Supreme Court deciding
Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 -- the pioneering
decision first overturning anti-miscegenation laws (in California) as
violating Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights -- noted the allegation
of IQ differences was then still hanging around unresolved. That is, the
uncertainty whether all IQ differences might not be attributed to "black"
children's underprivileged environments remained unanswered, and the Court
stopped the state's prohibiting interracial marriages on that ground.
After all this time, the same question still lingers. However, in science
the burden of proof is on proponents. If bell curve racers cannot resolve
this nature-nurture ambiguity after nearly a century, I think we rightly
should insist that they shelve their slanderous claims and go back to the
drawing board.
I doubt it will end so easily. A quick review: Standardized IQ tests are
compiled from a series of more or less abstract mental and verbal exercises,
which have been validated (albeit on samples) so as to attempt to relate to
a whole human population as a normal distribution (aka "bell curve") of
individual IQ test scores. Like the pioneering Binet, most psychometrists
continued to be "white" guys. Not surprisingly, they created IQ tests
normalized for "white" kids. "White" kids average 100 IQ. No surprise.
The test was written so they would -- it was designed around "white" kids.
There was no way of knowing how "bright" white kids were except by designing
a test which showed them averaging a score of 100. The way the IQ test
works, above and below average "whites" (rarer, less frequent) trail off
evenly from both sides of the central mean, in a normal distribution.
Graphing such a normal distribution plots a wide "bell curve," with the mean
average in the center at the thickest (i.e., most frequent) part. The
controversy arose when someone sketched separate, overlapping bell curves
composed only of IQ scores of "black" and Asian kids. It was claimed the
"blacks'" mean fell some 15 points below 100, and the Asian kids' mean lay
somewhere around 103. Several far-right university professors have
speculated that part of the inequality is "genetic." Of these a few
published yellow journalism-like books, attempting to make money. Their
gleeful conclusion -- "black" kids are born dumber somehow then "whites" and
Asians. This is not science.
So far as I know, several flaws in the bell curve comparisons have not been
publicized. Here they are. By the way, before I start, let me mention that
prior to getting my law degree, I took my bachelor's in psychology, with
emphasis on experimental statistics and psychometry (California State
University, San Diego, 1974).
First, the IQ test was created to measure individual "intelligence," not
group "intelligence." IQ competition by group means is an afterthought, an
activity of amateurs. (Have you ever heard of a little knowledge being
dangerous?) Many tests developed over the years tried vainly to compensate,
and be "culture-free," but I know of no instrument designed to test
"intelligence" across groups. The IQ test is crude ("not used as directed")
when so employed.
Second, selecting groups to compare for something as ill-defined as
"intelligence" on "race," seeking "inherited difference" is triply
problematic. This is only partly because of the difficulty defining "race."
Especially in America, finding "pure" samples of "black" and "white," free
from contamination with each other's genes is impossible.
Third, real scientists in this human-measuring (psychometry) field (not
visiting scientist-dilettante amateurs, such as the late William Shockley)
know that in this area, culture is everything.
Maybe efforts to create a so-called "culture-fair" IQ test continue as
undergraduate classroom exercises. However, by 1950 phychometrists had
essentially despaired of ever separating out culture from any sort of
universal human "intelligence" measurement. In the third (1968) edition of
her 1954 book, Psychological Testing (Macmillan Co., London), Anne
Anastasi observed, "Every test tends to favor persons from the culture in
which it was developed." (Id., p. 251.)
Anastasi noted, for instance, the extreme sensitivity of language ability.
In fact, she noted, studies showed bilingual persons with good English
mastery in ordinary matters -- even American-born of foreign parents --
disadvantaged. "Such persons may lack the monolingual's vocabulary range,
verbal fluency, or facility in handling verbal relations in English."
(Id., at p. 243.) It does not take a Nobel laureate to remember many
"black" children speak Ebonics at home, and are functionally bilingual for
IQ testing purposes.
Also, "... Goodenough and Harris (1950, p. 399)," observed Anastasi,
"expressed the opinion that 'the search for a culture-free test, whether
of intelligence, artistic ability, personal-social characteristics, or any
other measurable trait is illusory.'" A view reaffirmed by Harris in
his 1963 book. (Anastasi, supra, at p. 250, my italics.) These
findings were made in solid Jim Crow years, long before anyone's "political
correctness" might be alleged to impeach these scientific conclusions.
Fourth, use of collections of test scores for testing (i.e., scoring,
comparing) mean averages this way is nothing more or less than a bizarre
team sport! When teams are pitted against each other in sporting
competition it is not unknown to have "winners" and "losers." The bell
curve races actually show teams moving up and down in the rankings: Both
Asians and Jews climbed up from the pits where they were found in the
1920's. Teams suffering losing streaks are not unknown in sports. Why
should we despair of the "Black" Team ever topping the IQ Olympics? Do we
customarily blame only team members when a team suffers losses? Do we never
blame the school or the coach? Why should it be different with the IQ
competitions? Maybe "black" kids would play better IQ if they were kindly
told they were playing on a team against "white" and Asian kids --
not merely suffering a lonely testing of their individual strengths. Aren't
"black" kids "naturally" competitive? Telling them IQ is only a sport might
work wonders.
On topic, the PBS Frontline documentary "Secrets of the S.A.T.," aired
Tuesday night, October 5, 1999. There, researcher Christopher Jencks
observed, African Americans are "hounded" by the knowledge of a "performance
gap" -- they tend to score 100 points below whites on the S.A.T. college
admission test. The program also showed Stanford psychologist Claude
Steele's new experiment. Steele demonstrated a handicapping effect which he
called "stereotype threat." Black sophomores were told an experimental test
measured "verbal and reasoning ability," and that whites do better on it.
Steele found, merely this instruction-situation caused black subjects'
performance to drop 16-20 percentage points. High-achieving blacks who
cared "very much" about doing well were the most devastated! By contrast,
matched control blacks, told "the test is an unimportant research tool,"
performed the same as whites did. Steele reproduced the stereotypical Asian
"superiority" over white on the same experimental design. (Could Prof.
Steele have uncovered the working of the hex/jinx responsible for the black
IQ and S.A.T. test performance gaps?) Follow these Frontline weblinks for
more information:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/etc/gap.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/steele.html
(My two cents worth: Prof. Steele found "stereotype threat" working
externally, as if a "hex" [my word] heard from the "racist" [my word]
environment. The hex said, "whites test higher than you blacks." A
compounding, internalized "jinx" [my word] was the "hounding" myth "we
blacks test low on 'verbal and reasoning ability.'" Steele skillfully
separated hex from jinx by showing white males gapping below Asians with a
stereotype threat hex saying, "Asians do better on this math test." Steele
showed the white men went into the experiment with no jinx -- they believed
they were good at math. In this way the experiments seemed to show that hex
is far more harmful than jinx. In fact, Steele found high-performing,
"pioneering" students were "devastated" by hex [through trying too hard],
while less-invested, humbler students apparently employed jinx ["I'm not
good at this"] to cushion their egos from hex, and suffered little
stereotype threat gap.
Dr. Steele and his colleagues' researches into the origins of the black jinx
found among other things a defensive shell of racism-suspicion protects
black children's tender egos from white teachers. By contrast, white
children with no such self-protective shell internalize interracial
feedback, pedagogical corrective criticism, at face value, losing none.
Unencumbered, whites apparently learn more.
I noticed Prof. Steele's inclination against merit-testing. He also
revealed no faith diversity ever would return to elite campuses without
affirmative action. He writes in a very lucid, readable style, and I think
his research contributed much to quantifying and analyzing effects which our
common sense can only generalize in words like "hex," "jinx,"
"self-fulfilling prophesy," etc. But I was disappointed with Dr. Steele's
approach to solutions. He found stereotype threat "very hard" to cure. He
neutralized its hex only after telling black experimental subjects the test
was researched and written by blacks. His own prediction was batteries of
studies and programs will be needed in the coming years to devise ways of
closing minorities' various gaps. But I feel it was the height of
professional negligence, with all the appropriate experimental protocol in
place, that Steele apparently never thought to test the efficacy of simply
telling students, "Race doesn't exist!")
Finally -- to really finish off this old intelligence bugaboo -- let us
assume for argument only it really is true: Even assuming the mean
"black" IQ is genetically fixed at about 85 (below "white" & Asian), so
what? As supremacists love to concede, the tell-tale bell curves vastly
overlap. All bells house the same full range of individual IQ scores from
vegetable to genius. The slight asymmetry in the overlap may be attributed
to a few things: Maybe a handful of geniuses skew the Asian mean up to 103.
(Let's compare "black" and Asian. The Asian mean seemingly beats out
"white" these days illustrating the point even better.) Maybe a few total
morons skew the "black" mean down to 85. Maybe both influences apply, or
maybe they work in combination. (E.g., maybe Asian "geniuses" are more
numerous than smart; maybe "black" "morons" are more common than dumb.)
What does not explain the difference is any one-to-one correspondence
between the superimposed bell curves. There is no "twin" 103 IQ Asian for
each 85 IQ "black"; nor can a racist say any "black" is inferior to a
matched Asian. No Asian, for instance, can taunt a "black," saying
something like "Ha! You're my matched "black" twin except you're 18 IQ
points dumber!" That would make no sense. There is no basis for any
"black's" mourning bell curve comparisons. Any inequality of means pertains
to a "team score," not to any individual's IQ, and certainly not anyone's
"worth."
And assuming the inequality of bell curve means exists and reflects
solid, inherited, genetic difference, in what context should it matter to
anyone anyway? People are employed for jobs and chosen as marriage partners
individually for their individual worth. How a bell-full of other people
might score on an abstract IQ test is irrelevant to any choice I know of.
I can think of no closer scrutiny than selection of a marriage partner.
Should an Asian care about "black" IQ bell curve means? No. Because any
"black" found bright enough to marry amply measures up for that individual
Asian. Each person vouches for his/her own genetic heritage. No one
carries a miniature genetic "black bell curve" sagging his DNA 18 IQ-points
beneath Asian DNA. No doubt there lives a perfectly normal 103 IQ "black"
for each "average" 103 IQ Asian (again, the curves vastly overlap). Should
a prudent Asian IQ-test each "black" date? No. We humans are born
evaluators. We each are evolved creatures, after billions of years of life
on Earth, specializing us all in mate-selection. All our senses, indeed our
raison d'être, are refined for the purpose. Our mate-finding
antennae are infinitely more sensitive, for our needs, than any paper and
pencil IQ test. A suitably "intelligent" "black" mate may be discovered for
any Asian (and vice-versa). People do not marry groups, and individuals do
not carry group IQ test scores bar-coded on their genes. Interracial bell
curve IQ competitions are irrelevant to the most important consideration in
life; they are meaningless for all others -- unless, that is -- someone
wants to start a new Olympic sport.
George A. Winkel
Biography: I practice appellate defense law in the California
Fourth Appellate District, the State Supreme Court, and occasionally before
the U.S. Ninth Circuit.
In 1992 Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray first published a book
entitled, "The Bell Curve," alleging IQ test support for the proposition of
significant biological differences between "races" on measures of
"intelligence."
See also Dr. Steele's article in the August 1999 Atlantic Monthly:
www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908stereotype.htmAlso by George Winkel:
 |
 |
©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.