The Bell Curve and other stuff

An intelligence quotient, or IQ score, is a number used to describe a person’s cognitive abilities, or how smart the person may be. If we were to give an IQ test to a large group of people, we would expect to see that 50% of those test takers would earn a score of 100 – that being the average. We’d also expect 68% to fall within an 85 to 115 range or more or less “normal.” Those below 85 would be considered somewhat retarded and those above 115 would be considered gifted.

Ever read The Bell Curve?

I hadn’t until today and I didn’t actually read the entire book but a condensed version compiled by the author himself.

The condensed version is called The Bell Curve Explained, and it consists of excerpts selected from the book by Charles Murray, one of its two authors; the other being Richard J Herrnstein who unfortunately has passed on.

To be fair, since I was aware of the humiliating public floggings inflicted on Murray because he dared to posit that there is a racial component that impacts IQ test scores, I also read a dissenting view by Diane F. Halpern called, The Skewed Logic of the Bell-Shaped Curve.

Murray has been vilified for some of the book’s conclusions.

Most recently at several colleges, like Indiana University, Middlebury College, and Notre Dame he’s been criticized for holding racist views.

At Middlebury College, it got violent as the protesters shouted protests including, “racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away!” Interestingly, while he’s been called all of those vile things by student protesters, most when questioned, admitted that they had not read the book.

To be sure, parts of the book are devoted to a discussion of the impact of race on intelligence, but unless I just missed it, I saw no mention of sexual orientation, and his findings found little difference in cognitive ability between men and women although he did note that there had been few female philosophers or deep theoretical thinkers.

So, where did the “sexist and anti-gay” components of the student’s chants come from? No doubt from the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) handbook of “Handy Chants for All Occasions.”

Aren’t our institutions of higher learning supposed to encourage thinking for ourselves and listening to diverse opinions before forming one’s own? Isn’t exposure to others unlike ourselves the reason for the diversity being pushed down our throats? Where is the SJW’s diversity of thought?

Ahh yes, I understand: “it’s good for thee, but not for me.”

This is political correctness run amok. Current societal thinking is that we can’t discuss anything that might appear to be even slightly negative toward blacks – no matter its truth or evidence – it’s taboo.

And, since his book exposed evidence which showed that there is a racial component in intelligence (cognitive ability), he has become the high priest of “taboo-ness” – and must be figuratively crucified.

Perhaps a little background is in order so you can evaluate the likelihood of him truly being a racist loon (as some say) or a serious research scientist who books have made some valid points.

Murray is an American conservative libertarian. A political scientist with a B.A. in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Murray spent six years in the Peace Corps and after that worked for the American Institutes for Research (AIR) which was part of a covert counter-insurgency agency run by the U.S. military in cooperation with the CIA, eventually becoming its chief political scientist.

While at AIR from 1974 to 1981, Murray supervised evaluations in the fields of urban education, welfare services, daycare, adolescent pregnancy, services for the elderly, and criminal justice. He went from there to the conservative Manhattan Institute where he remained for nine years

In my view, Charles Murray is only guilty of being a conservative (that’s enough for the SJWs) who has dared to suggest that there may be real differences in intelligence between the races.

Isn’t it interesting that no one is arguing that differences in size, athletic abilities, rhythm, etc. aren’t evident; in fact, they’re celebrated when blacks are seen as superior in those areas? But it’s unacceptable to suggest that there could also be a difference in cognitive abilities that shows blacks to be inferior in that aspect.

Ohhh nooo, can’t even imply that – political correctness bans any such thought (much less say it aloud). It’s ok to state, without equivocation, that “white men can’t jump,” but dare to say that “black men aren’t as smart” and you’ll encounter an overwhelming and unrelenting attack from people of color and their white enabling sycophants.

Let’s be brutally honest. I don’t know if Dr. Murray’s hypothesis is actually true or not. I haven’t done my own rigorous research on the issue – nor am I qualified to do so. But, I am an old dude and I have been exposed to lots of smart and not-so-smart people during my lifetime and I have formed an opinion.

My opinion, after having read Dr. Murray’s condensed version of the book, is that his conclusions are entirely feasible and likely true.

There, that statement alone is sufficient proof (to some) that I am a racist.

The evidence is everywhere. I readily admit that, as a group, blacks are more athletic, just look at the ratio of whites to blacks in the NFL and NBA. Isn’t it entirely feasible that whites may be a little smarter?

Let the attacks commence…



Categories: Political


2 replies

  1. You won’t hear any attack from me, Garnet! Great piece. I’ve never read The Bell Curve either but I’ve heard of it, of course.

    The truth always serves the greater good, while the suppression of truth only serves the interest of a small minority, and even that is usually fleeting. The race hustlers, in addition to having their fragile egos hurt by what’s revealed in The Bell Curve, know that if lower intelligence can be used to explain the socio-economic challenges in the black community that it will be harder to use white guilt to extract money from whites. But the facts don’t lie, and lower intelligence would make logical sense out of the fact that black communities both here and around the world always seem to struggle economically. We might be able to address the problem over time, and this would be in the best interests of blacks over the long term, but the hustlers won’t allow it. They only want what’s good for THEM today. They’re a selfish group.


    • Yep, they’re ignoring what is likely the truth – and which would be beneficial to them further down the line – for, as you suggest, the opportunity to get whitey’s money NOW. The race hustlers are in it for themselves, not for the black people as a whole, and likely don’t really care for the race as long as they get theirs NOW. They are really scum.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: