In The Republic, Socrates fabricates a myth. A myth that, according to Stephen Jay Gould, although designed to preserve a stable society, has unintentionally become the root of biological determinism, and consequentially, Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve. The myth, as told by Gould, states that “Citizens… should be educated and assigned by merit to three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen.” (51). According to Plato, these merits are ordained by God, and inherited by your children. The Bell Curve is a modern interpretation of this fiction, penned to propel a conservative political agenda. The Mismeasure of Man, originally written to eradicate this age-old theory of “biological determinism,” has become the authoritative repudiation against Herrnstein and Murray’s scientific racism. Through the use of concise and thorough research, Gould unravels Herrnstein and Murray’s argument of cognitive stratification and their method of conceptually quantifying intelligence. He asks, can science accurately assess racial distinctions based on intelligence testing? And, more importantly, in what way do social history and politics affect these distinctions?

Herrnstein and Murray base the entire body of their work on the purported accuracy of IQ testing, and more importantly, the test’s lack of racial bias. And, they use historical studies of previous scientists to add validity to their claims: “Among the experts, it is by now beyond much technical dispute that there is such a thing as a general factor of cognitive ability on which human beings differ and that this general factor is measured reasonably well by a variety of standardized tests, best of all by IQ tests designed for that purpose” (372). Moreover, they claim that these tests have improved over time, and therefore, can provide even greater proof of their theory. In other words, historical tests provide the foundation for their platform, while the modern examinations strengthen the structure.

One of these memorable exams is the digit span: “The test is simple in concept, uses numbers that are familiar to everyone, and calls on no cultural information besides knowing numbers. The digit span is especially informative regarding test motivation not just because of the low cultural loading of the items but because the backward form is twice as g-loaded as the forward form, [therefore] it is a much better measure of general intelligence” (Herrnstein and Murray, 283). Continuing, Herrnstein and Murray marry the test’s outcome to attitude, which is ultimately linked to genetics, not environment. They quote, “A typical black youngster, it is hypothesized, comes to such tests with a mindset different from the white’s subjects’. He is less attuned to testing situations (from one point of view), or less inclined to put up with such nonsense (from another). Perhaps he just doesn’t give a damn, since he has no hopes of going to college or otherwise benefiting from a good test score”(Herrnstein and Murray, 283). Herrnstein and Murray criticize all claims that the boy’s attitude is a result of social habituation or a depressed environment. Rather, they deem that the boy’s nonchalant attitude is a by-product of his diminished intelligence and genetics. The boy cannot help but act this way since his outlook is inherited. That they finish their diatribe, by classifying this attitude as a racial distinction belonging to the entire race, is therefore, not surprising. They determine that since this group will never rise above their low IQ, society should not continue to spend precious funds on social programs designed to raise their aptitudes. Why? They simply feel that their aptitudes can not be raised substantially by any environmental factors.

In contrast, Gould dictates that the underprivileged do garner lower test scores because of poverty and social conditioning, a problem not necessarily attributed to an inherited lack of intelligence. Gould states, “In brief, a person’s performances on various mental tests tend to be positively correlated—that is, if you do well on one kind of test, you tend to do well on the others. This result is scarcely surprising, and is subject to either purely genetic (the innate thing in the head that boosts all scores) or purely environmental interpretation (good books and good childhood nutrition to enhance all performances). Therefore, the positive correlation’s say nothing in themselves about causes” (Gould, 373). In other words, truly equal opportunity between castes has never existed, so we should not assume that lower test scores are a result of cognitive ability. There are too many other possible reasons that need to be explored and corrected.

The broad assumption, that these tests are interpreted accurately is a deceptive claim that Gould does not accept. He basically finds weakness with Herrnstein and Murray’s methods of quantifying intelligence, since they fail to “supply any justification for their central claim. How can authors base an eight-hundred page book on a claim for the reality of IQ as measuring a genuine, and largely genetic, general cognitive ability- and then hardly mention, either pro or con, the theoretical basis for their certainty?” (Gould, 372). Furthermore, Gould states, “We make a category error in arguing that because IQ has moderate heritability within groups, the causes for average differences must be genetic” (Gould, 33). Although intelligence is somewhat affected by genetics, it is certainly not the sole contributor to high-test scores. The environment and social conditioning play key roles as well.

Gould continues by chastising Herrnstein and Murray for not attributing both form and strength to their doctrine. He attests that the duo derive all of their data from only one form of analysis, the form of the relationship, while virtually ignoring the other, that of strength. “In violation of all statistical norms that I’ve ever learned, they plot only the regression curve and do not show the scatter of variation around the curve, so their graphs show nothing about the strength of the relationship.” (Gould, 375) The elimination of important factors presents a biased view of an already controversial topic. If Herrnstein and Murray really believe their theories to be impenetrable, why do they fail to expose the whole picture? Gould articulates that it is because the whole picture would fail to harvest political support for the cause of scientific racism. Furthermore, he observes, social prejudice will often seek scientific support, since scientific support can somehow validate beliefs that are otherwise spurious.

Although both sides support a belief that intelligence is influenced by both genes and environment, Gould, purposes that no one can determine how much so. He states, “The truly salient issues are malleability and flexibility, not fallacious parsing by percentages. A trait may be 90 percent heritable, yet entirely malleable.” (Gould, 34) In the same way that eyeglasses work to correct a genetic sight defect, Gould believes that early intervention in education might work to boost IQ. Human beings, he argues, are far too complex to quantify with percentages. Several factors effect a human’s growth and ability, and the outcome should be viewed as a whole, not an immutable percentage of this and that. He feels that it is dangerous and politically irresponsible to assume anything else. If we, as a country, follow these assumptions, he concludes, we will begin to harbor the notion that all men are not created equal. Conceptually, this thought lies in direct opposition to The Constitution, and should never be tolerated within a democratic society. Gould states, “I must therefore conclude that its initial success in winning such attention must reflect the depressing temper of our time—a historical moment of unprecedented ungenerosity, when a mood for slashing social programs can be so abetted by an argument that beneficiaries cannot be aided due to inborn cognitive limits expressed as low IQ scores” (Gould, 367).

Herrnstein and Murray, on the other hand, suggest that percentages can, and should, be applied to the equation. They state, “For the purpose of this discussion, we will adopt a middling estimate of 60 percent heritability, which, by extension, means that IQ is about 40 percent a matter of environment” (Herrnstein and Murray, 105). They cite both recent and historical studies as support for their logical partitioning: “The state of knowledge does not permit a precise estimate, but half a century of work, now amounting to hundreds of empirical and theoretical studies, permits a broad conclusion that the genetic component of IQ is unlikely smaller than 40 percent or higher than 80 percent” (Herrnstein and Murray, 105). Not only do they believe these percentages to be fair and accurate, but they also, more importantly, believe that the percentage of heritability will only increase over time: “High cognitive ability as of the 1990s means, more than even before, that the chances of success in life are good and getting better all the time, and these are decreasingly affected by the social environment, which by extension indicates that they must be increasingly affected by genes” (Herrnstein and Murray, 109-110).

Upon further examination of these percentages, however, Gould unearths an enormous amount of ambiguity. Herrnstein and Murray state, “We are content, in other words, to say that the heritability of IQ falls somewhere within a broad range” (Herrnstein and Murray, 108). Gould argues, however, that if the range is broad, how can it be parsed into predictable sections of 60 and 40? Additionally, Gould quarrels that it is impossible to grasp the impact of socioeconomic and environmental factors in their data, since it is something they have neglected to analyze in a serious fashion.

Gould fears that the unfortunate byproduct of this neglect, to further an agenda, will be the eradication of the human spirit, and the future demoralization of an entire race. By boldly stating that these people cannot rise above an intellect that is preordained, Herrnstein and Murray insinuate that we should stop trying to eradicate our social errors because it is a waste of time and money. The unavoidable outcome of this dangerous point of view is the deletion of hope. If we tell our children that they are incapable of achieving academic success, they will never strive to improve themselves or their quality of life. In turn, this lowered self esteem will result in greater social ill and poverty. This truism will eventually effect all of society adversely, since poverty and social ill generally lead to crime and civil unrest.

Herrnstein and Murray continue to advance their conservative political platform, a platform that they attest is not prejudicial, but rather factual, by condoning the abolition of welfare, affirmative action, Headstart and other social programs for those in need. They further assert that this cessation should be accompanied by the creation of a “custodial state”, which is inventively described as a “lavish version of the Indian reservation” (526). This reservation will be conveniently designed to prevent the genetic victims of low IQ from interfering with the progression of intelligent society. However, Gould questions, should we, as a society, be allowed to subjugate an entire population because they drew an unlucky card in the genetic lottery? Is science being used to support racism? And, if so, when will these myths stop being regurgitated?

The Bell Curve’s mythical regurgitation of this Pygmalion attitude could potentially produce several undesirable repercussions. This type of manifesto, in the past, has led to poverty, social rioting, and genetic cleansing. As Gould quotes, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it” (371). We must not forget that all human beings are the sum of thought and emotion, not the numerical ranking of an inherited IQ. Gould states that “If Herrnstein and Murray are wrong about IQ as an immutable thing in the head, with humans graded in a single scale of general capacity, leaving large numbers of custodial incompetents at the bottom, then the model that generates their gloomy vision collapses, and the wonderful variousness of human abilities, properly nurtured reemerges.” (Gould, 377) The fact that there are no easy answers to these complex questions regarding race, intelligence, and social commentary, does not excuse the blatant misuse of scientific data to further biological racism. To quote Darwin, “If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” (Gould, 19).