Talk:The Bell Curve

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bell Curve article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 200 days

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Molecular Biology: Genetics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Conservatism Top‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article The Bell Curve, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Section sizes

Section size for The Bell Curve (29 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	4,691	4,691
Synopsis	491	14,433
Introduction	2,643	2,643
Part I. The Emergence of a Cognitive Elite	1,483	1,483
Part II. Cognitive Classes and Social Behavior	4,346	4,346
Part III. The National Context	2,693	2,693
Living Together	1,182	1,182
Policy recommendations	1,595	1,595
Reception	3,171	39,701
Lack of peer review	894	894
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence" statement	2,460	2,460
APA task force report	2,081	2,081
Criticism of assumptions	32	6,095
Criticism by Stephen Jay Gould	1,263	1,263
Criticism by James Heckman	1,795	1,795
Criticism by Noam Chomsky	1,025	1,025
Criticism by Ned Block	1,980	1,980
Statistical methods	2,844	2,844
Use of Armed Forces Qualification Test	2,577	2,577
Cognitive sorting and the "cognitive elite" concept	4,001	4,001
Race and intelligence	9,983	15,578
Allegations of racism	5,595	5,595
See also	65	65
References	33	33
Sources	2,820	2,820
Further reading	2,042	2,042
External links	135	3,065
Interviews with Murray	1,037	1,037
Responses to The Bell Curve	1,893	1,893
Total	66,850	66,850

The Global Bell Curve was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 February 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Bell Curve. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Michael Duffy (August 6, 2005). "Freedom of speech takes a fall". Sydney Morning Herald.

Popular reception?

What seems to be missing from the discussion is how well did The Bell Curve sell? A discussion of how many copies were sold, how many reprints were made, and critics’ assessment of the reason’s behind the book’s commercial success or lack of it are certainly worthwhile. Luokehao, 13 December 2020, 08:09 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.166.49 (talk)

This book synopsis relies on a single source.

Of course the synopsis of a book always relies on one source. Why warn readers about that ? It is silly. 142.189.246.116 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What assumptions does the book actually make?

According to Gould, the book authors assume that intelligence must be:

reducible to a single number
capable of rank ordering people in a linear order
primarily genetically based
essentially immutable

But author Charles Murray said he made no such assumptions

Should we leave it at that? Or can we quote the passages which Gould claims indicate such assumptions?

And on the other hand, are there any passages in the book which refute Gould's claim? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to do original analysis of the text, nor to second-guess reviews by reliable sources. We simply report the verifiable facts, giving competing views due weight. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a view that is now considered discredited by mainstream science" citations are poor

The first citation is a guardian opinion article, it's argumentative and raises valid points, however I do not think it can be considered "mainstream science" as the article is not science, it puts forward a point of view that may have some scientific basis by one person.

The second citation is a vox article which is again an opinion article in a similar style to the first, it's a criticism of a podcast between Sam Harris and Charles Murray, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".

The third citation is an actual published article in a journal, however, it cannot be considered a scientific refutation of the view. It's an observation of how white supremacists use similar articles to the ones that Charles Murray has made to justify their bigotry. It is also a low impact article from a low impact journal, the article itself only has 43 citations, it cannot be considered "mainstream science".

I do not believe that the claim is sufficiently cited. 106.68.123.65 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOSLEAD, the lead does not need to have extensive citations if there are plenty of citations in the main body, as is the case here. Starting with the "Reception" section, I count 35 sources for criticism of the book by mainstream scholars and scientists, several of whom point out how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science: references 12-16, 21-25, 29-30, 33-45, 47-54, and 57-58. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"how far the book is from the methods and conclusions of mainstream science" It is a pseudoscience book, written by two cranks. Is it that much of a surprise that its methods do not work? Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it's a standard, but I don't think that number of references is valid. The claim that it's "considered discredited by mainstream science" should have more to back it up than two opinion articles and an article that literally has nothing to do with mainstream science, with a low impact factor, that literally doesn't make it mainstream science.

If you wanted to back up the claim , you should post a strong systematic review with a good amount of citations (probably 500+). I think that would sufficiently justify calling it discredited by mainstream science. 106.68.123.65 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the wiki guidelines but "mainstream science" and then attaching Opinion pieces is not sufficient evidence, the claim would make a lot more sense even if there was an unofficial survey of intelligence or IQ researchers. Averagepcuser (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to check these sources. As soon as I read that sentence I was suspicious. Referring to science as "mainstream" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific process and is an obvious political tactic. Science isn't controversial. It can't be. It's provable or not.

I knew what this article was going to say before I opened it. Wikipedia has been completely compromised for years. It's amazing they cited a couple of op eds, and a paper on a different topic as the clear evidence the book has been debunked.

I think it's also relevant that the citations were all published between 2018-2022. Meaning it took scientists 25 years to debunk a book and its data that was immediately controversial and remains one of the most despised theories ever put forth.

74.99.70.93 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being recent doesn't mean it took "25 years to debunk", since science is an ever-changing field. It's also naive to act like science "can't be controversial", the scientific process involves debate and discussion that can (and often has, like with The Bell Curve) erupted into controversy. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science can be controversial it's an human endeavor, the purpose of science is to gather as much evidence such no single scientist can ignore it. (although a non scientist will ignore it anyways check; *radical* version of climate denial which denies the temperature data)

Although I agree the use of "mainstream" with opinion pieces citations is misguided like take ,the mention of the article guideline they are using to justify this misuse of citations.

From WP:MOSLEAD

"Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

Like this is vague, where did the consensus form? This is an extemely "controversial" subject so it might require more citations not some weak OPINION piece. (I would like to inform I am just a bystander to this political issue who just got triggered by poor epistemic standards if I am violating wiki guidelines forgive me) Averagepcuser (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The view was never considered credible to begin with so there wouldn't be many sources, if two non-scientists published a book that eating rusty nails was good for you we wouldn't need to link to an article explaining their view was "now considered discredited". The Bell Curve was only ever credible to the casual readers, which is why it's a book and not a paper they published. Galdrack (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something...

Or does this source article [1] not even mention The Bell Curve? Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention co-author Murray once, but in any case the article is cited to demonstrate that the view of "genetic racial IQ differences" is discredited by mainstream science. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, wouldn't it make more sense to cite an article that specifically mentions the material in The Bell Curve? Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the sources

Specifically the 'The Guardian' article by Gavin Evans presents a polemical argument against race science and the claims made in The Bell Curve, but it does not go into specific studies or meta-analyses that directly refute the genetic basis for racial differences in IQ. As it is right now, the part that these sources are attached to adds nothing of value to the page but opens up for a case of it being unscientific, biased, opinionated, and propagandistic. --Vjilk (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrought characterizations of this article's "mainstream science" sentence aside, there is a recent source ^[1] that is a better fit to support this claim (it was already used to support the same claim over at Charles Murray (political scientist)) so I've substituted it in for the Guardian piece. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bird, Kevin; Jackson, John P.; Winston, Andrew S. (November 2023). "Confronting Scientific Racism in Psychology: Lessons from Evolutionary Biology and Genetics". American Psychologist. Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary. ... Despite the veneer of modern science, RHR [racial hereditarian research] psychologists' recent efforts merely repeat discredited racist ideas of a century ago. The issue is truly one of scientific standards; if psychology embraced the scientific practices of evolutionary biology and genetics, current forms of RHR would not be publishable in reputable scholarly journals.

[1] Bird, Kevin; Jackson, John P.; Winston, Andrew S. (November 2023). "Confronting Scientific Racism in Psychology: Lessons from Evolutionary Biology and Genetics". American Psychologist. Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary. ... Despite the veneer of modern science, RHR [racial hereditarian research] psychologists' recent efforts merely repeat discredited racist ideas of a century ago. The issue is truly one of scientific standards; if psychology embraced the scientific practices of evolutionary biology and genetics, current forms of RHR would not be publishable in reputable scholarly journals.

[1]