The Bell Curve perhaps achieved its purpose by sparking academic debate. The subsequent books, replies, articles and popular press coverage that ensued after the release of The Bell Curve was tremendous, to say the least. From an academic standpoint, this can not be thought of as a negative, and I am reminded of the work of Levay and the attention he received to a lesser extent.Seems more like a social, than a scientific, review.The difficulty lies in the fact that soon after the release of the book, affirmative action became a matter of national debate in Congress, as well as in the journals. The politicians cited the book, and took the message to heart. I can recall reading the front page of USA Today, in which the lead article mentioned why psychologists felt as if affirmative action failed. The book reads like a great prosecuting attorney, talking to the jury about the events prior to the day of the crime. The story is long, emotional, selective, and nothing is added to the story unless it helps establish the one point that the person at hand is guilty. From the first chapter on, it is clear that the book is a setup for the later chapters.
The arguments of Hernstein and Murray are to be taken seriously. As Rushton and Jensen have attempted to put forth an agenda of intellectual superiority, so have the authors of The Bell Curve . The claims of intellectual group superiority has held back women and minorities since the mid 1800's (Rollins, 1996). It is hoped that the debates against The Bell Curve put to rest in the claims that intelligence is tied to a gene that is related to skin color.
ps. Skin color (IIRC) is tied to more than one gene, and correlates highest with environment (i.e., intense sunlight).
It may seem like that, but population statistics is science.(I am not saying anything about the conclusions that can be drawn from the data. IOW that is not my bag, I'm merely pointing out that science does make distinctions or attempt to)