Isegoria

In “You Have To Tell The Truth” — The Bell Curve After Ten Years, Steve Sailer presents “ten points about The Bell Curve that remain important today.” His fourth point stands out: Contrary to the detractors’ myth, relatively little of The Bell Curve concerns race.

The first 126 pages described “the emergence of a cognitive elite” via the higher education system. The heart of the book is the next 142 pages on “cognitive classes and social behavior,” which examines the impact of IQ on poverty, schooling, unemployment, family, crime, and so forth. Here, Herrnstein and Murray looked only at data drawn from non-Hispanic whites — to avoid confusing the effect of IQ with that of race.

Then, from p. 269 to p. 315, comes the much-denounced Chapter 13 on “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability.” Murray and Herrnstein carefully step through the evidence, pro and con, and reach the following judicious conclusion:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.

That’s it — the conclusion to the chapter that launched a thousand screeds. Not surprisingly, it’s almost never quoted.

Jane Galt takes a surprisingly non-Randroid — given her nom de plume — looks at poverty in Perish the poor:

My own thoughts on welfare reform: it’s clear to me from the research I’ve done to write about poverty, and from reading books like DeParle’s, that the poor suffer from three main problems: their own poor impulse control or decision making; a culture that encourages poor decision making; and limited means, which give them no buffer against the results of their poor decision making.

Liberals want to change the third variable, but this is somewhat recursive. As long as our society offers housing to everyone who needs it, the poor will be stuck living with people whose bad behaviour makes them impossible neighbours … so that even if the housing stock is physically perfect, crime and various other sorts of antisocial behavior that flourish in a world without evictions make the housing for the poor actually unbearable. Also, if people have very bad problems, such as mental illness or drug addiction, no reasonable amount of cash will improve their lot without adding things like forced institutionalisation. The people with those problems, unsurprisingly, are the overwhelming majority of the truly immiserated poor, who have rotting housing, insufficient caloric intake, and so forth.

Conservatives, by and large, want to change the first two variables, and there’s a lot to this. There’s simply no question that welfare enables women to make short term choices that are all right in the short term (dropping out of school, having a baby out of wedlock), but disastrous in the long term. Enabling women to make awful short term choices means enabling some proportion of them to ruin their lives.

But it’s not enough to say to these women ‘Get married’ or ‘Ignore your friends and pay attention to school’. Some extraordinary people do, of course, but we all tend to overestimate how easy it is to be that extraordinary. Most of us reading this blog, after all, went to college and/or got nice steady jobs because we had enormous social and familial pressure on us to do so. How many of us were strong enough to overcome our environment, drop out of high school, and sell drugs?

(Hat tip to Virginia Postrel’s Dynamist Blog.)