This one is probably the most controversial.

One answer to this was proposed by Herrnstein and Murray. Herrnstein and Murray published The Bell Curve, an 800 page book that basically (though this is grossly oversimplified) argued that IQ (which they argue is pretty much the same thing as intelligence) is genetically determined (or at least 60% of it is), and as a result, cultural efforts to raise IQ scores (make people more intelligent) are doomed to fail. They go further to say that, basically, stupid people will always be with us, and this is the result of their stupid genes, and so we should stop spending money to change their intelligence because we can't change their genes (with programs like cultural enrichment, Headstart, tutoring…).

Further, they link low IQ (low intelligence) to criminality, violence, welfare dependency, and a host of ills. It so happens, they note, that the low IQ (less intelligent) group is composed mostly of ethnic minorities because of their stupid genes. The average IQ they report for African Americans is 85, Latino Americans is 89, whites is 103, Asian Americans is 106, and Jewish Americans is 113. The 15 point gap between black and white IQ test scores, Herrnstein and Murray would argue, is due to the genetic inferiority of African Americans. What's more, they claim, low IQ minorities are having more and more children, lowering the average IQ for America. The resulting doom this spells out for America is serious, as we are headed for a social reorganization. There will be IQ "haves" and "have nots," which will be represented in the "haves" leading America, having all the wealth and advantages, and being mostly white, and the "have nots" continuing to be poor, stupid, and mostly minority.

They were certainly not the first to argue this. Jensen, in 1969, published a 122 page article offering the same. This resulted in considerable debate (remember, schools in the South were only starting to become desegregated then), and the term "Jensenism" entered the dictionary. He has been a respected scholar conducting extensive research, been a spokesperson for scientists who dare to raise the unsavory questions, and maintained that genetic differences would not determine a social policy. Herrnstein and Murray went further than he did, but he would seem to agree with them.

Gardner notes that there are some strong points to the book; for example, Herrnstein and Murray correctly criticize the mixed messages the government sends in its complex and contradictory social policies (e.g., like penalizing poor families who try to support themselves by providing less support). They close the book with a set of ideas for a miracle cure, a society where everyone contributes according to their cognitive means, but also knows their place. However, whether the book accurately describes the problems we face, and whether the solutions offered are possible or even desirable, is all up for debate.