A troubling series of columns

Charles Murray, famous (infamous?) for his book "The Bell Curve," has a series of columns in the Wall Street Journal about our need to remember that there is such a thing as innate intelligence, and that our nation would do well to remember that when setting public policy. I agree with part of his argument--a lot of time & pain could be spared if we remembered that not everyone needs to be an engineer, doctor, or lawyer, and that "marginal" college students might be better encouraged to learn a trade instead of going to "The U."

What troubles me, though, is his argument that for many students, this is the best they can do--that many, or most, won't be able to process a logical argument.

I don't buy that. For starters, the most likely place you'll see an egregious ad hominem attack is at the university--and the more elite the university, the more egregious the personal attacks, it seems. Ask Larry Summers (formerly of Harvard) about this one. So for my part, it seems that people are more likely to see some basic logical fallacies when they have less education and less innate ability. In other words, the common Joe is more likely to realize he's just insulting people (and making no point) than Professor Joseph.

Going on, republican government and Protestant theology both rely on the ability of the common man to process logic. For example, if I am a sinner, and sin merits death, I will die unless my sin is somehow removed.

Somehow, both republican governments and Protestant theology have survived and even thrived. I would posit that one big reason for this is that even the "slower" among us can process many arguments--just more slowly than those who are quicker.

In short, thank you, Dr. Murray, for reminding us of the significance of intelligence, but I dare suggest that he makes a little bit too much of it.