To the Editors of The Crimson:

If he really wants to win adherents to his theory of genetic inequality, Prof. R.J. Herrnstein would do well to answer his most competent critics, rather than the oversimplifications and innacuracies he selects for attack in his Crimson article of Nov. 27. That article is addressed to almost every peripheral issue, but is notably barren of cogent argument addressed to the central point: are differences between human beings caused primarily by environment, or primarily by heredity?

Herrnstein shows that I.Q. scores correlate with achievement, but provides no clue as to what leads a person to perform well on an I.Q. test. Encouraging influences from family, friends and teachers might be the major factor, for all Herrnstein says.

Herrnstein further says I.Q. is substantially "heritable," but cites no evidence that distinguishes between inborn heritability on the one hand, and the passing on of family traits by training, on the other. A father with a Ph.D. will naturally encourage his child to read; one who never graduated from high school might even do the opposite. The two widely varying degrees of encouragement will surely show up on any I.Q. test, but does this mean the different scores were genetically determined? Surely not. Herrnstein dodges the issue completely.

In short, the intelligence which Hernstein views as basically innate and "irreplaceable" depends much more on opportunity and encouragement, i.e. on environment, than he even wants to consider. Because it does, society can function better and husband its mental resources more effectively by providing such opportunity and encouragement to all its various groups and classes, not just to a vain elite which credits its biological inheritance for qualities due chiefly to outside influences.

Note that this statement rests not a whit on any disparagement of I.Q. tests. I merely indicate that I.Q. tests do not necessarily measure innate intelligence, as opposed to intelligence due to all factors, innate and environmental. Further refinement and objectification of these tests might improve their power to measure innate intelligence; but for the time being it is inevitable that they reflect training to some extent, if only because they are given in English to many students who speak Spanish or other foreign languages around the home. As a predictor of achievement in an English-speaking society, such tests continue to have value. As scientific proof of supposed inborn inequality, they remain useless. John E. Chappell, Jr.   Research Fellow