LAST YEAR, PROFESSOR RICHARD HERRNSTEIN wrote "IQ" in the September, 1971 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, which generated a huge controversy. Scholars in the fields of genetics and psychology challenged the "scientific" material he used for justification; and criticized his conclusion of a developing meritocracy. In a new article in Commentary magazine in April, 1973 (as well as in a book which appeared this week, IQ in the Meritocracy), Herrnstein merely repeats the "IQ Argument" he set forth last Fall, to paraphrase his three premises:

1) IQ tests are at least adequate measures of intelligence;

2) About 80% of the variance in IQ scores is attributable to heredity; and

3) Earnings and prestige depend largely upon IQ.

The conclusion Herrnstein draws from these premises is that social standing is based largely upon differences among people which are inherited and therefore beyond the influence of social action. Furthermore, this genetic caste system will only become more rigid as stratification becomes more "meritocratic" and less arbitrary.

Let us examine each of Herrnstein's three premises.

1) Is it true that "the measurement of intelligence is psychology's most telling accomplishment?" Herrnstein answers by pointing out how well IQ tests work: "Rarely did a bright child, as judged by the adults around him, score poorly, and rarely did a poor scorer seem otherwise bright."

But which children do adults judge to be bright? In a well-known study, Rosenthal and Jacobson told teachers that a group of primary-school children, in fact randomly selected, were "spurters" of high intellectual potential. Because of the teachers' expectations, these children ended the year with higher IQ s than the "non-spurters."

What IQ tests do, to a large extent, is to label as "bright" or "dull" those children who do or do not meet capitalist society's "expectations": expectations conditioned by racial prejudice and class background, among other factors.

2) Herrnstein's (and Jensen's) figure of .8 heritability for IQ comes almost entirely from a review of studies of identical twins reared apart. Since such twins have the same genes, any variation in IQ must be due to environment. Thus, it is imperative that the twins be raised in independent surroundings if any general conclusions are to be drawn.

In one of the largest studies, however, over half the twins were reared by relatives. For example, "The paternal aunts decided to take one twin each and they have brought them up amicably living next-door to one another..." Another researcher claimed that "his" twins were placed randomly, but his own later data contradict him.

Kamin has demonstrated other problems with the twin studies, including haphazard testing procedures, failure to control for age and sex, and selective rejection of unfavorable data. Finally, the technique of analysis of variance depends on the dubious assumption that environment and heredity act independently upon IQ.

3) The strong association among IQ, educational attainment, and social class feeds the popular myth that American society is a "meritocracy" in which the intelligent and industrious rise to the top.

In a recent article, however, Bowles and Gintis "partialed out" the effects of these three factors on economic success. While class background and education strongly predicted economic success, IQ alone contributed almost nothing to success.

In summary, Herrnstein has not shown that IQ measures intelligence. Even assuming that IQ does measure intelligence, he has not shown that IQ is inherited. And even assuming that IQ is an inherited measure of intelligence, he has not shown that success depends upon high IQ. Thus, he has not given the slightest credence to his conclusion that social standing is based on inherited differences in intelligence.