REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION 37
in bamboozling scientists with ordinary stage magic, because only
scientists are arrogant enough to think that they always observe with
rigorous and objective scrutiny, and therefore could never be so
fooled—while ordinary mortals know perfectly well that good per-
formers can always find a way to trick people.) The best form of
objectivity lies in explicitly identifying preferences so that their in-
fluence can be recognized and countermanded. (We deny our pref-
erences all the time in acknowledging nature's factuality. I really do
hate the fact of personal death, but will not base my biological views
on such distaste. Less facetiously, I really do prefer the kinder La-
marckian mode of evolution to what Darwin called the miserable,
low, bungling, and inefficient ways of his own natural selection—
but nature doesn't give a damn about my preferences, and works in
Darwin's mode, and I therefore chose to devote my professional life
to this study.)
We must identify preferences in order to constrain their influ-
ence on our work, but we do not go astray when we use such prefer-
ences to decide what subjects we wish to pursue. Life is short, and
potential studies infinite. We have a much better chance of accomp-
lishing something significant when we follow our passionate inter-
ests and work in areas of deepest personal meaning. Of course such
a strategy increases dangers of prejudice, but the gain in dedication
can overbalance any such worry, especially if we remain equally
committed to the overarching general goal of fairness, and fiercely
committed to constant vigilance and scrutiny of our personal biases.
(I have no desire to give Mr. Murray ammunition for future
encounters, but I have never been able to understand why he insists
on promulgating the disingenuous argument that he has no per-
sonal stake or preference in the subject of The Bell Curve, but only
took up his study from disinterested personal curiosity—the claim
that disabled him in our debate at Harvard, for he so lost credibility
thereby. After all, his overt record on one political side is far
stronger than my own on the other. He has been employed by right-
wing think tanks for years, and they don't hire flaming liberals. He
wrote the book, Common Ground, that became Reagan's bible as much
as Michael Harrington's Other America might have influenced Ken-
nedy Democrats. If I were he, I would say something like: "Look,
I'm a political conservative, and I'm proud of it. I know that the
argument of The Bell Curve meshes well with my politics. I recog-