Gould said he took issue not only with Murray's"post-Romantic" arguments about the future ofAmerica, but with The Bell Curve's basicassumptions as well.

"[The book] is based on a paradox: that trueequality of opportunity would stratify us worsethan ever," Gould said.

Gould said he found three of the book's mainarguments--that intelligence is easily definable,that it can be assigned a number and that it isnot subject to significant change--down-rightwrong. The argument that it is heritable may becorrect but is often misinterpreted, Gould said.

"You simply can't construe something as complexas intelligence that way, as a number," Gouldsaid.

Gould and Murray also clashed over whether todiscuss intelligence on an individual or grouplevel.

"We have a situation in which, yes, there is asubstantial difference in means between ethnicgroups as groups. It is not the end of the world,"Murray said. "It is something which can beproblematic if we make it so. I suggest that weare making it so by treating people as groupsrather than as individuals."

Gould argued that claiming to treat people asindividuals may not rectify group inequalities. Heoffered an analogy to make his case, saying thatone's best friends could be Jewish, but one couldstill subscribe to the stereotype that Jews ingeneral are avaricious.

Toward the end of the evening, Murray was askedwhether he was shocked by the prolific andvitriolic response to the book.

"Dick and I knew from the outset that the bookwas going to be controversial," Murray said. "Onthe other hand, I have to say that the intensityof the reaction has surprised me."

When he was recently talking to a friend inpolitics, Murray added, he expressed unhappinessat the possibility of Senate Majority Leader BobDole (R-Kans.) winning the Republican nominationfor the presidency.

"I know what you can do," the friend said,according to Murray. "Come out for him!