I don't remember any diaries on The Bell Curve. If I had time I'd write on it (but it's a long work presenting a lot of tendentious statistics - in particular, suggesting causality after establishing correlation).

You're right that Lindsey's arguments encourage those whose minds are already set in that direction, and it's particularly difficult to change the mindset of those who believe in a level playing field and a perfect meritocracy - that is, those who believe this actually operates (in America, naturally), who don't even see it as a desirable future state. When I said "pathetic", I didn't mean "has no appeal". On the contrary - the call on subjective impressions rather than what Lindsey calls "statistical squid ink" shows careful attention to psychology and the emotions, this guy is a genuine propagandist.

But when they are saying: "you can make statistics say anything", or, "statistics obfuscate the issues", then that means the statistics are not on their side. And when their argument about the concentration of wealth at the top (a point they'd appear to be conceding) is an old Victorian view based on the Protestant work ethic, then they're not coming up with anything new. Hence my feeling that this is a defensive piece of writing.

Sorry I have no ready-made talking points for your discussion with the person who sent you this. If I have time, I'll try to deconstruct the article - or if anyone else wants to have a go?