History of the race and intelligence controversy

The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate, concerning possible explanations of group differences encountered in the study of race and intelligence. Since the beginning of IQ testing around the time of World War I there have been observed differences between average scores of different population groups, but there has been no agreement about whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or mainly due to some genetic factor, or even if the dichotomy between environmental and genetic factors is a correct approach to the debate.

In the late nineteenth and early 20th century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors predominated. In the mid-1960s, physicist William Shockley sparked controversy by claiming there might be genetic reasons that black persons in America tended to score lower on IQ tests than whites. In 1969 the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published a long article with the suggestion that compensatory education had failed to that date because of genetic group differences. A similar debate among academics followed the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Their book prompted a renewal of debate on the issue and the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the issue. One contemporary response was a report from the American Psychological Association that found no conclusive explanation for the observed differences between average IQ scores of racial groups. A 2012 review article in the journal American Psychologist and a rejoinder to a reply to that article are some of the latest publications prompted by the debate.

History

Early history

Lithograph of a North American skull from Samuel Morton's Crania Americana, 1839. Morton believed that intelligence was correlated with brain size and varied between racial groups[1]
Francis Galton, the English eugenicist who wrote extensively on the relation between intelligence and social class

In the 18th century, European philosophers and scientists, such as Voltaire, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Carl Linnaeus, proposed the existence of different mental abilities among the races.[2] During the 19th and early 20th centuries the idea that there are differences in the brain structures and brain sizes of different races, and that these differences explained the different intelligences, was much advocated and studied.[3][4][5]

Through the publication of his book Hereditary Genius in 1869, polymath Francis Galton spurred interest in the study of mental abilities, particularly as they relate to heredity and eugenics.[6][7] Lacking the means to directly measure intellectual ability, Galton attempted to estimate the intelligence of various racial and ethnic groups based on observations from his and others' travels, on the number and quality of intellectual achievements of different groups, and on the percentage of "eminent men" in each of these groups. He argued that intelligence was normally distributed in all racial and ethnic groups, and that the means of the distributions varied between the groups. In Galton's estimation ancient Attic Greeks had been the people with the highest average intelligence, followed by contemporary Englishmen, with black Africans at a lower level, and Australian Aborigines lower still.[8][9] He did not specifically study Jews, but remarked that "they appear to be rich in families of high intellectual breeds".[9]

In 1895, R. Meade Bache of the University of Pennsylvania published an article in Psychological Review claiming that reaction time increases with evolution.[10] Bache supported this claim with data demonstrating increased reaction times among White Americans when compared with those of Native Americans and African Americans, with Native Americans having the shortest reaction time. He hypothesized that the long reaction time of White Americans was to be explained by their possessing more contemplative brains which did not function well on tasks requiring automatic responses. This was one of the first examples of modern scientific racism, in which science was used to bolster beliefs in the superiority of a particular race.[11]

In 1912 the Columbia psychology graduate Frank Bruner reviewed the scientific literature on auditory perception in black and white subjects in Psychological Bulletin,[12] characterizing, "the mental qualities of the Negro as: lacking in filial affection, strong migratory instincts and tendencies; little sense of veneration, integrity or honor; shiftless, indolent, untidy, improvident, extravagant, lazy, lacking in persistence and initiative and unwilling to work continuously at details. Indeed, experience with the Negro in classrooms indicates that it is impossible to get the child to do anything with continued accuracy, and similarly in industrial pursuits, the Negro shows a woeful lack of power of sustained activity and constructive conduct."[6]

Alfred Binet (1857-1911), inventor of the first intelligence test
Lewis Terman, psychologist and developer of the Stanford-Binet intelligence test
The psychologist Henry H. Goddard had suggested with Terman that "feeble-mindedness" was hereditary

In 1916 George O. Ferguson conducted research in his Columbia Ph.D. thesis on "The psychology of the Negro",[13] finding them poor in abstract thought, but good in physical responses, recommending how this should be reflected in education.[14] In the same year Lewis Terman, in the manual accompanying the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test,[15] referred to the higher frequency of morons among non-white American racial groups stating that further research into race difference on intelligence should be conducted and that the "enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence" could not be remedied by education.[14]

In 1916 a team of psychologists, led by Robert Yerkes and including Terman and Henry H. Goddard, adapted the Stanford-Binet tests as multiple choice group tests for use by the US army. In 1919, Yerkes devised a version of this test for civilians, the National Intelligence Test, which was used in all levels of education and in business.[16] Like Terman, Goddard had argued in his book, Feeble-mindedness: Its causes and consequences (1914), that "feeble-mindedness" was hereditary; and in 1920 Yerkes in his book with Yoakum on the Army Mental Tests described how they "were originally intended, and are now definitely known, to measure native intellectual ability." Both Goddard and Terman argued that the feeble-minded should not be allowed to reproduce. In the USA, however, independently and prior to the IQ tests, there had been political pressure for such eugenic policies, to be enforced by sterilization; in due course IQ tests were later used as justification for sterilizing the mentally retarded.[17][18]

It was also argued that the IQ tests should be used to control immigration to the USA. Already in 1917 Goddard reported on the low IQ scores of new arrivals at Ellis Island; and Yerkes argued from his army test scores that there were consistently lower IQ levels amongst those from Eastern and Southern Europe, which could lead to a decline in the national intelligence. In 1923, in his book A study of American intelligence, Carl Brigham wrote that on the basis of the army tests, "The decline in intelligence is due to two factors, the change in races migrating to this country, and to the additional factor of sending lower and lower representatives of each race." He concluded that, "The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present mental capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency. Immigration should not only be restrictive, but highly selective."[19] The Immigration Act of 1924 put these recommendations into practice, introducing quotas based on the 1890 census, prior to the waves of immigration from Poland and Italy. While Gould and Kamin argued that the psychometric claims of Nordic superiority had a profound influence on the institutionalisation of the 1924 immigration law, other scholar's have argued that "the eventual passage of the 'racist' immigration law of 1924 was not crucially affected by the contributions of Yerkes or other psychologists."[20][21][22]

1920–1960

In the 1920s psychologists started questioning underlying assumptions of racial differences in intelligence; although not discounting them, the possibility was considered that they were on a smaller scale than previously supposed and also due to factors other than heredity. In 1924 Floyd Allport wrote in his book "Social Psychology"[23] that the French sociologist Gustave Le Bon was incorrect in asserting "a gap between inferior and superior species" and pointed to "social inheritance" and "environmental factors" as factors that accounted for differences. Nevertheless, he conceded that "the intelligence of the white race is of a more versatile and complex order than that of the black race. It is probably superior to that of the red or yellow races."[14]

In 1929 Robert Woodworth in his textbook "Psychology: a study of mental life"[24] made no claims about innate differences in intelligence between races, pointing instead to environmental and cultural factors. He considered it advisable to "suspend judgment and keep our eyes open from year to year for fresh and more conclusive evidence that will probably be discovered".[25]

In the 1930s the English psychologist Raymond Cattell wrote three tracts, Psychology and Social Progress (1933), The Fight for Our National Intelligence (1937) and Psychology and the Religious Quest (1938). The second was published by the Eugenics Society, of which he had been a research fellow: it predicted the disastrous consequences of not stopping the decline in the average intelligence in Britain by one point per decade. In 1933 Cattell wrote that, of all the European races, the "Nordic race was the most evolved in intelligence and stability of temperament." He argued for "no mixture of bloods between racial groups" because "the resulting re-shuffling of impulses and psychic units throws together in each individual a number of forces which may be incompatible." He rationalised the "hatred and abhorrence ... for the Jewish practice of living in other nations instead of forming an independent self-sustained group of their own", referring to them as "intruders" with a "crafty spirit of calculation." He recommended a rigid division of races, referring to those suggesting that individuals be judged on their merits, irrespective of racial background, as "race-slumpers". He wrote that in the past "the backward branches of the tree of mankind" had been lopped off as "the American Indians, the Black Australians, the Mauris and the negroes had been driven by bloodshed from their lands", unaware of "the biological rationality of that destiny." He advocated a more enlightened solution: by birth control, by sterilization and by "life in adapted reserves and asylums," where the "races which have served their turn [should] be brought to euthanasia."

Franz Boas, regarded as the father of anthropology in the US,[26] had a lasting influence on the work of Otto Klineberg and his generation

He considered blacks to be naturally inferior, on account of "their small skull capacity." In 1937 he praised the Third Reich for their eugenic laws and for "being the first to adopt sterilization together with a policy of racial improvement." In 1938, after newspapers had reported on the segregation of Jews into ghettos and concentration camps, he commented that the rise of Germany "should be welcomed by the religious man as reassuring evidence that in spite of modern wealth and ease, we shall not be allowed ... to adopt foolish social practices in fatal detachment from the stream of evolution." In late 1937 Cattell moved to the US on the invitation of the psychologist Edward Thorndike from Columbia University, also involved in eugenics. He spent the rest of his life there as a research psychologist, devoting himself after retirement to devising and publicising a refined version of his ideology from the 1930s that he called Beyondism.[27][28][29]

In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences", dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He argued that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment.[30][31]

The hereditarian view began to change in the 1920s in reaction to excessive eugenicist claims regarding abilities and moral character, and also due to the development of convincing environmental arguments.[32] In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, began to argue that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson, this change in attitude had become widespread by then,[33] with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race.[34] The 1950 race statement of UNESCO, prepared in consultation with scientists including Klineberg, created a further taboo against conducting scientific research on issues related to race.[35] Adolf Hitler banned IQ testing for being "Jewish" as did Joseph Stalin for being "bourgeois".[36]

1960–1980

William Shockley, the Nobel laureate in physics, suggested that the decline in the average IQ in the US could be solved by eugenics

In 1965 William Shockley, Nobel laureate in physics and professor at Stanford University, made a public statement at the Nobel conference on "Genetics and the Future of Man" about the problems of "genetic deterioration" in humans caused by "evolution in reverse". He claimed social support systems designed to help the disadvantaged had a regressive effect. Shockley subsequently claimed the most competent American population group were the descendants of original European settlers, because of the extreme selective pressures imposed by the harsh conditions of early colonialism.[37] Speaking of the "genetic enslavement" of African Americans, owing to an abnormally high birth rate, Shockley discouraged improved education as a remedy, suggesting instead sterilization and birth control. In the following ten years he continued to argue in favor of this position, claiming it was not based on prejudice but "on sound statistics". Shockley's outspoken public statements and lobbying brought him into contact with those running the Pioneer Fund who subsequently, through the intermediary Carleton Putnam, provided financial support for his extensive lobbying activities in this area, reported widely in the press. With the psychologist and segregationist R. Travis Osborne as adviser, he formed the Foundation for Research and Education on Eugenics and Dysgenics (FREED). Although its stated purpose was "solely for scientific and educational purposes related to human population and quality problems," FREED mostly acted as a lobbying agency for spreading Shockley's ideas on eugenics.[38][39]

Wickliffe Draper, founder of the Pioneer Fund

The Pioneer Fund[40] had been set up by Wickliffe Draper in 1937 with one of its two charitable purposes being to provide aid for "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race" and "into the problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States". From the late fifties onwards, following the 1954 Supreme Court decision on segregation in schools, it supported psychologists and other scientists in favour of segregation. All of these ultimately held academic positions in the Southern states, notably Henry E. Garrett (head of psychology at Columbia University until 1955), Wesley Critz George, Frank C.J. McGurk, R. Travis Osborne and Audrey Shuey, who in 1958 wrote The Testing of Negro Intelligence, demonstrating "the presence of native differences between Negroes and whites as determined by intelligence tests."[41][42][43] In 1959 Garrett helped to found the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, an organisation promoting segregation. In 1961 he blamed the shift away from hereditarianism, which he described as the "scientific hoax of the century", on the school of thought—the "Boas cult"— promoted by his former colleagues at Columbia, notably Franz Boas and Otto Klineberg, and more generally "Jewish organizations", most of whom "belligerently support the equalitarian dogma which they accept as having been 'scientifically' proved." He also pointed to Marxist origins in this shift, writing in a pamphlet, Desegregation; fact and hokum, that "It is certain that the Communists have aided in the acceptance and spread of equalitarianism although the extent and method of their help is difficult to assess. Equalitarianism is good Marxist doctrine, not likely to change with gyrations in the Kremlin line." In 1951 Garrett had even gone as far as reporting Klineberg to the FBI for advocating "many Communistic theories", including the idea that "there are no differences in the races of mankind."[44][45][46][47][48][49]

One of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, of the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Although earlier in his career Jensen had favored environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he had changed his mind during 1966-1967 when he was at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Here Jensen met Shockley and through him received support for his research from the Pioneer Fund.[41][50] Although Shockley and Jensen's names were later to become linked in the media,[41][51] Jensen does not mention Shockley as an important influence on his thought in his subsequent writings;[52][53] rather he describes as decisive his work with Hans Eysenck. He also mentions his interest in the behaviorist theories of Clark L. Hull which he says he abandoned largely because he found them to be incompatible with experimental findings during his years at Berkeley.[54]

Arthur Jensen, professor of educational psychology at UC Berkeley who wrote the 1969 article on intelligence that became one of the most controversial articles in the history of psychology

In a 1968 article published in Disadvantaged Child, Jensen questioned the effectiveness of child development and antipoverty programs, writing "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."[55] In 1969 Jensen wrote a long article in the Harvard Educational Review, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"[56]

In October 1967 Arthur Jensen gave an invited address with the same title as his article at the annual meeting of the California Advisory Council of Educational Research in San Diego

In his article, 123 pages long, Jensen insisted on the accuracy and lack of bias in intelligence tests, stating that the absolute quantity g that they measured, the general intelligence factor, first introduced by the English psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904, "stood like a Rock of Gibraltar in psychometrics". He stressed the importance of biological considerations in intelligence, commenting that "the belief in the almost infinite plasticity of intellect, the ostrich-like denial of biological factors in individual differences, and the slighting of the role of genetics in the study of intelligence can only hinder investigation and understanding of the conditions, processes, and limits through which the social environment influences human behavior." He argued at length that, contrary to environmentalist orthodoxy, intelligence was partly dependent on the same genetic factors that influence other physical attributes. More controversially, he briefly speculated that the difference in performance at school between blacks and whites might have a partly genetic explanation, commenting that there were "various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors."[57][58] He advocated the allocation of educational resources according to merit and insisted on the close correlation between intelligence and occupational status, arguing that "in a society that values and rewards individual talent and merit, genetic factors inevitably take on considerable importance." Concerned that the average IQ in the USA was inadequate to answer the increasing needs of an industrialised society, he predicted that people with lower IQs would become unemployable while at the same time there would be an insufficient number with higher IQs to fill professional posts. He felt that eugenic reform would prevent this more effectively than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education". He pointed out that intelligence and family size were inversely correlated, particularly amongst the black population, so that the current trend in average national intelligence was dysgenic rather than eugenic. As he wrote, "Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population? The fuller consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be judged by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans." He concluded by emphasizing the importance of child-centered education. Although a tradition had developed for the exclusive use of cognitive learning in schools, Jensen argued that it was not suited to "these children's genetic and cultural heritage": although capable of associative learning and memorization ("Level I" ability), they had difficulties with abstract conceptual reasoning ("Level II" ability). He felt that it in these circumstances the success of education depended on exploiting "the actual potential learning that is latent in these children's patterns of abilities". He suggested that, in order to ensure equality of opportunity, "schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities."[59][60][61]

Later, writing about how the article came into being, Jensen said that the editors of the Review had specifically asked him to include his view on the heritability of race differences, which he had not previously published. He also maintains that only five percent of the article touched on the topic of race difference in IQ.[54] Cronbach (1975) also gave a detailed account of how the student editors of Harvard Educational Review commissioned and negotiated the content of Jensen's article.[62][63]

Many academics have given commentaries on what they considered to be the main points of Jensen's article and the subsequent books in the early 1970s that expanded on its content. According to Jencks & Phillips (1998), in his article Jensen had argued "that educational programs for disadvantaged children initiated as the War on Poverty had failed, and the black-white race gap probably had a substantial genetic component." They summarised Jensen's argument as follows:[64]

  1. "Most of the variation in black-white scores is genetic"
  2. "No one has advanced a plausible environmental explanation for the black-white gap"
  3. "Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that part of the black-white gap is genetic in origin"

According to Loehlin, Lindzey & Spuhler (1975), Jensen's article defended 3 claims:[65]

  1. IQ tests provide accurate measurements of a real human ability that is relevant in many aspects of life.
  2. Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly (about 80%) heritable and parents with low IQs are much more likely to have children with low IQs
  3. Educational programs have been unable to significantly change the intelligence of individuals or groups.

According to Webster (1997), the article claimed "a correlation between intelligence, measured by IQ tests, and racial genes". He wrote that Jensen, based on empirical evidence, had concluded that "black intelligence was congenitally inferior to that of whites"; that "this partly explains unequal educational achievements"; and that, "because a certain level of underachievement was due to the inferior genetic attributes of blacks, compensatory and enrichment programs are bound to be ineffective in closing the racial gap in educational achievements."[66] Several commentators mention Jensen's recommendations for schooling:[67] according to Barry Nurcombe,[68]

Jensen's own research suggests that IQ tests amalgamate two forms of thinking which are hierarchically related but which become differentially distributed in the population according to SES: level 1 and level 2, associative learning and abstract thinking (g), respectively. Blacks do as well as whites on tests of associative learning, but they fall behind on abstract thinking. The educational system should attend to this discrepancy and derive a more pluralistic approach. The current system puts minority groups at a marked disadvantage, since it overemphasizes g-type thinking.

Jensen had already suggested in the article that initiatives like the Head Start Program were ineffective, writing in the opening sentence, "Compensatory education has been tried and it apparently has failed."[69] Other experts in psychometrics, such as Flynn (1980) and Mackintosh (1998), have given accounts of Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II abilities, which originated in this and earlier articles. As the historian of psychology William H. Tucker comments, Jensen's leading question,"Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population? The fuller consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be judged by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans," repeating Shockley's phrase "genetic enslavement", proved later to be one of the most inflammatory statements in the article.[60]

Raymond Cattell, one of Jensen's main supporters who referred to his opponents as "ignoracists"[70]

Shockley conducted a widespread publicity campaign for Jensen's article, supported by the Pioneer Fund. Jensen's views became widely known in many spheres. As a result, there was renewed academic interest in the hereditarian viewpoint and in intelligence tests. Jensen's original article was widely circulated and often cited; the material was taught in university courses over a range of academic disciplines. In response to his critics, Jensen wrote a series of books on all aspects of psychometrics. There was also a widespread positive response from the popular press — with The New York Times Magazine dubbing the topic "Jensenism" — and amongst politicians and policy makers.[41][71]

In 1971 Richard Herrnstein wrote a long article on intelligence tests in The Atlantic for a general readership. Undecided on the issues of race and intelligence, he discussed instead score differences between social classes. Like Jensen he took a firmly hereditarian point of view. He also commented that the policy of equal opportunity would result in making social classes more rigid, separated by biological differences, resulting in a downward trend in average intelligence that would conflict with the growing needs of a technological society.[72]

Hans Eysenck, professor of psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry and Jensen's mentor

Jensen and Herrnstein's articles were widely discussed. Hans Eysenck defended the hereditarian point of view and the use of intelligence tests in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), a pamphlet presenting Jensenism to a popular audience, and "The Inequality of Man" (1973). He was severely critical of anti-hereditarians whose policies he blamed for many of the problems in society. In the first book he wrote that, "All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which [are] observed between certain racial groups", adding in the second, that "for anyone wishing to perpetuate class or caste differences, genetics is the real foe".[73] "Race, Intelligence and Education" was immediately criticized in strong terms by IQ researcher Sandra Scarr as an "uncritical popularization of Jensen's ideas without the nuances and qualifiers that make much of Jensen's writing credible or at least responsible."[74]

Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the anti-hereditarian establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen's article, the Berkeley chapter of the militant student organization Students for a Democratic Society staged protests against Arthur Jensen on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, chanting "Fight racism. Fire Jensen!"[63][75] Jensen himself states that he even lost his employment at Berkeley because of the controversy.[54] Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behavior through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the left wing organization Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.[76][77] In 1972 50 academics, including the psychologists Jensen, Eysenck and Herrnstein as well as five Nobel laureates, signed a statement entitled "Resolution on Scientific Freedom Regarding Human Behavior and Heredity", criticizing the climate of "suppression, punishment and defamation of scientists who emphasized the role of heredity in human behavior". In October 1973 a half-page advertisement entitled "Resolution Against Racism" appeared in the New York Times. With over 1000 academic signatories, including Lewontin, it condemned "racist research", denouncing in particular Jensen, Shockley and Herrnstein.[78][79]

This was accompanied by a high level of commentaries, criticisms and denouncements from the academic community. Two issues of the Harvard Educational Review were devoted to critiques of Jensen's work by psychologists, biologists and educationalists. As documented by Wooldridge (1995), the main commentaries involved: population genetics (Richard Lewontin, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Walter Bodmer); the heritability of intelligence (Christopher Jencks, Mary Jo Bane, Leon Kamin, David Layzer); the possible inaccuracy of IQ tests as measures of intelligence (summarised in Jensen 1980, pp. 20–21); and sociological assumptions about the relationship between intelligence and income (Jencks and Bane).[80] More specifically, the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin commented on Jensen's use of population genetics, writing that, "The fundamental error of Jensen's argument is to confuse heritability of character within a population with heritability between two populations."[81] Jensen denied making such a claim, saying that his argument was that high within-group heritability increased the probability of non-zero between-group heritability.[82] The political scientists Christopher Jencks and Mary Jo Bane, also from Harvard, recalculated the heritability of intelligence as 45% instead of Jensen's estimate of 80%; and they determined that only about 12% of variation in income was due to IQ, so that in their view the connections between IQ and occupation were less clear than Jensen had suggested.[83]

Ideological differences also emerged in the controversy. The circle of scientists around Lewontin and Gould, some of them self-admittedly motivated by a Marxist ideology, rejected the research of Jensen and Herrnstein as "bad science". While not objecting to research into intelligence per se, they felt that this research was politically motivated and objected to the reification of intelligence: the treatment of the numerical quantity g as a physical attribute like skin colour that could be meaningfully averaged over a population group. They claimed that this was contrary to the scientific method, which required explanations at a molecular level, rather than the analysis of a statistical artifact in terms of undiscovered processes in biology or genetics. In response to this criticism, Jensen later wrote: '...what Gould has mistaken for "reification” is neither more nor less than the common practice in every science of hypothesizing explanatory models to account for the observed relationships within a given domain. Well known examples include the heliocentric theory of planetary motion, the Bohr atom, the electromagnetic field, the kinetic theory of gases, gravitation, quarks, Mendelian genes, mass, velocity, etc. None of these constructs exists as a palpable entity occupying physical space.' He asked why psychology should be denied "the common right of every science to the use of hypothetical constructs or any theoretical speculation concerning causal explanations of its observable phenomena?"[35][84][85]

Cyril Burt, the English educationalist whose disputed twin studies had been used as data by Jensen in some of his early articles and books

The academic debate also became entangled with the so-called "Burt Affair", because Jensen's article had partially relied on the 1966 twin studies of the British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt: shortly after Burt's death in 1971, there were allegations, prompted by research of Leon Kamin, that Burt had fabricated parts of his data, charges which have never been fully resolved.[86] Franz Samelson documents how Jensen's views on Burt's work varied over the years: Jensen was Burt's main defender in the USA during the 1970s.[87] In 1983, following the publication in 1978 of Leslie Hearnshaw's official biography of Burt, Jensen changed his mind, "fully accept[ing] as valid ... Hearnshaw's biography" and stating that "of course [Burt] will never be exonerated for his empirical deceptions".[88] However, in 1992, he wrote that "the essence of the Burt affair ... [was] a cabal of motivated opponents, avidly aided by the mass media, to bash [Burt's] reputation completely",[89] a view repeated in an invited address on Burt before the American Psychological Association,[90] when he called into question Hearnshaw's scholarship.[91]

Trofim Lysenko who, as director of Soviet research in biology under Joseph Stalin, blocked research into genetics for ideological reasons

Similar charges of a politically motivated campaign to stifle scientific research on racial differences, later dubbed "Neo-Lysenkoism", were frequently repeated by Jensen and his supporters.[92] Jensen (1972) bemoaned the fact that "a block has been raised because of the obvious implications for the understanding of racial differences in ability and achievement. Serious considerations of whether genetic as well as environmental factors are involved has been taboo in academic circles," adding that, "In the bizarre racist theories of the Nazis and the disastrous Lysenkoism of the Soviet Union under Stalin, we have seen clear examples of what happens when science is corrupted by subservience to political dogma."[93][94]

After the appearance of his 1969 article, Jensen was later more explicit about racial differences in intelligence, stating in 1973 "that something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ differences between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic factors." He even speculated that the underlying mechanism was a "biochemical connection between skin pigmentation and intelligence" linked to their joint development in the ectoderm of the embryo. Although Jensen avoided any personal involvement with segregationists in the US, he did not distance himself from the approaches of journals of the far right in Europe, many of whom viewed his research as justifying their political ends. In an interview with Nation Europa, he said that some human races differed from one another even more than some animal species, claiming that a measurement of "genetic distance" between blacks and whites showed that they had diverged over 46,000 years ago. He also granted interviews to Alain de Benoist's French journal Nouvelle École and Jürgen Rieger's German journal Neue Anthropologie of which he later became a regular contributor and editor, apparently unaware of its political orientation owing to his poor knowledge of German.[95][96][97][98]

The debate was further exacerbated by issues of racial bias that had already intensified through the 1960s because of civil rights concerns and changes in the social climate. In 1968 the Association of Black Psychologists (ABP) had demanded a moratorium on IQ tests for children from minority groups. After a committee set up by the American Psychological Association drew up guidelines for assessing minority groups, failing to confirm the claims of racial bias, Jackson (1975) wrote the following as part of a response on behalf of the ABP:[99]

Psychological testing historically has been a quasi-scientific tool in the perpetuation of racism on all levels of scientific objectivity, it [testing] has provided a cesspool of intrinsically and inferentially fallacious data which inflates the egos of whites by demeaning Black people and threatens to potentiate Black genocide.

Other professional academic bodies reacted to the dispute differently. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, a division of the American Psychological Society, issued a public statement in 1969 criticizing Jensen's research, declaring that, "To construct questions about complex behavior in terms of heredity versus environment is to oversimplify the essence and nature of human development and behavior." The American Anthropological Association convened a panel discussion in 1969 at its annual general meeting, shortly after the appearance of Jensen's paper, where several participants labelled his research as "racist".[63] Subsequently the association issued an official clarification, stating that, "The shabby misuse of IQ testing in the support of past American racist policies has created understandable anxiety over current research on the inheritance of human intelligence. But the resulting personal attacks on a few scientists with unpopular views has had a chilling effect on the entire field of behavioral genetics and clouds public discussion of its implications." In 1975 the Genetics Society of America made a similarly cautious statement: "The application of the techniques of quantitative genetics to the analysis of human behavior is fraught with human complications and potential biases, but well-designed research on the genetic and environmental components of human psychological traits may yield valid and socially useful results and should not be discouraged."[100][101]

1980–2000

Jim Flynn, the New Zealand political scientist who has studied changes in IQ scores

In the 1980s, the political scientist Jim Flynn compared the results of groups who took both older and newer versions of specific IQ tests. His research led him to the discovery of what is now called the Flynn effect: a substantial increase in average IQ scores over the years across all groups tested. His discovery was confirmed later by many other studies. While trying to understand these remarkable test score increases, Flynn had postulated in 1987 that "IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence".[102][103] By 2009, however, Flynn felt that the IQ test score changes are real. He suggests that our fast-changing world has faced successive generations with new cognitive challenges that have considerably stimulated intellectual ability. "Our brains as presently constructed probably have much excess capacity ready to be used if needed. That was certainly the case in 1900."[104] Flynn notes that "Our ancestors in 1900 were not mentally retarded. Their intelligence was anchored in everyday reality. We differ from them in that we can use abstractions and logic and the hypothetical to attack the formal problems that arise when science liberates thought from concrete situations. Since 1950, we have become more ingenious in going beyond previously learned rules to solve problems on the spot."[105]

Richard Lynn, the English psychologist who has written extensively on global group differences in intelligence

From the 1980s onwards, the Pioneer Fund continued to fund hereditarian research on race and intelligence, in particular the two English-born psychologists Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, its president since 2002. Rushton returned to the cranial measurements of the 19th century, using brain size as an extra factor determining intelligence; in collaboration with Jensen, he most recently developed updated arguments for the genetic explanation of race differences in intelligence.[106] Lynn, longtime editor of and contributor to Mankind Quarterly and a prolific writer of books, has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as "the truth that dares not speak its name".[107]

Snyderman & Rothman (1987) announced the results of a survey conducted in 1984 on a sample of over a thousand psychologists, sociologists and educationalists in a multiple choice questionnaire, and expanded in 1988 into the book The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. The book claimed to document a liberal bias in the media coverage of scientific findings regarding IQ. The survey included the question, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" 661 researchers returned the questionnaire, and of these, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was purely "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely due to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". Jencks & Phillips (1998) have pointed out that those who replied "both" did not have the opportunity to specify whether genetics played a large role. There has been no agreement amongst psychometricians on the significance of this particular answer.[108] Scientists supporting the hereditarian point of view have seen it as a vindication of their position.[109]

In 1989 J. Philippe Rushton was placed under police investigation by the Attorney General of Ontario, after complaints that he had promoted racism in one of his publications on race differences. In the same year, Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware had an extended battle with her university over the legitimacy of grants from the Pioneer Fund, eventually settled in her favour.[41][110]

Both later responded with an updated version of Henry E. Garrett's "equalitarian dogma", labelling the claim that all races were equal in cognitive ability as an "egalitarian fiction" and a "scientific hoax". Gottfredson (1994) spoke of a "great fraud", a "collective falsehood" and a "scientific lie", citing the findings of Snyderman and Rothman as justification. Rushton (1996) wrote that there was a "taboo on race" in scientific research that had "no parallel... not the Inquisition, not Stalin, not Hitler."[111] In his 1998 book "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability", Jensen reiterated his earlier claims of Neo-Lysenkoism, writing that "The concept of human races [as] a fiction" has various "different sources, none of them scientific," one of them being "Neo-Marxist philosophy," which "excludes consideration of genetic or biological factors ... from any part in explaining behavioral differences amongst humans." In the same year the evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald went much further, reviving Garrett's claim of the "Boas cult" as a Jewish conspiracy, after which "research on racial differences ceased, and the profession completely excluded eugenicists like Madison Grant and Charles Davenport."[112]

In 1994 the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in Newsweek, Time, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Although only two chapters of the book were devoted to race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper, it nevertheless caused a similar furore in the academic community to Jensen's article. Many critics, including Stephen J. Gould and Leon Kamin, asserted that the book contained unwarranted simplifications and flaws in its analysis; in particular there were criticisms of its reliance on Lynn's estimates of average IQ scores in South Africa, where data had been used selectively, and on Rushton's work on brain size and intelligence, which was controversial and disputed. These criticisms were subsequently presented in books, most notably The Bell Curve Debate (1995), Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) and an expanded edition of Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996).[113] In 1994 a group of 52 scientists, including Rushton, Lynn, Jensen and Eysenck, were cosignatories of an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal written by Linda Gottfredson entitled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". The article, supporting the conclusions of The Bell Curve, was later republished in an expanded version in the journal Intelligence.[114][115][116] The editorial included the statements:[117][118]

"Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences among individuals ... The bell curve for whites is centred roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85 ... black 17-year olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year olds in reading, math and science, with Hispanics in between."

Another early criticism was that Herrnstein and Murray did not submit their work to academic peer review before publication.[119] There were also three books written from the hereditarian point of view: Why race matters: race differences and what they mean (1997) by Michael Levin; The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998) by Jensen; and Intelligence; a new look by Hans Eysenck. Various other books of collected contributions appeared at the same time, including The black-white test gap (1998) edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, Intelligence, heredity and environment (1997) edited by Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko.[120] A section in IQ and human intelligence (1998) by Nicholas Mackintosh discussed ethnic groups and Race and intelligence: separating science from myth (2002) edited by Jefferson Fish presented further commentary on The Bell Curve by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, biologists and statisticians.[121]

In 1999 the same journal Intelligence reprinted as an invited editorial a long article by the attorney Harry F. Weyher Jr. defending the integrity of the Pioneer Fund, of which he was then president and of which several editors, including Gottfredson, Jensen, Lynn and Rushton, were grantees. In 1994 the Pioneer-financed journal Mankind Quarterly,[122] of which Roger Pearson was the manager and pseudonymous contributor, had been described by Charles Lane in a review of The Bell Curve in the New York Review of Books as "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race"; he had called the fund and its journal "scientific racism's keepers of the flame." Gottfredson had previously defended the fund in 1989-1990, asserting that Mankind Quarterly was a "multicultural journal" dedicated to "diversity ... as an object of dispassionate study" and that Pearson did not approve of membership of the American Nazi Party. Pearson (1991) had himself defended the fund in his book Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe.[123]

In response to the debate on The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association set up a ten-person taskforce, chaired by Ulrich Neisser, to report on the book and its findings. In its report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:[124]

"African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

Jensen commented:

As I read the APA statement, [...] I didn't feel it was contradicting my position, but rather merely sidestepping it. It seems more evasive of my position than contradictory. The committee did acknowledge the factual status of what I have termed the Spearman Effect, the reality of g, the inadequacy of test bias and socioeconomic status as causal explanations, and many other conclusions that don't differ at all from my own position. [...] Considering that the report was commissioned by the APA, I was surprised it went as far as it did. Viewed in that light, I am not especially displeased by it.[125]

Rushton found himself at the centre of another controversy in 1999 when unsolicited copies of a special abridged version of his 1995 book Race, Evolution and Behavior, aimed at a general readership, were mass mailed to psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists in North American universities. As a result, Transaction Publishers withdrew from publishing the pamphlet, financed by the Pioneer Fund, and issued an apology in the January 2000 edition of the journal Society. In the pamphlet Rushton recounted how black Africans had been seen by outside observers through the centuries as naked, insanitary, impoverished and unintelligent. In modern times he remarked that their average IQ of 70 "is the lowest ever recorded", due to smaller average brain size. He explained these differences in terms of evolutionary history: those that had migrated to colder climates in the north to evolve into whites and Asians had adapted genetically to have more self-control, lower levels of sex hormones, greater intelligence, more complex social structures, and more stable families. He concluded that whites and Asians are more disposed to "invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are 'dads' rather than 'cads.'" J. Philippe Rushton did not distance himself from groups on the far right in the US. He was a regular contributor to the newsletters of American Renaissance and spoke at many of their biennial conferences, in 2006 sharing the platform with Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party.[41][126][127][128][129]

2000–present

In 2002, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, published IQ and the Wealth of Nations.[130] Vanhanen claimed "Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty." A complaint by Finland's "Ombudsman for Minorities", Mikko Puumalainen, resulted in Vanhanen being considered to be investigated for incitement of "racial hatred" by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigations.[131] In 2004, the police stated they found no reason to suspect he incited racial hatred and decided not to launch an investigation.[132]

In 2007 James D. Watson, Nobel laureate in biology, gave a controversial interview to the Sunday Times Magazine during a book tour in the United Kingdom. Watson stated he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” He also wrote that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” This resulted in the cancellation of a Royal Society lecture, along with other public engagements, and his suspension from his administrative duties at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He subsequently cancelled the tour and resigned from his position at CSHL, where he had served as either director, president or chancellor since 1968. However, Watson was later appointed chancellor emeritus of CSHL, and, as of 2009, he continued to advise and guide project work at the laboratory.[133][134]

In 2005 the journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law of the American Psychological Association (APA) published a review article by Rushton and Jensen, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability".[135] The article was followed by a series of responses, some in support, some critical.[136][137] Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009).[138] Rushton and Jensen in 2010 made a point-for-point reply to this and again summarized the hereditarian position in "Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It".[139]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Fish 2002, p. 159, Chapter 6, "Science and the idea of race", by Audrey Smedley
  2. ↑ Baker 1974, pp. 18–27
  3. ↑ Morton 1839
  4. ↑ Bean 1906
  5. ↑ Mall 1909
  6. 1 2 Benjamin 2006, pp. 188–189
  7. ↑ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 7–10
  8. ↑ Jensen 1998, pp. 15–16
  9. 1 2 Baker 1974, pp. 40–44
  10. ↑ "Reaction Time with Reference to Race". Psychological Review 2 (5): 475–486. 1895. doi:10.1037/h0070013.
  11. ↑ Benjamin 2006, p. 188
  12. ↑ Bruner, Frank G. (1912), "The primitive races in America", Psychological Bulletin 9: 380–390, doi:10.1037/h0072417
  13. ↑ Ferguson, George O. (1916), The psychology of the Negro, Negro Universities Press
  14. 1 2 3 Benjamin 2006, p. 189
  15. ↑ Terman, Lewis M. (1916), The Measurement of Intelligence: An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, Houghton Mifflin Co.
  16. ↑ Mackintosh 1998, p. 17
  17. ↑ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 20–21
  18. ↑ Kevles 1998
  19. ↑ Brigham 1923, p. 178,210
  20. ↑ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 22–23
  21. ↑ Samelson 1979, p. 135
  22. ↑ but see McPherson, K (1985). "On intelligence testing and immigration legislation". American Psychologist 40 (2): 242–243. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.40.2.242.
  23. ↑ Allport, Floyd Henry (1984), Social psychology, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-09258-2 Reprint of 1924 book.
  24. ↑ Woodworth, Robert S. (2006), Psychology: A Study of Mental Life, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1-4286-4126-2 Reprint of 1929 textbook.
  25. ↑ Benjamin 2006, pp. 189–190
  26. ↑ Kevles 1998, pp. 134–138
  27. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, p. 145
  28. ↑ Tucker & 1996 239-249
  29. ↑ Tucker 2009, pp. 1–15
  30. ↑ Klineberg, Otto (1935), Negro intelligence and selective migration, Columbia University Press
  31. ↑ Klineberg, Otto (1935), Race differences, Harper and Brothers
  32. ↑ A history of Modern Psychology in Context, Wade E. Pickren and Alexandra Rutherford, Wiley, 2010, page 163
  33. ↑ Samelson (1978)
  34. ↑ Benjamin 2006, pp. 190–191
  35. 1 2 Segerstråle 2001
  36. ↑ The structure & measurement of intelligence, Hans Jürgen Eysenck and David W. Fulker, Transaction Publishers, 1979, page 16.
  37. ↑ Tucker 1996, p. 194
  38. ↑ Tucker 2002, pp. 43,180–181
  39. ↑ Tucker 1996, pp. 193–194
  40. ↑ Rushton, J. P. (2002). "The Pioneer Fund and the Scientific Study of Human Differences" (PDF). Albany Law Review 66: 207–262.
  41. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tucker 2002
  42. ↑ Rose 2009
  43. ↑ Lynn 2001 The official history of the Pioneer Fund written by a board member.
  44. ↑ Winston 1996
  45. ↑ Winston 1998
  46. ↑ Garrett 1961a
  47. ↑ Garrett 1961b, p. 256
  48. ↑ Albee 1996, p. 90
  49. ↑ Jackson 2005, pp. 111–112
  50. ↑ Shurkin 2006
  51. ↑ Alland 2002, pp. 121–124
  52. ↑ Roger Pearson's 1992 book "Shockley on Race and Eugenics" contains a foreword by Jensen, giving a lengthy assessment of Shockley
  53. ↑ In Shurkin 2006, pp. 270–271, Jensen is reported as saying that Shockley's main contribution was to distract opponents and that "I have always been amazed that someone as bright as he could have contributed so little over so long a span of time".
  54. 1 2 3 Jensen, A. (1998). "Jensen on "Jensenism"". Intelligence 26 (3): 181–208. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(99)80002-6.
  55. ↑ See:
  56. ↑ Jensen 1969
  57. ↑ Tucker 1996, p. 203
  58. ↑ Gottfredson 1998
  59. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 363–365
  60. 1 2 Tucker 1996, p. 204
  61. ↑ Lerner 2002, p. 270
  62. ↑ Cronbach 1975, p. 3
  63. 1 2 3 Jensen 1972
  64. ↑ Jencks & Phillips 1998, p. 16
  65. ↑ Loehlin, Lindzey & Spuhler 1975
  66. ↑ Webster 1997, pp. 19–20
  67. ↑ See;
  68. ↑ Nurcombe, De Lacey & Walker 1999, p. 45, Chapter 2, The Great Debate
  69. ↑ See:
  70. ↑ See:
  71. ↑ Wooldridge 1995
  72. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, p. 365
  73. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 366–367
  74. ↑ S. Scarr (1981). Race, Social Class, and individual Differences in I.q. Psychology Press. pp. 62–65. ISBN 978-0-89859-055-5.; article previously published in Science, 1971, 174, 1223-1228.
  75. ↑ Cronbach 1975
  76. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 368–373
  77. ↑ Segerstråle & 2001 17-24 Segerstråle gives a detailed account of the Sociobiology Study Group, founded in 1975.
  78. ↑ Segerstråle 2001, p. 33,44,272
  79. ↑ Ornstein 1974, p. 174
  80. ↑ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 374–376
  81. ↑ See:
  82. ↑ Sesardic 2005, pp. 132–134
  83. ↑ See:
  84. ↑ Segerstråle 1992
  85. ↑ Jensen 1982
  86. ↑ See:
  87. ↑ See:
  88. ↑ Jensen 1983, pp. 17,20
  89. ↑ Jensen 1992a, p. 121
  90. ↑ Jensen 1992b
  91. ↑ Samelson 1997, pp. 146–148
  92. ↑ See:
  93. ↑ Jackson 2005, p. 184
  94. ↑ Jensen 1972, p. 328
  95. ↑ Tucker 1996, pp. 203,261–264
  96. ↑ Kühn 2001, p. 112
  97. ↑ Jensen 1973, p. 363
  98. ↑ Rose 1975, p. 202
  99. ↑ See:
  100. ↑ Modgil & Modgil 1987, p. 44
  101. ↑ Scarr & Carter-Saltzman 1982, p. 796
  102. ↑ Richards 1997, p. 279
  103. ↑ Maltby & Day Macaskill, p. 302
  104. ↑ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence? (p. 110). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
  105. ↑ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence? (pp. 10-11). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
  106. ↑ Rushton & Jensen 2005
  107. ↑ See:
  108. ↑ See:
  109. ↑ See:
  110. ↑ Gross 1990
  111. ↑ See:
    • Winston 1996, p. 246
    • Winston 1996, p. 236, footnote: "Rushton's (1994) notion of the 'equalitarian fiction' is that Blacks and Whites are genetically equal in cognitive ability. Gottfredson's (1994) notion of the 'egalitarian fiction' is that 'racial-ethnic groups never differ in average developed intelligence' (p. 53). I have never seen a scholarly source which maintained that groups never show mean differences in intelligence test scores. Gottfredson gives no reference for anyone who holds this position."
  112. ↑ See:
  113. ↑ See:
  114. ↑ Gottfredson, Linda J. (1997). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence (editorial)" (PDF). Intelligence 24 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8.
  115. ↑ Chamorro-Premuzic 2007, p. 84 "More importantly differential psychologists have been unanimous in their support for The Bell Curve. In fact, in the year the book was published, 52 eminent intelligence experts (not only from differential psychology) published a dossier entitled 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' in which they endorsed the core claims and data endorsed by Herrnstein and Murray."
  116. ↑ Gillborn 2008, p. 112 "The Bell Curve sparked huge controversy in the 1990s with its claims that African Americans (and 'underclass whites') were genetically predisposed to lower intelligence and higher criminality. In 1994, as the controversy raged on, a group of 52 professors (including Rushton, Lynn, Eysenck and Jensen) presented themselves as 'experts in intelligence and allied fields' and signed a statement that was published in the Wall Street Journal under the title 'Mainstream science on intelligence'. Among the statements of supposedly 'mainstream' scientific opinion were the following: « Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences among individuals ... The bell curve for whites is centred roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85 ... black 17-year olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year olds in reading, math and science, with Hispanics in between. » These views are presented as if distilled from numerous 'scientific' studies and the tone is somewhat dry. But the meaning is clear. First, the authors are saying that intelligence is largely a matter of genetic inheritance. Second, they are saying that most whites are naturally more intelligent than most black people; in fact, that the 'average white' is more intelligent than 8 out of 10 African American!"
  117. ↑ Gillborn 2008, p. 112
  118. ↑ Gottfredson 1997
  119. ↑ Arthur S. Goldberger and Charles F. Manski (1995) "Review Article: The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray", Journal of Economic Literature, 36(2), June 1995, pp. 762–776. "HM and their publishers have done a disservice by circumventing peer review. ...a process of scientific review is now under way. But, given the process to date, peer review of The Bell Curve is now an exercise in damage control...."
  120. ↑ Fish (2002) pp. 1–28
  121. ↑ Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) Intelligence, Race and Genetics
  122. ↑ Tucker 2002, p. 2
  123. ↑ See:
  124. ↑ See:
  125. ↑ fMiele, Frank (2002). Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen. Oxford: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4274-0.
  126. ↑ Tucker 2003
  127. ↑ Rushton 2000
  128. ↑ 2006 conference report of American Renaissance by Jared Taylor
  129. ↑ Psych prof accused of racism, UWO Gazette, February 2000
  130. ↑ Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97510-X
  131. ↑ Comments in interview could bring charges of inciting racism against PM Vanhanen's father Helsingin Sanomat, August 12, 2004
  132. ↑ "KRP ei aloita esitutkintaa Vanhasen lausunnoista". National Bureau of Investigation (in Finnish). August 18, 2004. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
  133. ↑ See:
  134. ↑ Rushton, J. P.; Jensen, A. R. (2008). "James Watson's Most Inconvenient Truth: Race Realism and the Moralistic Fallacy" (PDF). Medical Hypotheses 71 (5): 629–640. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.05.031. PMID 18656315.
  135. ↑ Rushton & Jensen 2005, pp. 246–8
  136. ↑ Benjamin 2003, p. 191
  137. ↑ Rouvroy, Antoinette (2008). Human genes and neoliberal governance: a Foucauldian critique. Routledge-Cavendish. p. 86. ISBN 0-415-44433-0.
  138. ↑ Nisbett, Richard (2009). Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-06505-7.
  139. ↑ Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. (2010). "Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It" (PDF). The Open Psychology Journal 3 (1): 9–35. doi:10.2174/1874350101003010009.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, April 07, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.