DOCSLIB.ORG

Level I/Level II: Factors Or Categories?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Level I/Level II: Factors Or Categories? Level I/Level II: Factors or Categories? Arthur R. Jensen Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley An explanation is sought for the striking apparent failure of the interactions of intelligence and memory factors with socioeconomic status predicted by Jensen's Level I/Level II theory, in a study by Stankov, Horn, and Roy (1980). It is suggested that Level I ability may not be a higher-order factor, like Spear- man's g or Level II but rather a category of narrower abilities involving rote learning and primary memory, with little transformation between input and output. Orthogonal! zed hierarchical factor analysis of the abilities domain is recommended as potentially the most fruitful method for discovering the na- ture of Ability X SES (or Race) interactions. The recent article in this journal "On the the phenomena that it has helped to reveal. Relationship Between Gf/Gc Theory and When the theoretical scaffolding is torn Jensen's Level I/Level II Theory" by Stan- down, are the established empirical findings kov, Horn, and Roy (1980) merits a critical that are left standing of interest, scientifi- comment. These authors (henceforth sig- cally or practically, and worthy of attempts nified as SHR) investigated Level I/Il in a at better theoretical formulation? If so, the factor analytic framework that seems to theory has served its legitimate purpose. highlight certain aspects of the Level I/II I believe this is the case with the Level I/II theory thai have been neglected in previous theory. A large number of studies, of which studies. This is indeed valuable. But what my own studies of Level I/II are only a minor I see as the main contribution of their study fraction, have now established certain phe- is apt to be lost in the article's clutter of side nomena that must be understood by differ- issues, including some confusions about the ential psychologists. A recent comprehen- Level I/II theory and all the previous em- sive review of this research literature con- pirical research on it. cludes: Level I/II is more a set of empirical gen- eralizations than it is a theory, although the The majority of studies . provide support for the attempt to explain these generalizations, major hypotheses of Jensen's [Level I/II] theory. Dif- which so far has not been uppermost, can ferent socioeconomic status (SES) and racial groups fend to obtain equal average scores on Level I, whereas loosely be termed a theory. I regard theories middle SES and white groups obtain higher scores on merely as tools and scaffolding for the dis- tests of Level 11, on average, than groups of low SKS and covery of previously unnoticed phenomena. black individuals. Among the mentally retarded, low A theory is useful so long as it serves this SES children consistently outperform middle SES purpose, and it is defensible on this ground children on measures of Level 1. (Vernon, 1981) alone. As the phenomena that a theory re- Also, the results of other large-scale studies veals increase in extent and complexity, the of Level I/II (Hall & Kaye, 1980; Scarr, 1981) theory must undergo revision or be discarded too recent for inclusion in Vernon's review and replaced by some other theory, if our are consistent with the major hypotheses aim is to go on probing reality. The danger derived from Level I/II theory—for example, of a theory is not that the theory is wrong or much smaller race and SES differences on inadequate in light of further discovery, for Level I (memory) than on Level II (intelli- that is inevitable and necessary. The danger gence). is that proving the theory to be deficient may That the SHR study apparently did not be misconstrued as justification for ignoring yield results consistent with expectations from Level I/II, as so many other much Requests for reprints should he sent to Arthur R. larger studies have done, is itself in need of Jensen, Institute of Human Learning, University of explanation. SHR's findings do not "dis- California, Berkeley, California 94720. prove," or even bring into question, the main 868 LEVEL I/LEVEL II 869 empirical generalizations of Level I/II that as Level I, and in fact one of the tests (free are well supported by a host of other studies. recall of categorized lists) was used as a Level But a more careful examination of how and II test in one study (Jensen & Frederiksen, why the SHR results differ from those of 1973), and it behaved as a Level II measure other studies might well throw important should behave in relation to other variables, new light on the Level I/II formulation. in terms of the theory—this, despite the fact that the Mm primary is as substantially The SHR Study loaded on the second-order SAR factor as are the other two primaries, Ms and Ma, that Essentially, what SHR did was as follows: also define the SAR factor. SHR thus wisely They began with 12 primary (first order) dropped the free recall tests in their subse- factors that had already been established in quent analyses because of their ambiguity as earlier studies. Each of these primary fac- a SAR factor. tors is measured by a small group of tests. Factor scores were then obtained on the Three of the primaries involving memory oblique second-order factors Gf, Gc, and tests were identified as characteristic of SAR. These factor scores were then used to Level I ability: Memory Span (Ms), mea- compare the means of three SES groups sured by auditory and visual number and after the total sample of 201 high school letter span; Associative Memory (Ma), students was divided into high (n = 45), measured by low association word paired- medium (n = 75), and low (n = 81) SES associates, word-number pairs, and free re- groups on the basis of father's occupation. call of uncategorized lists; and Meaningful The main prediction from Level I/II Memory (Mm), measured by high associa- theory, which many other studies have borne tion word pairs, emphasized word recall, and out (Vernon, 1981), is that the SES groups free recall of categorized lists. The 12 pri- should differ very much less on Level I mary factors (including Ms, Ma, and Mm) ability (as here measured by SAR factor were factor analyzed, and three second-order scores) than on Level II ability (as measured factors with eigenvalues larger than 1 by Gf and Gc factor scores). The results of emerged. These three second-order factors, the SHR study, however, did not bear out obliquely rotated to approximate simple this prediction. The SES groups differ structure, were identified as Fluid Intelli- consistently and significantly on all of the gence (Gf), Crystalized intelligence (Gc), factor scores, and the SES differences are of and Short- Term Acquisition and Retention about the same magnitude on Gf, Gc, and (SAR). The Gf and Gc factors are both es- SAR. This striking result is virtually sentially Level II ability, which I have always unique, so consistently has this particular considered to be much the same ability as prediction from Level I/II theory been sub- Spearman's g factor. Gf and Gc are differ- stantiated in previous studies comparing ent (although usually highly correlated) SES and racial (white/black) groups on phenotypic expressions of the same ge- measures of Level I and Level II. Unfortu- notypic Spearman's g. The SAR factor, nately, SHR's explanation for this surprising being defined by tests of short-term memory, finding is inadequate and inaccurate. It is presumably a factor analogue of Level I requires a closer, more careful look than they ability. That is to say, the SAR factor rep- gave to it. It is even possible that they have resents mainly the common variance among found something more interesting than they three primary factors derived from nine had apparently realized. various tests of short-term memory. At least two of the primary factors—Ms and False Explanations Ma—would surely appear to qualify as Level I; their defining tests, or something very SHR suggest that their results are a result equivalent, have all been used as Level I of their better, less biased sampling. They measures in previous studies. In terms of state that Level I/II theory, however, the Mm (Mean- ingful Memory) primary is not as clearly when sampling does not produce a contrast between defined by tests that would be characterized only one extreme group and a midgroup with respect to 870 ARTHUR R. JENSEN the abilities of interest, the differences between SES ferences (see next section) from I/II groups are significant for LI (i.e., SAR) as well as for IJI theory tested in this study, the sample sizes (i.e., Gf or Gc), and the differences between the differ- ences are neither noteworthy nor significant." (p. cannot be held responsible for the failure of 807) the main hypothesis, that is, the absence of a significant and appreciable Level I/II X And they then go on to explain the statistical SES interaction. However, it is noteworthy effects and possible artifacts that could re- that the SES classification into high, medi- sult from selecting extreme groups, con- um, and low SES groups in this Australian cluding that sample does not result in as large mean SES differences on the Level II factor scorers (Gf the present analyses and results differ from those of Jensen in one notable respect: Groups are selected at and Gc) as are typically found in American both extremes and in the middle with respect to each samples that are stratified in much the same of the three major factors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SOHASKY-DISSERTATION-2017.Pdf (2.074Mb)
    DIFFERENTIAL MINDS: MASS INTELLIGENCE TESTING AND RACE SCIENCE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by Kate E. Sohasky A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland May 9, 2017 © Kate E. Sohasky All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Historians have argued that race science and eugenics retreated following their discrediting in the wake of the Second World War. Yet if race science and eugenics disappeared, how does one explain their sudden and unexpected reemergence in the form of the neohereditarian work of Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Charles Murray? This dissertation argues that race science and eugenics did not retreat following their discrediting. Rather, race science and eugenics adapted to changing political and social climes, at times entering into states of latency, throughout the twentieth century. The transnational history of mass intelligence testing in the twentieth century demonstrates the longevity of race science and eugenics long after their discrediting. Indeed, the tropes of race science and eugenics persist today in the modern I.Q. controversy, as the dissertation shows. By examining the history of mass intelligence testing in multiple nations, this dissertation presents narrative of the continuity of race science and eugenics throughout the twentieth century. Dissertation Committee: Advisors: Angus Burgin and Ronald G. Walters Readers: Louis Galambos, Nathaniel Comfort, and Adam Sheingate Alternates: François Furstenberg
    [Show full text]
  • Psychometric G: Definition and Substantiation
    Psychometric g: Definition and Substantiation Arthur R. Jensen University of Culifornia, Berkeley The construct known as psychometric g is arguably the most important construct in all of psychology largelybecause of its ubiquitous presence in all tests of mental ability and its wide-ranging predictive validity for a great many socially significant variables, including scholastic performance and intellectual attainments, occupational status, job performance, in- come, law abidingness, and welfare dependency. Even such nonintellec- tual variables as myopia, general health, and longevity, as well as many other physical traits, are positively related to g. Of course, the causal con- nections in the whole nexus of the many diverse phenomena involving the g factor is highly complex. Indeed, g and its ramifications cut across the behavioral sciences-brainphysiology, psychology, sociology-perhaps more than any other scientific construct. THE DOMAIN OF g THEORY It is important to keep in mind the distinction between intelligence and g, as these terms are used here. The psychology of intelligence could, at least in theory, be based on the study of one person,just as Ebbinghaus discov- ered some of the laws of learning and memory in experimentswith N = 1, using himself as his experimental subject. Intelligence is an open-ended category for all those mental processes we view as cognitive, such as stimu- lus apprehension, perception, attention, discrimination, generalization, 39 40 JENSEN learning and learning-set acquisition, short-term and long-term memory, inference, thinking, relation eduction, inductive and deductive reasoning, insight, problem solving, and language. The g factor is something else. It could never have been discovered with N = 1, because it reflects individual di,fferences in performance on tests or tasks that involve anyone or moreof the kinds of processes just referred to as intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Stormfront Discussions on Race
    “So Much for Darwin” An Analysis of Stormfront Discussions on Race Dianne Dentice Stephen F. Austin State University ABSTRACT Even though people who actively participate in the white nationalist movement appear to be a relatively small percentage of the global popula- tion, it appears that racist and anti-Semitic attitudes continue to inform a new generation of white nationalists, many of whom populate discussion forums on Stormfront, online since 1995 and billed as the first Internet site in the hate genre. Membership in extremist groups and support for sites like Stormfront embody specific attitudes about race, the importance of the exis- tence of biological races, intellectual superiority of whites, and justification for these beliefs that is sometimes framed with a religious perspective such as Christian Identity. This project is based on a content analysis of Storm- front discussion forums posted online between the years 2010 and 2017. The findings indicate that some discussants are willing to admit the exis- tence of small percentages of mixed DNA without giving up their white identity. They understand the concept of mass migration and human breed- ing patterns. Others stand ready to argue these points and discredit DNA testing whenever possible. Hatred of Jews is a recurrent theme throughout Stormfront forums, no matter the topic of discussion and both William Pierce and Wesley Swift are gaining currency with younger discussants on the site. Additionally and maybe most importantly, a mentoring system is in place where more mature and seasoned white racialists share race science anecdotes and articles from J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • IQ Guru Talks to Skeptic Magazine? Given the Chance to Explain How He
    Heredity (2003) 90, 346–347 & 2003 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/hdy BOOK REVIEW IQ guru talks to Skeptic magazine? welfare state that will long continue to support the Given the chance to explain how he country’s Black underclass. Who were Jensen’s friends in martyrdom and what chose to endure denunciation for was the organization of the London School of which he ‘fascism’, psychologist Arthur Jensen became the revered intellectual head? (The journal holds his peace Intelligence recently devoted a Special Issue to him, calling him ‘A King among Men.’) What was the plan of Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations campaign for dealing with the rise of political correctness which was making even discussion of race impossible? with Arthur R Jensen Miele’s book has no index allowing tracing, but such F Miele crown princes of the London School as Phil Rushton Westview Press, Oxford. 2002; 236 pp. (who first linked the Mongoloid–Caucasian–Negroid d16.99, hardback. ISBN 0-8133-4008-X continuum to a wide range of psychological features, Reviewed by Chris Brand including sexuality – Rushton, 1985) and Richard Lynn Heredity (2003) 90, 346–347. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800226 (who first noticed evidence that Black African IQ was actually only 70 – Lynn, 1991) certainly do not loom large in Jensen’s ‘conversation.’ Scrupulously aiming to avoid In 1969, Arthur Jensen (today Emeritus Professor at controversy, the man who first so sensationally attracted Berkeley) began his career of martyrdom with his it now disdains any interesting propositions about the Harvard Educational Review article saying that educability, human condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans Eysenck's Theory of Intelligence, and What It Reveals About Him
    Personality and Individual Differences 103 (2016) 116–127 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Hans Eysenck's theory of intelligence, and what it reveals about him Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA article info abstract Article history: Hans Eysenck was a highly analytical, objective, independent-minded experimentalist. He personified the biolog- Received 18 March 2016 ical perspective of the Galton–Spearman ‘London School of Psychology’, which he led for many decades. His first Accepted 6 April 2016 (1939) and last publications (1998) were on intelligence. Returning to the topic in the 1960s, he formulated, tested, and promulgated the theory that general intelligence (g) is a biological phenomenon with broad social Keywords: consequences. I examine the status of Eysenck's theory, advances in the field, and social reactions to them during Hans J. Eysenck – – London School of Psychology the 1960s 1970s, 1980s 1990s, and since 2000. My perspective is that of a sociologist who, in testing alternative Intelligence theories of social inequality, was drawn inexorably into the intelligence literature, policy debates over fairness in g factor employee selection, and first-hand observation of the sort of controversies he experienced. Eysenck's 1979 and Intelligence theory 1998 textbooks on intelligence mark developments in his theory and supporting evidence during the first two Biological psychology periods. They exhibit considerable knowledge about the philosophy and history of science, and the nature of sci- Scientificcontroversy entific controversy. Advances in intelligence since 2000, in particular, from neuroimaging and molecular genetics, Social inequality vindicate his biological perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Flynn-2018.Pdf
    Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Criminal Justice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus Academic freedom and race: You ought not to believe what you think may be true James R. Flynn Psychology Department, University of Otago, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand ABSTRACT There should be no academic sanctions against those who believe that were environments equalized, genetic differences between black and white Americans would mean that blacks have an IQ deficit. Whether the evi- dence eventually dictates a genetically caused deficit of nil or 5 or 10 or 20 IQ points is irrelevant. The hypothesis is intelligible and subject to scientific investigation. If that is so, you must have already investigated it if you are to know what is true or false. To prohibit others from investigation or publication of their results is to designate certain truths as the property of an elite to be forbidden to anyone else. It is to insulate them from whatever new evidence the scientific method may provide that would modify belief. A word to those who seek respectability by banning race/gene research: how much respectability would you get if your position were stated without equivocation? What if you were to openly say genetic equality between the races may or may not be true; and that is exactly why I forbid it to be investigated. Or: “I do not know if genetic equality is true and do not want anyone else to know.” There should be no academic sanctions against those who believe than white Americans.” First, that it makes a racial distinction and that that were environments equalized, genetic differences between black there are no such things as pure races, that is, there are no groups of and white Americans would mean that blacks have an IQ deficit.
    [Show full text]
  • Basis of These Accrued Meanings. in This Article, Jensen Restates
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 063 445 UD 012 444 AUTHOR Jensen, Arthur R. TITLE On Jensenism": A Reply to Critics. PUB DATE 7 Apr 72 NOTE 62p.; Address made at the AmericanEducational Research Association annual convention, Ill., April 7, 1972 Chicago, EDRS PRICE MF$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Ar:ademicPerforzrance; *Cultural Disadvantagement; Culture FreeTests; Disadvantaged Youth; Environment; *Genetics; Heredity; Intelligence; *Intelligence Differences; *Intelligence Quotient; IntelligenceTests; Prenatal Influences; Social Differences; *Social Disadvantagement; Social. Factors; Social Influences ABSTRACT In this address, Jensen discusseshis views on the effects of heredity and environmenton human intelligence, in an attempt to clarify his originalstatements on this subject. Since his article appeared in the "HarvardEducational Review" in 1969, the term "Jensenism" has accrueda variety of meanings through popular usage (according to Jensen) and his ideashave been attacked on the basis of these accrued meanings.In this article, Jensen restates his original views on the nature-nurtureargument, deals with the types of reactions to and criticismsof "Jensenism," heritability,and teachability, with particularreference to heritability in theNegro population, and discusses theeducational implications (namely, compensatory education) of his ideas.(SB) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO. DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM 04. THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG. INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OROPIN. IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDI.). CATION POSITION OR POLICY. 1.11.1 ON "JENSENISM": A REPLY TO CRITICS Arthur R. Jensen Institute of Human Learning University of California, Berkeley Invited Address. American EducationalResearch Association Annual Convention. Chicago, Illinois April 7, 1972 044 "PERMISSION TO REPROOUCE THIS COPY.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy 5 B.F.Skinner: Consensus and Controversy ARTHUR JENSEN
    ARTHUR JENSEN Consensus and Controversy Essays in Honour of Arthur Jensen Falmer International Master-Minds Challenged Psychology Series Editors: Drs Sohan and Celia Modgil 1 Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and Controversy 2 Hans Eysenck: Consensus and Controversy 3 Noam Chomsky: Consensus and Controversy 4 Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy 5 B.F.Skinner: Consensus and Controversy ARTHUR JENSEN Consensus and Controversy EDITED BY Sohan Modgil, Ph.D. Reader in Educational Research and Development Brighton Polytechnic AND Celia Modgil, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology London University CONCLUDING CHAPTER BY Arthur R.Jensen University of California, Berkeley The Falmer Press (A Member of the Taylor & Francis Group) New York Philadelphia and London USA The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc., 242 Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106–1906 UK The Falmer Press, Falmer House, Barcombe, Lewes, East Sussex, BN8 5DL © Selection and editorial material copyright Sohan and Celia Modgil 1987 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. First published in 1987 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Arthur Jensen: consensus and controversy. (Falmer international masterminds challenged; 4) Contents: General introduction/Julian Stanley— Human learning/Philip Vernon and Lazar Stankov— Genetics of Human abilities/Robert Plomin, Oscar Kempthorne, and Thomas Bouchard—[etc.].
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Politics: the Rise of Personality Traits in The
    PERSONAL POLITICS: THE RISE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS IN THE CENTURY OF EUGENICS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS IAN J. DAVIDSON A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO AUGUST 2020 © IAN J. DAVIDSON, 2020 ii Abstract This dissertation documents personality psychology’s development alongside psychoanalysis and eugenics, offering a disciplinary and cultural history of personality across the twentieth century. Using the psychological concepts of neurosis and introversion as an organizational framework, personality’s history is portrayed as one of “success:” a succession of hereditarianism and its politics of normativity; a successful demarcation of the science of personality from competing forms of expertise; and a successful cleansing of personality psychology’s interchanges with unethical researchers and research. Chapter 1 provides background for the dissertation, especially focusing on turn-of-the- century developments in the nascent fields of American psychology and the importation of psychoanalytic ideas. It ends with a look at Francis Galton’s eugenicist and statistical contributions that carved a key path for psychological testers to discipline psychoanalytic concepts. Part I details the rise of personality testing in the USA during the interwar years, while also considering the many sexual and gender norms at play. Chapter 2 tracks the varied places in the 1920s that personality tests were developed: from wartime military camps to university laboratories to the offices of corporate advertisers. Chapter 3 takes stock of popular psychoanalytic notions of personality alongside the further psychometric development of personality testing. These developments occurred at a time when American eugenicists— including psychologists—were transitioning to a “positive” form that emphasized marriage and mothering.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur R. Jensen, 1923–2012
    Twin Research and Human Genetics Volume 16 Number 1 pp. 499–500 C The Authors 2013 doi:10.1017/thg.2012.143 OBITUARY Arthur R. Jensen, 1923–2012 John C. Loehlin University of Texas at Austin Arthur R(obert) Jensen was born August 24, 1923, in San esis worthy of further investigation. ‘The fact that a rea- Diego, and died on October 22, 2012, in his home in sonable hypothesis has not been rigorously proved does Kelseyville in northern California at the age of 89. At the not mean that it should be summarily dismissed. It only timeofhisdeathhewasProfessorEmeritusoftheUniversity means that we need more research for putting it to the test’ of California (Berkeley), in whose Department of Educa- (p. 82). tional Psychology he had served since his initial academic Jensen’s views received wide publicity and were anathema appointment in 1958. in many intellectual circles. Radical groups disrupted his Three events shaped his intellectual career. In 1956, after public lectures. Students chanted outside his classroom: Dr. receiving a PhD from Columbia University (his disserta- Jensen is inside. He is teaching genocide. His car tires were tion was on the ineffectiveness of a particular projective slashed. He received death threats against himself and his test in predicting aggression), Jensen spent two postdoc- family. For a period, the university provided him with a toral years in H. J. Eysenck’s laboratory in London, where pair of bodyguards when he moved about campus, and the he was exposed to the psychometric, genetic, and individual police X-rayed his mail before he was permitted to open difference traditions stemming from Galton, Pearson, and it.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur R. Jensen (1923–2012)
    OBITUARIES Arthur R. Jensen (1923–2012) Arthur R. Jensen epitomized the “London School” of psycho- Art respected Symonds but felt that his interest in pro- logical thought, studying human individuality as a branch of jective techniques was more a literary exercise than important biology by teaming evolutionary, genetic, and experimental/ science, a feeling that intensified during Art’s clinical intern- multivariate/quantitative methods to examine psychological ship at the University of Maryland’s Psychiatric Institute diversity. His intellectual ancestry traces back through his (1955–1956). Yet, he drew on important advice from Sy- mentor Hans Eysenck to Cyril Burt, Charles Spearman, and, monds, who told him that if he really wanted to be a top ultimately, Sir Francis Galton. Haggbloom et al. (2002, Re- academic, he should work with a leading expert for a few view of General Psychology) ranked him among the top 50 years after obtaining his PhD, rather than taking the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century primarily for his attractive or best-paying position—not to learn more psychol- work on the construct of general intelligence (g) and its ogy or acquire more through reading, but to see how leading antecedents. But he was also known for his studies in human contributors structure their lives and priorities. learning, memory, the cumulative deficit hypothesis, Spear- During the evenings of his internship, Art read widely in man’s hypothesis, the speed of information hypothesis, and psychology, seeking a mentor. Eysenck’s The Scientific Study test bias. Yet, because of the controversial nature of his work, of Personality (1952) resonated with him, as did other lumi- his career was conspicuously marked by tensions: The extent naries in individual-differences/psychometrics.
    [Show full text]
  • Victim of Scientific Hoax
    40 / SOCIETY * MARCH/APRIL 1994 Victim of Scientific Hoax J. Philippe Rushton Yril Bun's report of a preponderant genetic con- Butt was concerned with differences of social class and C tribution to mental ability in monozygotic twins only rarely strayed into discussion of race or gender raised apart, flew in the face of two of this century's differences. He held that the British upper classes most powerful ideas: environmentalism and genetic contained a larger proportion of high genetic intelli- equalitarianism. In 1961 Henry Garrett, a president of gence than did the British lower classes, even though, the American Psychological Association, referred to in absolute numbers, there would be more gifted chil- these as the "equalitarian dogma." In its strongest dren outside of the upper classes than inside of them. form, this dogma holds that all social groups--classes, (Child prodigies of humble origin were of special races, and sexes--are genetically created equal in in- interest to him.) Because of his belief in the degree of tellectual capacity and that disproportionate achieve- overlap in the distributions, and also because of his ment was entirely the result of opportunity and other belief that entrance into advanced school systems social factors. should be based on test and examination performance Cyril Bun is featured in many psychology text- rather than the privilege of birth, Bun was considered books, not for his scientific discoveries, which were a liberal in his day. many, but for his alleged misrepresentation of data. By Bun's "day" was the 1920s and 1930s. He was born implication, the genetic basis of giftedness and intelli- in 1883, the son of a medical doctor, and entered gence is then held still not to be established.
    [Show full text]