DOCSLIB.ORG

Basis of These Accrued Meanings. in This Article, Jensen Restates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED MV BY !V Art VirP. Jensen GNI TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING Tomi UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, FURTHER REPRODUCTION C:ZP OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PER MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER f=h1 Copyright01972 by Arthur R. Jensen All Rights Reserved Jensen on "jensenism":A Reply to Critics Arthur R. Jensen University of California, Berkeley The term "jensenism" occurs in the officialprogram of this 1972 convention of the American Educational Research Association,and therefore I have been invited to say something about "jensenism."Since I did not coin the word, however, I.cannot claim to know allthe meanings it may have for others or that itmay have accrued through popular usage. To the best of my knowledge, "jensenism"was coined by the Wall Street Journal, shortly after the publication ofmy article "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Athievement?" in the HarvardEducational Review (Jensen, 1969). It has since been used in the popularpress and elsewhere (e.g., the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March,May 1970) as a term intended to summarize the user's interpretation ofone or another aspect of my article: the failure of large scale compensatoryeducation programs, the theory of the inheritance of mental abilities, the hypothesisthat not only individual differences but social class and racial differences inintelligence involve genetic as well as environmental factors,and that mental abilities may be viewed in terms of two broad categories (called LevelI and Level II) which are differentially correlated with social class and might have useful implications for instruction in scholasticskills. Some of my most vehement critics have used the term pejoratively. Professor Lewontin, for example, likened "jensenism" to Jansenism,named after Bishop Jansen in the 17th Century for his "pernicious heresy . of total depravity, irresistable grace, lack of free will, predestination and limited atonement" (Lewontin, 2 Jensen 2 1970; Jensen, 1970). If "jensenism" has any valid meaningat all, from my own standpoint, what it means is a biological and geneticalview of human kind and of human differences -- both individual differencesand group differences. For me, "jensenism" is the bringingto bear of this genetic viewpointupon under- standing some of the problems ofeducation. The genetic view ofman has often been badly misunderstood in thiscontext, and 99 percent of the heated debate I have seen in the threeyears since the publication ofmy Harvard Educational Review article, I believe,reflects this misunderstanding.Much of the unthinlIng emotional reaction I attribute to the fact thata generation or more of social scientistsand educators have been indoctrinated to ignore genetics, or to believethat genetic factorsare of little or no importance in human behaviorand human differences,or to think nongenetically or antigenetically. Any attempt by anyone to introduceinto this scene theory and research on genetics as it relates to vital educationaland social problems was destined atfirst to meet hostility and rejection.. The modern genetic view ofman calls for a revolution in our thinking, in our whole orientation. It demands on everyone'spart an even more drastic reorientation of thinking thanwas required by other historical revolutions of thought, such as the Copernican, Darwinian, and Einsteinianrevolutions. The Mendelian revolution (andFisher's pioneering extensionsof Mendelian genetics.to polygenic systems) is already established in biologicalscience, but it has not yet filteredinto other domains. The Mendelian revolution, if it can be called by that, has not yet influenced socialscientists on any large scale; it has notcharacterized the thinking ofour social policy makers, and it is totally foreign to the general public, whichin terms of thinking genetically in the modern sense is surely at the flat earthstage 3 Jensen 3 of scientific sophistication. The educational task thatis called for is awesome. It will probably tikemore than a generation. But at least, perhaps, we have begun. Major revolutions of thoughtgenerally are absorbed most slowly and imperfectly. AB scientists, researchers,and educators we must take the lead. The genetic view of man stands in sharp contrast to theprevailing views that dominate most people's thinking. One class of anti-geneticview can be characterized as social elitism and racism. These old fashioned beliefsare quite out of touch with moderngenetics; they arenow more political and ideological than scientific. They are based on typologicalnotions of genetics, and not on statistical and stochastic conceptionsof continuous variation. They are apparently ignorantof the genetic facts of random segregation and recombination of genes, or of the fundamentalprinciple that the properties of an individual depend upon the state inwhich he finds him- self and not upon the state from which he is derived,orthe fact that social .classes and races are discrete systems of classificationimposed upon what in nature are not at all discrete but rathercontinuous-gene pools whichvary statistically. This mistaken typologicalthinking proclaims "like begets like" but ignores the other half of geneticfact -- that "like also begets unlike," due to segregation and recombination ofgenes in the creation of every individual. In a profoundsense, social elitism and racism deny individuality, the very individuality that is in factinsured by genetic mechanisms. There is another class of anti-genetic misconceptions,too, which shares many characteristics in common with the first class oferroneous thinking I have just described. It can be called equalitarianenvironmentalism. Like social elitism and racism, it too ignores the facts ofgenetics, and it, too, Jensen 4 denies individuality if you follow its reasoning all theway. And similarly, it is more political and ideological than scientific.It denies genetic variability, at least with respect to certain characteristics,usually behavioral, and insists that the environment alone-- usually the social environment -- makes the person and all ,the behavioral defferencesamong persons. It may at times pay a kind of lip service togenetics, which is often seen as ceasing in importance after themoment of conception, but its conclusions invariably deny the importance of geneticfactors in human behavioral differences. It may also wear theguise of "interactionism," based on the truism that the individual isa product of the interaction of genetic and environmental factors, but always withthe *libation that the genetic factors are more or less totally submergedor obscured by environmental influences. Much of the debateand fulmination surrounding my HER article,I submit, is a result of most persons' knowing only thesetwo mistaken views and feeling that their only choiceis the one or the other. Most well-intentionedpersons have deemed itnecessary to put down the first view at all costs andto defend the second. Often it was viewed as the battle of the "good guys"versus the "bad guys."I have been opposed to both these views; "jensenism"is contrary to both. The antidote to both is to think Renetically,that is to say, in the most fundamental sense to think about yourself,about other persons, and about groups (yourown group and other groups, whatever they may be) inways that are consistent with already wellestablished principlesof modern genetics. In short, I'm saying let's get abreast of the Mendelianrevolution. Just what does this mean? Let's get downto specific points. First and most important,it means that you and everyone else (exceptmonozygotic twins)
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]
  • 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]
  • The G Factor: the Science of Mental Ability
    Book Reviews The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability Arthur R. Jensen Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998, 700pp. US$39.95 cloth. ISBN 0-2759-6103-6. Greenwood Publishing, 88 Post Rd. West, Box 5007, Westport, CT 06881, USA. J. Philippe Rushton University of Western Ontario, Canada Few scientists have effects or laws named after them. Arthur lates of g (excluding race), its heritability, and its practical Jensen's name is listed in a number of dictionaries as an predictive power. The fact that psychometric g has many "ism!" The Random House and Webster's Unabridged Dic- physical correlates proves that it is not just a methodological tionaries contain the following entry: artifact. Among biological variables, g loads on heritability coefficients determined from twin studies and inbreeding Jen-sen-ism (jen'se niz'em), n. the theory that an depression scores calculated in children born from cousin- individual's IQ is largely due to heredity, including marriages. g is also related to brain size measured by Mag- racial heritage. [1965-1970]; after Arthur R. Jensen netic Resonance Imaging (MRI), brain evoked potentials, (born 1923), U.S. educational psychologist, who pro- and intracellular brain pH levels. It (g) is a product of human posed such a theory; see -ism]—Jen'sen-ist, Jen'sen- evolution and is also found in nonhuman animals. ite', n., adj. Despite these caveats, The Bell Curve affair allows one to safely predict that The g Factor's coverage of race will The "theory" attributed to Jensen has, in fact, been around strike many as of central importance.
    [Show full text]