DOCSLIB.ORG

Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Roger Pearson ISBN 1-878465-02-3 Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Roger Pearson Introduction by Hans J. Eysenck Scott-Townsend Publishers P.O. Box 34070 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20043 Author Roger Pearson obtained his Master’s degree in Economics and Sociology and his Doctoral degree in Anthropology from the University of London. Having served as departmental head of anthropology at two U.S. universities and dean of academic affairs at a third, he is the author of several textbooks, including An Introduction to Anthropology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston) and an Anthropological Glossary (Krieger Publishing Co.), and is the editor of the quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies published from 6861 Elm St. #4-H, McLean, VA 22101. Hans J. Eysenck, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital, University of London, who contributed the Introduction, is a prominent authority on personality, learning and intelligence, and is the world’s most frequently cited psychologist. He is the author of numerous authoritative books and articles, and holds two doctorates (Ph.D. and D.Sc.) from the University of London. Copyright © 1991 Roger Pearson ISBN 1-878465-02-3 Scott-Townsend Publishers P.O. Box 34070 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20043 CONTENTS AUTHOR’S PREFACE INTRODUCTION BY HANS J. EYSENCK: SCIENCE AND RACISM 16 CHAPTER 1 How IT ALL BEGAN 56 CHAPTER 2 THE LEGACY OF MARX, MANNHEIM AND LYSENKO 95 CHAPTER3 SCIENTIFIC LUDDITES AND NEO-LYSENKOISTS 112 CHAPTER 4 ARTHUR JENSEN 141 CHAPTER 5 WILLIAM SHOCKLEY 184 CHAPTER 6 J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON 216 CHAPTER 7 ACTIVIST LYSENKOISM: THE CASE OF BARRY MEHLER 243 CHAPTER 8 OTHER PROMINENT SCHOLAR-VICTIMS 264 CHAPTER 9 ACADEME, THE MEDIA AND PUBLIC POLICY 287 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION 297 AUTHOR’S PREFACE In her presidential address to the annual meeting of the Behavior Genetics Association held in Honolulu, Hawau, on June 20, 1986 (published in Behavior Genetics, 17;3, 1987), Professor SandraScarr, then of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, hit a jubilant note. She spoke of the widespread opposition to the developmentofbehavior genetics during the 1960s and 1970s, and welcomedthe fact that scientific research had since provided clear evidencethat inheritance plays a majorrole in determining human behavior. Behavior genetics, she said, had at last become recog- nized as a relevantfield of research which has vast implications for the future of humanity. Opening her address in this congratulatory mood, Professor Scarr observed that: Someyears ago, the late Michael Lerner, an invited speaker at an early meeting of this organization, gave a speech entitled ‘Two cheers for Behavior Genetics’. The putting together of behavior and genetics would require, he said, more than just juxtaposing the two words. In thepastfifteen years, we have put behavior genetics together as a field ... we have earned Lerner’s two cheers. She then went on to review "the history of ideas behind the current acceptance and the formerrejection of ideas about human genetic variability in behavioral development” from the point of view of her personal experiences from 1960 to 1986. "One might have wondered," she reminisced: "why any behav- ioral scientists would want to study genetic variability in behavior. Not a popular topic from either a scientific or a political point of view, such research inflamed public opinion from 1960 to the early 1980s." But the tide had turned, she claimed, and "the outcries stopped, with the exception of a few eccentrics, such as Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Steven Jay Gould and Stephen Rose, who have audiences amongthe lingering social radicals left over from the 1970s." To illustrate the politically-oriented persecution from which 8 AUTHOR’S PREFACE many who were engaged in behavioral genetics had suffered, Sandra Scarr salted her speech with some reminiscences of her own experiences at the hands of Marxist student mobs, who rejected freedom of speech and scientific research in favor of selective censorship, as exemplified by the slogan "No Free Speech for Racists": The debate amongscientists about humangenetic variability has been acrimoniousandlopsided overthe past 50 years. Many of you, and I, have lived through vicious disputes and physical threats to maintain the idea that evolution applies to human behavior. What might have been an intellectual debate between behaviorism and behavior genetics turned ugly in the late 1960s. That was a scary era, in which Arthur Jensen, Jan Bruell, Tom Bouchard, and manyothers were threatened andattacked, both verbally and physically. It is a sad commentary on the 1970s that ideas, expressed freely in open debate, evoked terrible retribution. Just two personalincidents: mild stories in compari- son to those that others of you could tell. First, Richard Weinberg and I were reported in the university press to be studying black children adopted by white families. Suddenly, one day in 1974, a large group of black students descended on myoffice at the Institute of Child Developmentat the University of Minnesota ... One graduate studentin education said he was goingto kill us if we continued to do research on black children. Another paced up and downinfrontof us calling, "honkie, honkie, honkie." It was not a pretty scene, but Richard and I kept ourcool ... I duly reported them to the administration, but of course, nothing was done - it was not fashionable in 1974 to ask questions about genetic variability in behavior. Nor wasit fashionable to ensure freedom of speech, even on university campuses. In 1976, Arthur Jensenwas invited by the graduate students of the Institute of Child Developmentat the Univ. of Minnesota to speak on bias in mentaltesting ... 1 walked with Art over to the lecture hall, some distance from the Institute. As we approached the hall, a phalanx of radical and black students lined the path and spat upon us. I had never been spat upon in mylife... On entering the lecture hall, it was clear that negotiations werein order, because the Progressive Labor Party members and the black students were intent on disrupting the lecture. Sitting on the edge of the table on the stage, I negotiated a deal — 45 RACE, INTELLIGENCE AND BIAS IN ACADEME 9 minutes for Professor Jensen to speak and 45 minutes for questions .... Art gave a beautiful lecture. They asked asinine questions that showed them to be ignorantof the issues. Not to be denied, however, they stormed the stage, and I got the chance to commit the one act of physical violence in myprofessionallife — I threw a young man, who wasattacking Art’s black-board chart, bodily off the stage and into the front row. He regained his balance and cameat me; I cowered and Bill Charlesworth saved my honorbyflooring him. The lecture had been heard, but we were all traumatized. What were Sandra Scarr and Arthur Jensen’s crimes? Simply, in Sandra Scarr’s own words: The major themethatintegratesall of the [behavioral genetic] research is the question: Why do people differ from one another? The question involves both individual and group differences. From a theoretical pointof view, individualand group differences follow the same evolutionary laws of variation and selection. Group differences [e.g. racial differences] are only aggregated individual differences, albeit with a potentially different evolu- tionaryhistory. Rejoicing in the signs of a groundswell of scientific opinion which had moved in the direction of support rather than opposi- tion, Sandra Scarr’s remarks were well received, but as subsequent events have provedshe sadly underestimated the extent to which the entrenched forces of Leftist bias remained able — with the assistance of a sympathetic media — to hold back the dissemination of "unacceptable" scientific knowledge to the public and to those who shape public policy. Her address was given four years ago, but despite her opti- mism and the mounting achievements in behavioral genetics, the influence of committed egalitarians — mostly Marxists or extreme Leftist activists — remains strong. Forideological reasons, there is a remarkable persistence of the belief that environment is over- whelmingly more important than heredity. This is sometimes called "neo-Lysenkoism," because like Lysenkoism — the belief that acquired characteristics could be genetically transmitted — it denies or ignores the demonstrated facts of Mendelian genetics. These egalitarian idealists are supported by the entrenched political 10 AUTHOR’S PREFACE interests of minorities many of whom believe that their claim to "affirmative action" benefits would be weakened were social legislation to be revised in accordance with modern knowledge concerning humangenetics. Theyarealso fortified by a Jean Paul Sartre type of Marxist existentialism which pervadeslarge segments of the Western academic world, despite the denouement of Marxist-Leninist regimes in Eastern Europe. It is therefore increasingly important that the public should be aware of the extent to which political activism has retarded research into the relationship between genetics and human behavior during the course of this century, and how objective scientific research in this area has been held back by such activism. Even now, when the real progress that has been made should be taken into account by our legislators and judiciary so that social programs of dubious value might be replaced by more effective solutions to the nation’s problems, research which points to the importance
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]
  • Quide the Formation of Any Social Policies, Particularly Those Affecting Families, from a Conservative/Pro-Family Point-Of-View
    irc MEMORANDUM TO; The Coalitions FROM; Connie Marshner DATE: May 20, 1981 SUBJECT: Yale Conference This week I participated in a conference at Yale University sponsored by the Rush Center for Child Development on the topic of "What is Pro-Family Policy. The list of speakers with their biographies is attached. The Bush Center for Child Development is a project supported by the Bush Foundation which is the 3-M Corporation Foundation. There are four such centers at universities around the country: Michigan, California, North Carolina and Yale. This conference was one of several they have during the year at which Bush Center people from all over the country come to hear and to participate. Mv talk on Tuesday was a straight-forward explanation of what principles shoul4 quide the formation of any social policies, particularly those affecting families, from a conservative/pro-family point-of-view. I had been expecting a much more lively controversy to be provoked than I ended up getting. In fact the wh 1 conference was more staid and dull than I had expected, even for an academic environment. I am not sure to what to attribute this. Perhaps the profession 1 child development types there felt there was no point in trying to ar^e with me. Perhaps they had anticipated what I was going to say or perhaps they don t ca e what the principles of pro-family policy are, but in any event it was less lively a conference than I had been expecting. I might note in passing that the afternoon speaker on Monday, Alan Crawford, made sort of a fool of himself and did not provoke any interest on the part of the audience either.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: Testing Measures of Merit
    MORE INTELLIGENT DESIGN: TESTING MEASURES OF MERIT Kimberly West-Faulcon This Article articulates the theoretical, legal, and policy implications of new and improved theories of intelligence and recent research finding that conventional mass-marketed standardized tests, or “factorist tests,” have less predictive power and larger racial differences in scores than newer multi- dimensional “systems-based” tests. It raises a new question about the fairness of the role that traditional admissions tests like the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT currently play in selective higher education admissions—whether basing admissions on scores on such tests unfairly distorts the true admissions-related merit of individual applicants and racial groups. The core of this argument is not that selective universities rely on a flawed definition of merit or that traditional factorist tests are racially, economically, or culturally biased. Instead, this Article considers the ramifications of social science evidence suggesting that the admissions tests most commonly relied upon today are less successful in predicting applicants’ future academic performance and have more racially skewed scores because they are designed according to a scientifically flawed theory of intelligence. It argues that this analysis is particularly salient in light of recent scientific studies, such as one finding that the currently dominant factorist college admissions test—the SAT— produces significantly larger racial group differences in test scores but with only half the predictive power
    [Show full text]
  • ISIR Program 2012 FIN
    Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) San Antonio, Texas, USA December 13–15, 2012 Sir Francis Galton San Antonio Marriott Riverwalk Hotel 889 East Market Street, San Antonio, TX 78205 Phone: 1-210-224-4555 Fax: 1-210-224-2754 Toll-free: 1-800-648-4462 Acknowledgements 2012 ISIR Board of Directors Linda Gottfredson, President University of Delaware David Lubinski, President Elect Vanderbilt University Earl Hunt, Past President University of Washington, Seattle Wendy Johnson, Board Member (exp. 2012) University of Edinburgh Keith Widaman, Board Member (exp. 2013) University of California, Davis Richard Haier, Board Member (exp. 2014), Secretary-Treasurer University of California, Irvine The Board would like to thank all the ISIR committees for their hard work in making this conference possible. We also thank Elsevier for helping to sponsor the Reception. i 2012 ISIR Committees Program Committee Yulia Kovas, Chair Yulia Dodonova, Paul Irwing, Wendy Johnson Conference Site Committee Thomas Coyle & Timothy Keith, Co-Chairs Distinguished Contributor Interview and Keynote Speaker Committee Sherif Karama, Chair Roberto Colom, Earl Hunt Holden Memorial Address on Science Writing Committee Linda Gottfredson, Chair James Thompson, Jonathan Wai Lifetime Achievement Award Committee Con Stough, Chair Wendy Johnson, Tim Keith, Aljoscha Neubauer, Jelte Wickerts Nominations and Elections Committee David Lubinski, Chair Tim Bates, Wendy Johnson, Mike McDaniel, Heiner Rindermann President’s Symposia Committee Richard Haier, Chair Linda Gottfredson Student Awards Committee Keith Widaman, Chair Roberto Colom, Matthew Reynolds Website Committee Linda Gottfredson, Chair James Thompson, Jonathan Wai ii In Memoriam Arthur R. Jensen 1923-2012 J. Philippe Rushton 1943-2012 iii Short schedule for ISIR 2012 (#) – Page of Abstract DAY 1: Thursday, Dec.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional History, Social Science, and Brown V. Board of Education 1954–1964
    CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 1954–1964 RAYMOND WOLTERS PART II: THE CONTINUING CONTROVERSY he segregationists’ counterattack on the Brown ruling and its historical and social science underpinnings was not limited to courtroom battles. Ever since Brown they Thad also challenged the prevailing public opinion about school desegregation. After Stell v. Savannah they redoubled these efforts. Henry E. Garrett and Wesley Critz George often wrote for general audiences, and two especially gifted writers, James J. Kilpatrick and Carleton Putnam, also came to the defense of segregation. From the moment of the Brown decision, Kilpatrick regarded desegregation as “jurisprudence gone mad.” He thought the Supreme Court had ignored eight decades of legal precedents and willfully disregarded the original un- derstanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the justices had interpreted the Constitution “to suit their own gauzy concepts of sociology,” Kilpatrick recommended that the South use every possible legal means to circumvent desegregation. “Let us pledge ourselves to litigate this thing for fifty years,” he wrote. “If one remedial law is ruled invalid, then let us try another; and if the second is ruled invalid, then let us enact a third…If it be said now that the South is flouting the law, let it be said to the high court, You taught us how.”1 In an extraordinary series of editorials published in the Richmond News Leader in 1955, Kilpatrick resurrected the Jeffersonian idea of interposition as a way to stop abuses of federal power. When a Federalist Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, in apparent disregard of states’ rights and of the First Amendment’s prohibition of laws that abridged freedom of speech, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson prepared protests known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Preface My Years with the Pioneer Fund by Harry F. Weyher President
    Preface My Years with the Pioneer Fund by Harry F. Weyher President, The Pioneer Fund On 22 November 1994 ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings was replete with somber voices speaking of a small penis being a "sign of superior intelligence," "eradicating inferior people," arresting blacks solely because of skin color, race superiority, and mentally ill Jews. This voice-over was spiced with references to Hitler and scenes of emaciated victims in Nazi death camps.1 I watched this broadcast with more than usual interest, because I was president of the foundation which was the subject of the broadcast, the Pioneer Fund. Fearing such tabloid treatment, I had refused repeated invitations from ABC to appear on tape for the program.2 My fears were justified. What I saw was a grotesque distortion, akin to what one used to see in fun house mirrors. ii The Science of Human Diversity A History of the Pioneer Fund The ABC broadcast was one of an endless series of attacks on Pioneer and the scientists whom it has funded, dating back almost 50 years, most often by making baseless charges of "Nazism" or "racism," thus sometimes inciting student unrest or faculty reaction. The following also has happened to Pioneer and these scientists: One scientist had to be accompanied by an armed guard on his own campus, as well as guarded in his home. Another scientist was required by the university to teach his classes by closed circuit television, supposedly in order to prevent a riot breaking out in his class. Several scientists had university and other speaking engagements canceled or interrupted by gangs of students or outside toughs.
    [Show full text]
  • Honoring Racism: the Professional Life and Reputation of Stanley D
    1 Honoring Racism: The Professional Life and Reputation of Stanley D. Porteus David E. Stannard In the Spring of 1998, the University of Hawai’i (UH) Board of Regents (BOR) voted to remove the name of former UH Professor Stanley D. Porteus from its place of honor on the Mānoa campus’ Social Science Building. This was the culmination of more than two decades of on-again, off-again activism on the part of UH students and faculty – spearheaded in the end by the 1997-98 Associated Students of the University of Hawai’i (ASUH). It was all done rather quietly. In the Fall of 1997, following an overwhelmingly supported ASUH resolution on the matter, UH President Kenneth Mortimer directed that a faculty-student committee be appointed to study Porteus’ work and to reconsider the appropriateness of honoring him with a campus building in his name. That committee’s report was issued in March of 1998. It recommended removing Porteus’ name from the Social Science Building, but it carefully avoided any detailed discussion of his work, and thus it provided no in-depth rationale for the serious action it advocated. Following in this line, Vice President for Academic Affairs Dean Smith conveyed the committee’s report to the Board of Regents with his assent, but also with an accompanying brief introduction that denied that Porteus’ work was – as ASUH and many scholars had long claimed – virulently racist and violent in its policy implications. Going one better than the substantially non-committal faculty-student committee, the Vice President’s remarks actually served to deny and undermine the recommendation with which he was concurring – the recommendation that the Regents should take the extraordinary step of removing Porteus’ name from the Social Science Building after two decades of its presence there.
    [Show full text]
  • 1988 BGA Nijmegen
    1(1 Milb Behavior Genetics Association ightee th Annual Meeting ........---------- ...,.--- Programs and A;13m.JA . actsj University of Nijmegen Nijmegen, The Netherlands June 22 - 25, 1988 BEHAVIOR GENETICS ASSOCIATION The purpose of the Behavior Genetics Association is to promote scientific study of the interrelationship of genetic mechanisms and behavior, both human and animal; to encourage and aid the education and training of research workers in the field of behavior genetics; and to aid in dissemination and interpretation to the general public of knowledge concerning the interrelationship of genetics and behavior, and its implications for health, human development, and education. For additional information about the Behavior Genetics Associ- ation, please contact Prof. James R. Wilson, BGA Secretary, Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309- 0447. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1987-1988 1988-1989 President Peter A. Parsons Leonard L. Heston President-Elect Leonard L. Heston Robert Plomin Past President Sandra Scarr Peter A. Parsons Secretary James R. Wilson James R. Wilson Treasurer Gregory Carey Gregory Carey Member-at-Large Vicki E. Pollock Nicholas G. Martin Member-at-Large Nicholas G. Martin Pierre L. Roubertoux Member-at-Large Pierre L. Roubertoux Dorret I. Boomsma Previous Presidents Previous Dobzhanskv Awardees Th. Dobzhansky, 1972-1973 Steven G. Vandenberg, 1977 John L. Fuller, 1973-1974 Elliot Slater, 1978 Gerald E. McClearn, 1974-1975 Ernst W. Caspari, 1979 J. P. Scott, 1975-1976 Benson E. Ginsburg, 1980 Irving I. Gottesman, 1976-1977 Sheldon C. Reed, 1981 W. R. Thompson, 1977-1978 Gardner Lindzey, 1982 Lee Ehrman, 1978-1979 Peter L. Broadhurst, 1983 V. Elving Anderson, 1979-1980 Leonard L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Black-White Test Score Gap: an Introduction
    CHRISTOPHER JENCKS MEREDITH PHILLIPS 1 The Black-White Test Score Gap: An Introduction FRICAN AMERICANS currently score lower than A European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic apti- tude and intelligence.1 This gap appears before children enter kindergarten (figure 1-1), and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests.2 On some tests the typical American black scores below more than 85 percent of whites.3 1. We are indebted to Karl Alexander, William Dickens, Ronald Ferguson, James Flynn, Frank Furstenberg, Arthur Goldberger, Tom Kane, David Levine, Jens Ludwig, Richard Nisbett, Jane Mansbridge, Susan Mayer, Claude Steele, and Karolyn Tyson for helpful criticisms of earlier drafts. But we did not make all the changes they suggested, and they are in no way responsible for our conclusions. 2. These statistics also imply, of course, that a lot of blacks score above a lot of whites. If the black and white distributions are normal and have the same standard deviation, and if the black-white gap is one (black or white) standard deviation, then when we compare a randomly selected black to a randomly selected white, the black will score higher than the white about 24 percent of the time. If the black-white gap is 0.75 rather than 1.00 standard deviations, a randomly selected black will score higher than a randomly selected white about 30 percent of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Racism and the Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 5 2000 Blood Will Tell: Scientific Racism and the Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation Keith E. Sealing John Marshall Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Keith E. Sealing, Blood Will Tell: Scientific Racism and the Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation, 5 MICH. J. RACE & L. 559 (2000). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol5/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BLOOD WILL TELL: SCIENTIFIC RACISM AND THE LEGAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST MISCEGENATION Keith E. Sealing* INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 560 I. THE PARADIGM ............................................................................ 565 A. The Conceptual Framework ................................ 565 B. The Legal Argument ........................................................... 569 C. Because The Bible Tells Me So .............................................. 571 D. The Concept of "Race". ...................................................... 574 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Science in the Service of the Far Right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby
    Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 54, No. 1, 1998,pp. 179-210 Science in the Service of the Far Right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby Andrew S. Winston* Universily of Guelph Henry E. Garrett (1894-1973) was the President of the American Psychological Association in 1946 and Chair of Psychology at Columbia Universityfrom 1941 to 1955. In the 1950s Garrett helped organize an international group of scholars dedi- cated to preventing race mixing, preserving segregation, and promoting the princi- ples of early 20th century eugenics and “race hygiene.” Garrett became a leader in the fight against integration and collaborated with those who sought to revitalize the ideology of National Socialism. I discuss the intertwined history the Interna- tional Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE),the journal Mankind Quarterly, the neofascist Northern League, and the ultra-right- wing political group, the Liberty Lobby. The use of psychological research and expertise in the promotion of neofascism is examined. No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individu- als, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hun- dreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow. Historical ex- perience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling ofAryan blood with that of lowerpeoples the result was the end of the culturedpeople. , , , The result of all racial crossing is there- fore in brief always thefollowing: Lowering of the level of the higher race; *Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of CHEIRON, the International Soci- ety for the History of Behavioral and Social Sciences, at the University of Richmond in June 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Committee: Roberto Colom Wendy Johnson Yulia Kovas
    THE TWELFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INTELLIGEN RESEARCH: LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, DECEMBER 8–10, 2011 So it is that the gods do not give all men the gifts of grace…neither good looks nor intelligence nor eloquence. Odysseus, speech to the suitors of Penelope Homer’s Odyssey. The International Society for Intelligence Research is happy to acknowledge the following organizations for their generous contributions to our conference The Templeton Foundation Elsevier Press The University of Cyprus Organizers Program Committee: Roberto Colom Wendy Johnson Yulia Kovas Local Arrangements: Andreas Demetriou Antigoni Mougi George Spanoudes ISIR Board of Directors Douglas Detterman (Past President) Linda Gottfredson (President elect) Earl Hunt (President) Wendy Johnson David Lubinski Keith Widaman Thanks to the following organizations for financial or in-kind support The Templeton Foundation Elsevier The University of Cyprus 3 International Society for Intelligence Research The Twelfth Annual Conference of the ISIR December 8-10, 2011 Limassol, Cyprus Thursday, December 8 8:30 - 8:50 AM Opening Announcements and Awards Lifetime Achievement Award: Robert Plomin. 8:50 - 10:30 AM T1: Talks, generally about the structure of intelligence 8:50 - 9:10 AM T1.1: Forward and backward digit span measure different components of intelligence. Kristof Kovacs 9:10 - 9:30 AM T1.2: Processing speed and accuracy measured on complex items: Their relations on different difficulty levels and their associations with intelligence scores. Yury S. Dodonov 9:30 - 9:50 AM T1.3: Response time and intelligence: can diffusion model provide new insights? Yulia A. Dodonova 9:50 - 10:10 AM T1.4: Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns: A Statistical Artefact? Aja L.
    [Show full text]