1 NATURE-NURTURE. I.Q., AND JENSENISM: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE By RICHARD STEPHEN RI CHARDE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1979 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Robert E. Jester, Dr. Richard J. Anderson, and Dr. Arthur Newman for their support in this project. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert R. Sherman and Dr. William B. Ware for their assistance in my research. Special thanks fo my wife, Lee, for her moral support and typing skills. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSTRACT iv PROLOGUE 1 I WHY BE CONCERNED? 6 II THE ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY: A HISTORICAL VIEW FROM PHILOSOPHY 12 III NINETEENTH CENTURY BIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF RACISM 34 IV A BRANCHING PATH: GENETICS VS. EUGENICS 58 V A VIEW FROM PSYCHOLOGY: THE MENTAL TESTING MOVEMENT IN AMERICA 82 VI JENSEN AND JENSENISM: ANACHRONISTIC HERESY 148 Jensen's Mentors 156 Level I and Level II Abilities 164 Jensen's Advocates 167 The Range of Opposition 169 Psychology and Education 170 Cultural Anthropology 187 Quantitative Genetics 190 The Contribution ol Jensen 212 VII FROM THE PROMETHEAN LEGACY TO A NEW OPTIMISM APPENDIX LIST OF REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida V in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy NATURE-NURTURE, I.Q., AND JENSENISM- A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE By Richard Stephen Ri Charde December 1979 Chairman: Robert E. Jester Major Department: Foundations of Education The historical roots of the modern nature-nurture controversy which arose as a reaction to the social implica- tions of jensenism are examined. Educational psychologist Arthur Jensen is mainly responsible for the recent arguments concerning the heritability of intelligence. The question is related to the broader issue of human equality. The author takes an interdisciplinary approach to demonstrate that jensenism is not a new movement but has deep historical foundations beginning with the political philosophy of Classical Greek philosophers. The philosophical aspects of the controversy are traced from Plato to America's Declaration of Independence. At this point the scientific rationale for racist doctrine is carried forward by develop- ments in nineteenth century anthropometry. The next section deals with the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century biometr icians who separated themselves from early geneticists. The author then relates the marriage between the American eugenics movement and the young science of mental av testing. Following a description of the various major theories regarding the nature of intelligence, the works of Arthur Jensen are introduced. The focal point is a recapitulation of Jensen's controversial 1969 article, "How much can we boost I.Q, and scholastic achievement?" in the Harvard Educational Review and the reactions to that article. In the next chapter the theoretical underpinnings of evolutionary and population genetics which render the I.Q. controversy indefinitive are presented. The final chapter is dedicated to constructing a new metaphor for educational theorists based on the more optimistic alternatives within genetic postulations . This metaphor is put forth as a source of inspiration for egalitarian ideals emerging from a sound scientific rationale. PROLOGUE In the winter of 1969 an article entitled "How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement?" appeared in the Harvard Educational Review . The author was Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist from the University of California at Berkeley. The article was submitted by Jensen on invita- tion from the editorial board of the Harvard Educational R eview and at 123 pages was the longest article ever published by the journal. In didactic fashion, Jensen presented a review of literature on the relative influence of environment and heredity on cognitive ability and concluded that the observed differences in intelligence tests scores among races and social classes vjere predominantly genetic in origin. Such an idea would probably have been absorbed without a shocking impact into the literature of an earlier period, but 1969 academia had taken such an environmentalist turn that black environmentalist Thomas Sowell classified Jensen as "easily the most controversial intellectual since such nineteenth century giants as Darwin and Marx" (Fincher, 1976, p. 231). The real importance of Jensen's theories seems to lie in the reactions in all areas of academia to the 1969 article. Jensen's ideas have become reified to the point of represent- ing any position which is racially nonegal itar ian . Richard C. Lewontin has compared Jensen to Cornelius Jansen, 1 the Bishop of Ypres, who was condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653 for espousing the doctrine of "total depravity, irresistable grace, lack of free will, predestination and limited atonement." This doctrine, "Jansenism," according to Lewontin, has become "Jensenism" (Lewontin, 1976, p. 78). Some critics of Jensen would carry the analogy further to project Jansen's attitude toward science onto the work of Arthur Jensen. Jansen cautioned men to "beware of that vain love of science, which though seemingly innocent, is actually a snare 'leading men away from the contemplation of eternal truths to rest in the satisfaction of the finite intelligence' (Merton, 1970, p. 120). Many criticize Jensen for removing himself from science and merely espousing racism. He is most often criticized for his loose interpretation of evidence, rather than for the evidence itself. In examining the literature which has emerged in the ten year aftermath of Jensen's article, several categorical questions immediately arise which have remained elusively unanswered. First, how did it happen that an idea which could have been called Galtonism 100 years ago, Pearsonism 80 years ago, or Burtism 40 years ago spontaneously became jensenism today? How did Jensen come to symbolize a hereditarian attitude which has historically been the norm and is anything but new? Second, is jensenism built on a faulty foundation? Are the scientific methods brought to bear on the evidence of questionable origin? If not, were they put to questionable use? Third, why are we so concerned to begin with? Why did Jensen draw fire from biologists, geneticists, psychologists, economists, and anthropologists, as well as educators? Are there not alternatives which, if brought to bear on educational theory, would put jensenism to rest as a threatening hypothesis demanding meticulous and tireless criticism in order to restrain its progress? It was the search for answers to these questions that instigated this work. But the finished product was a result of more far reaching problems uncovered by this search. In light of current problems, both theoretical and practical, the nature-nurture argument cuts much deeper into the founda- tions of our society than superficial research reveals. As you read this work it should become apparent that it is not a refutation of confrontation with an educational psychologist named Arthur Jensen, nor is it designed to champion his opposition. Rather, it is my intention to show that the Zeitgeist at any given time in history has clouded the more important issue of human equality; and a democratic educa- tional system must be ever sensitive to this original purpose. Racialism and inegalitarianism has always been a powerful undertow dragging opposing theories into the depths of scientific metaphor and philosophical rhetoric. It began even before philosophy and science could be viewed as separate pursuits and continues now that a scholar must narrowly define the limits of his scientific or philosophical specialization. In our social structure inequality has 4 become fundamental and insidious, too often ignored, too little questioned, more often than not attacked on the wrong grounds and in the case of many of Arthur Jensen's adversaries, the attack itself seems no more than an act of self-vindication — a few stones when thrown into the sea of controversy barely ripple the water and, sinking, become boring victims of the relentless undertow to be tossed about until they lie buried with other useless debris. The attempt here is to avoid a similar fate in the discussion of these issues. As a final introductory note I must beg the reader to persistently hold in mind the following word of caution. This work, though interdisciplinary in nature, is designed to follow a few small threads of thought through a tapestry of scientific chronology; i.e. scientific support of racial and inegalitarian ideals and some of its social implications. It is therefore necessary to extrapolate material produced by some of the greatest minds in the history of man. In the following treatise, it may at times seem to the reader that either these men did nothing good for mankind or the author is purposely poisoning the reader against these intellectual giants. Neither of these is the case. It would be nearly impossible in terms of time and space to give a complete analysis of the contributions of everyone mentioned here. It was therefore necessary to restrict statements concerning each philosopher or scientist to the subject matter at hand. Most of the men and women included 5 herein did far more good for the advancement of science and understanding of man than any harm that