History of the race and intelligence controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:13, 13 April 2010

The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate, primarily in the United States, concerning possible explanations of group differences in intelligence. Although it has never been disputed that there are systematic differences between average scores in IQ tests of different population groups, sometimes called "racial IQ gaps", there has been no agreement on whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or whether some inherent hereditarian factor is at play, related to genetics.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In 1969 the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published a long article reviving the older hereditarian point of view, with the suggestion that education should be tailored to each person's individual performance, rather than attempting to raise that performance via compensatory measures. His work, publicized by the Nobel laureate William Shockley, sparked controversy amongst the academic community and even led to student unrest. A similar debate amongst academics followed the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve, a book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray which argued in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint. It provoked not only the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the environmental point of view, some in popular science, but also to a public statement from the American Psychological Association acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic. The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund.

Early history

File:Terman.jpg

Lewis Terman

The idea that there are differences in the brain structures/sizes of different racial groups, and that these differences explain varying rates of intelligence, was widely held and studied during the 19th and early 20th centuries.^[1]^[2]^[3] Francis Galton spurred interest in the study of mental abilities, particularly as they relate to heredity and eugenics. Beginning in the 1930s, race difference research and hereditarianism—the belief that genetics are an important cause of differences in intelligence among human groups—began to fall out of favor in psychology and anthropology after major internal debates.

In 1895 R.Meade Bache, University of Pennsylvania, published an article in Psychological Review concerning the reaction times of three population groups in the USA, with in decreasing order of speed, Native Americans, African Americans and whites. He explained the slowness of the whites by the fact that their brains were more contemplative and did not function well on primitive tasks. This was one of the first examples of scientific racism, in which science is used to bolster beliefs in the superiority of a particular race.^[4]

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

In 1916 George O. Ferguson conducted research in his Columbia Ph.D. thesis on "The psychology of the Negro", finding them poor in abstract thought, but good in physical responses, recommending how this should be reflected in education.

In 1916 Lewis Terman, in the manual accompanying the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, referred to the higher frequency of morons among non-white American racial groups stating that further research into race difference on intelligence should be conducted and that the "enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence" could not be remedied by education.

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

In 1929 Robert Woodworth in his textbook on psychology made no claims about innate differences in intelligence between races, pointing instead to environmental and cultural factors. He considered it advisable to "suspend judgment and keep our eyes open from year to year for fresh and more conclusive evidence that will probably be discovered".

In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences", dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson's analysis in 1978, this change in attitude had become widespread by then, with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression, and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race.

1960-1980

File:Stephen Jay Gould by Kathy Chapman.png

Stephen J. Gould

In 1965 William Shockley, Nobel laureate in physics and professor at Stanford University, made a public statement at the Nobel conference on "Genetics and the Future of Man" about the problems of "genetic deteriotaion" in humans caused by "evolution in reverse", in contrast to the capacity for social management and organisation of early American settlers. Speaking of the "genetic enslavement" of African Americans, owing to an abnormally high birth rate, Shockley discouraged improved education as a remedy, suggesting instead sterilisation and birth control. In the following ten years he continued to argue in favor of this position, claiming it was not based on prejudice but "on sound statistics". Shockley's outspoken public statements and lobbying brought him into contact with those running the Pioneer Fund who subsequently provided financial support though the intermediaru Carleton Putnam for his extensive lobbying activities in this area, reported widely in the press. The Pioneer Fund had been set up by W.P. Draper in 1937 with one of its two charitable purposes being to provide aid for "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race ... and ... into the problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States".^[5]^[6]

The most significant of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, from the University of California, Berkeley. Although earlier in his career Jensen had favoured environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he became convinced that these differences could not be explained by environmental factors alone after reviewing the results of compensatory education programs published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which concluded that these programs had produced no lasting effect on the scholastic performance of disadvantaged children.^[7]

In 1969 Jensen wrote a long and outspoken article in the Harvard Educational Review, "How Much can We Boost IQ and Achievement", arguing that compensatory education for racial minorities, which was based on the assumption that their below-average scholastic performance could be improved by environmental enrichment, had been shown to be ineffective and should be modified. Jensen proposed that rather than assuming each child had the potential to perform equally with the right environmental stimulants, education should be tailored to each person's individual needs and limitations. In a March 1970 explanation of his viewpoint, Jensen explained why he believed that this was important: "(O)ne child's opportunity can be another's defeat. To me, equality of opportunity does not mean uniform treatment of all children, but equality of opportunity for a diversity of educational experiences and services. If we fail to take account of either innate or acquired differences in abilities and traits, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity can be interpreted so literally as to be actually harmful, just as it would be harmful for a physician to give all his patients the same medicine."

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

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

Jensen and Herrnstein's articles were widely discussed. Hans Eysenck defended the hereditarian point of view and the use of intelligence tests in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), a pamphlet presenting Jensenism to a popular audience, and "The Equality of Man" (1973). He was severely critical of environmentalists whose policies he blamed for many of the problems in society. In the first book he wrote that, "All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which [are] observed between certain racial groups", adding in the second, that "for anyone wishing to perpetuate class or caste differences, genetics is the real foe".

Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the environmentalist establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted disruptive campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behaviour through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the radical organisation Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of the hereditarian viewpoint on race and intelligence.

1980-present

In the 1980s, the New Zealand psychologist James Flynn started a study of group differences in intelligence in their own terms. His research led him to the discovery of what is now called the Flynn effect: he observed empirically a gradual increase in average IQ scores over the years over all groups tested. His discovery was confirmed later by many other studies. Flynn concluded in 1987 that "IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence"^[8]^[9]

In 1994 the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in Newsweek, Time, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Although only two chapters of the book were devoted to race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper, it nevertheless caused a similar furor in the academic community to Jensen's article. Many critics, including Stephen J. Gould and Leonard Kamin, asserted that the book contained flaws in its analysis and unwarranted simplifications. These criticisms were subsequently presented in books, most notably The Bell Curve Debate (1995), Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) and an expanded edition of Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996). In reponse to the debate, the American Psychological Association set up a ten-man taskforce, chaired by Ulrich Neisser, to report on the book and its findings.^[10]^[11]^[12] In its report, published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:^[13]

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

From the 1980s onwards, the Pioneer Fund continued to fund hereditarian research on race and intelligence, in particular the two English-born psychologists Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, its president since 2002. Rushton returned to the cranial measurements of the nineteenth century, using brain size as an extra factor determining intelligence; in collaboration with Jensen, he most recently developed updated arguments for the genetic explanation of race differences in intelligence.^[14] Lynn, long time editor of and contributor to Mankind Quarterly and a prolific writer of books, has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as "the truth that dares not speak its name".^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]

Notes

^ Morton 1839
^ Bean 1906
^ Mall 1909
^ Benjamin 2006
^ Tucker 2002, p. 43,180-181
^ Lynn 2001
^ Jensen 1970
^ Richards 1997, p. 279
^ Maltby, Day & Macaskill, p. 302
^ Mackintosh 1998, p. 148
^ Matlby, Day & Macaskill 2007, p. 334-347
^ Hothersall 2003, p. 440-441
^ Neisser 1996, p. 97
^ Rushton & Jensen 2005
^ Tucker 2002
^ Richards 1997
^ Richardson 2003, p. 226
^ Current editorial board of Mankind Quarterly

References

Bean, Robert Bennett (1906), "Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain", American Journal of Anatomy, 5: 353–432, doi:10.1002/aja.1000050402
Benjamin, Ludy T. (2006), Brief History of Modern Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 188–191, ISBN 140513206X
Hothersall, David (2003), History of Psychology (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, pp. 440–441, ISBN 0072849657
Jensen, Arthur (1970), "Race and the genetics of intelligence: A reply to Lewontin", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26: 17–23
Lynn, Richard (2001), The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund, University Press of America, ISBN 076182040X
Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019852367X
Mall, F. P. (1909), "On several anatomical characters of the human brain, said to vary according to race and sex, with especial reference to the weight of the frontal lobe", American Journal of Anatomy, 9: 1–32
Maltby, John; Day; Macaskill, Ann (2007), Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence, Pearson Education, ISBN 0131297600 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |furst2= ignored (help)
Morton, Samuel George (1839), Crania Americana; or, A Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America: To which is Prefixed An Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species, J. Dobson {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
Neisser, Ulrich; et al. (1996), "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF), American Psychologist, 51: 77–101 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
Richards, Graham (1997), Race, racism, and psychology: towards a reflexive history, Routledge, ISBN 0415101417
Richardson, Angélique (2003), Love and eugenics in the late nineteenth century: rational reproduction and the new woman, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198187009
Rushton, J. P.; Jensen, A. R. (2005), "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11: 235–294
Tucker, William H. (2002), The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 0252027620
Wooldridge, Adrian (1995), Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395151

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 The '''history of the race and intelligence controversy''' concerns the historical development of a debate, primarily in the United States, concerning possible explanations of group differences in intelligence. Although it has never been disputed that there are systematic differences between average scores in [[IQ test]]s of different population groups, sometimes called "racial IQ gaps",  there has been no agreement on whether this is mainly due to environmental and cultural factors, or whether some inherent hereditarian factor is at play, related to genetics.
-In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In 1969 the educational psychologist [[Arthur Jensen]] published a long article reviving the older hereditarian point of view, with the suggestion that eugenics was more likely to increase the average intelligence in the US than remedial education for blacks. His work, publicized by the Nobel laureate [[William Shockley]], sparked controversy amongst the academic community and even led to student unrest. A similar debate amongst academics followed the publication in 1994 of [[The Bell Curve]], a book by [[Richard Herrnstein]] and  [[Charles_Murray_(author)|Charles Murray]] reviving the hereditarian viewpoint once more. It provoked not only the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the environmental point of view, some in [[popular science]], but also to a public statement from the [[American Psychological Association]] acknowledging a gap between average  IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic. The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of psychologists, some of whom are supported by the [[Pioneer Fund]].
+In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In 1969 the educational psychologist [[Arthur Jensen]] published a long article reviving the older hereditarian point of view, with the suggestion that education should be tailored to each person's individual performance, rather than attempting to raise that performance via compensatory measures. His work, publicized by the Nobel laureate [[William Shockley]], sparked controversy amongst the academic community and even led to student unrest. A similar debate amongst academics followed the publication in 1994 of [[The Bell Curve]], a book by [[Richard Herrnstein]] and  [[Charles_Murray_(author)|Charles Murray]] which argued in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint. It provoked not only the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the environmental point of view, some in [[popular science]], but also to a public statement from the [[American Psychological Association]] acknowledging a gap between average  IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic. The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of psychologists, some of whom are supported by the [[Pioneer Fund]].
 ==Early history==
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 In 1929 [[Robert Woodworth]] in his textbook on psychology made no claims about innate differences in intelligence between races, pointing instead to environmental and cultural factors. He considered it advisable to "suspend judgment and keep our eyes open from year to year for fresh and more conclusive evidence that will probably be discovered".
-In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences", dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson's analysis in 1978, this change in attitude had become widespread by then, with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the Nazi claims of a master race and the economic changes brought about by the depression.
+In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences", dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson's analysis in 1978, this change in attitude had become widespread by then, with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression, and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race.
 ==1960-1980==
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 [[File:Stephen Jay Gould by Kathy Chapman.png|thumb|180px|[[Stephen J. Gould]]]]
 In 1965 [[William Shockley]], Nobel laureate in physics and professor at [[Stanford University]], made a public statement at the Nobel conference on "Genetics and the Future of Man" about the problems of "genetic deteriotaion"  in humans caused by "evolution in reverse", in contrast to the capacity for social management and organisation of early American settlers. Speaking of the "genetic enslavement" of African Americans, owing to an abnormally high birth rate, Shockley discouraged improved education as a remedy, suggesting instead
-sterilisation and birth control. In the following ten years he continued to justify discrimination scientifically, claiming it was not based E.O.on prejudice but "on sound statistics". Shockley's outspoken public statements and lobbying brought him into contact with those running the [[Pioneer Fund]] who subsequently provided financial support though the intermediaru [[Carleton Putnam]] for his extensive lobbying activities against equality for blacks, reported widely in the press. The [[Pioneer Fund]] had been set up by [[Wickliffe Preston Draper|W.P. Draper]] in 1937 with one of its two charitable purposes being to provide aid for "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race ... and  ... into the problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States".<ref>{{harvnb|Tucker|2002|p=43,180-181}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Lynn|2001}}</ref>
+sterilisation and birth control. In the following ten years he continued to argue in favor of this position, claiming it was not based on prejudice but "on sound statistics". Shockley's outspoken public statements and lobbying brought him into contact with those running the [[Pioneer Fund]] who subsequently provided financial support though the intermediaru [[Carleton Putnam]] for his extensive lobbying activities in this area, reported widely in the press. The [[Pioneer Fund]] had been set up by [[Wickliffe Preston Draper|W.P. Draper]] in 1937 with one of its two charitable purposes being to provide aid for "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race ... and  ... into the problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States".<ref>{{harvnb|Tucker|2002|p=43,180-181}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Lynn|2001}}</ref>
 The most significant of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist,
-[[Arthur Jensen]], from the [[University of California, Berkeley]]. Although earlier in his career Jensen had favoured environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he had changed his mind following extended discussions with
+[[Arthur Jensen]], from the [[University of California, Berkeley]]. Although earlier in his career Jensen had favoured environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he became convinced that these differences could not be explained by environmental factors alone after reviewing the results of compensatory education programs published by the [[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]], which concluded that these programs had produced no lasting effect on the scholastic performance of disadvantaged children.<ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|1970}}</ref>
-Shockkley during the year 1966-1967 spent at the [[Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences]] in Stanford.<ref>{{harvnb|Tucker|2002}}</ref>
 In 1969 Jensen wrote a long and outspoken article in the [[Harvard Educational Review]], "How Much can We Boost IQ and Achievement", arguing
+that compensatory education for racial minorities, which was based on the assumption that their below-average scholastic performance could be improved by environmental enrichment, had been shown to be ineffective and should be modified.  Jensen proposed that rather than assuming each child had the potential to perform equally with the right environmental stimulants, education should be tailored to each person's individual needs and limitations.  In a March 1970 explanation of his viewpoint, Jensen explained why he believed that this was important: "(O)ne child's opportunity can be another's defeat.  To me, equality of opportunity does not mean uniform treatment of all children, but equality of opportunity for a diversity of educational experiences and services.  If we fail to take account of either innate or acquired differences in abilities and traits, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity can be interpreted so literally as to be actually harmful, just as it would be harmful for a physician to give all his patients the same medicine."
-that racial minorities, because of genetic limitations in intelligence, should be taught, not through conceptual explanations, but instead by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote. He decried the "misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks which would only result in "genetic enslavement" unless "eugenic foresight" was brought into play, i.e. population control. In this article Jensen revived the standard hereditarian claims. Shockley conducted a widespread publicity campaign for Jensen's article, supported by the Pioneer Fund. Jensen's views becoming widely known in many spheres. As a result there was renewed academic interest in the hereditarian viewpoint and in intelligence tests. Jensen's original article was widely circulated and often cited; the material was taught in university courses over a range of academic disciplines. In response to his critics, Jensen wrote a series of books on all aspects of [[psychometrics]]. There was also a widespread positive response from the popular press — with the [[New York Times Magazine]] dubbing the topic "Jensenism" — and amongst politicians and policy makers.
+Shockley conducted a widespread publicity campaign for Jensen's viewpoint, supported by the Pioneer Fund. Jensen's views became widely known in many spheres. As a result there was renewed academic interest in the hereditarian viewpoint and in intelligence tests. Jensen's original article was widely circulated and often cited; the material was taught in university courses over a range of academic disciplines. In response to his critics, Jensen wrote a series of books on all aspects of [[psychometrics]]. There was also a widespread positive response from the popular press — with the [[New York Times Magazine]] dubbing the topic "Jensenism" — and amongst politicians and policy makers.
 In 1971 [[Richard Herrnstein]] wrote a long article on intelligence tests in [[The Atlantic]] for a general readership. Undecided on the issues of race and intelligence, he discussed instead score differences between social classes. Like Jensen he took a firmly hereditarian point of view. He also commented that the policy of equal opportunity would result in rigidification of social classes, separated by biological differences, resulting in a downward trend in average intelligence that would conflict with the growing needs of a technological society.
@@ Line 51: / Line 52: @@
 discipline that explains human behaviour through genetics.
 The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the
-[[Sociobiology Study Group]], part of the radical organisation [[Science for the People]], formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists [[Stephen J. Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]], who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.
+[[Sociobiology Study Group]], part of the radical organisation [[Science for the People]], formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists [[Stephen J. Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]], who both became prominent critics of the hereditarian viewpoint on race and intelligence.
-This disruption was accompanied by a high level of commentaries, criticisms and denouncements from the academic community. Two issues of the  [[Harvard Educational Review]] were devoted to critiques of Jensen's work by psychologists, biologists and educationalists. Broadly there were five criticisms:<ref> {{harvnb|Wooldridge|1995}}</ref>
-* ''Inadequate understanding of population genetics.'' [[Richard Lewontin]] pointed out that heritability estimates depend on the specific group and their environment, i.e. that a distinction has to be drawn between heritability within groups and between groups. Many other scientists made the same point, including [[Stephen J. Gould]], [[Walter Bodmer]],  [[Gerald Dworkin]] and [[Ned Block]]. [[Luigi Cavalli-Sforza]] and Walter Bodmer questioned Jensen's use of socio-economic status as a method of controlling environment. Jensen's inference of racial IQ differences from class differences was criticized by Sandra Scarr-Salatapek.
-* ''Overestimation of the heritidary component of IQ scores.''   Mary Jo Bane and [[Christopher Jencks]] suggested that an estimate of 45% was more realistic than Jensen's figure of 80%. [[Leon Kamin]] queried Jensen's reliance on the [[twin study|twin studies]] of [[Cyril Burt]]. Critics were in agreement that the expression of a gene depended strongly on environment and hence so would the development of intelligence.
-* ''Unjustitied assumption that IQ scores are a good measure of intelligence.'' Multiple problems were brought up by critics, including the difficulty in defining intelligence, the form of the tests, acquired ability in doing tests, the variations in IQ  during a lifetime and the difficulties in administering tests to minority or disadvantaged children.
-* ''Unjustified sociological assumptions in relating IQ to occupation.'' Bane and Jencks queried correlating IQ with social status.
-* ''Political criticism and insults from a broad spectrum of scientists.'' Many critics questioned Jensen's motives and whether his work was an appropriate use of public research funds. The [[Association of Black Psychologists]] asserted that this kind of use of IQ tests could result in "Black genocide".
 ==1980-present==
@@ Line 67: / Line 60: @@
 In 1994 the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book
-[[The Bell Curve|The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life]] by [[Richard Herrnstein]] and [[Charles_Murray_(author)|Charles Murray]]. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in [[Newsweek]], [[Time]], the [[New York Times]] and the [[Wall Street Journal]]. Although only two chapters of the book were devoted to race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper, it nevertheless  caused a similar furor in the academic community to Jensen's article. Many critics, including Stephen J. Gould and Leonard Kamin, pointed out flaws in the analysis and unwarranted simplifications. These criticisms were subsequently presented in books, most notably [[The Bell Curve Debate]] (1995), [[Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth]] (1996) and an expanded edition of Gould's [[The Mismeasure of Man]] (1996). In reponse to the debate, the [[American Psychological Association]] set up a ten-man taskforce, chaired by [[Ulrich Neisser]], to report on the book and its findings.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|p=148}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Matlby|Day|Macaskill|2007|p=334-347}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Hothersall|2003|p=440-441}}</ref> In its report, published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:<ref>{{harvnb|Neisser|1996|p=97}}</ref>
+[[The Bell Curve|The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life]] by [[Richard Herrnstein]] and [[Charles_Murray_(author)|Charles Murray]]. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in [[Newsweek]], [[Time]], the [[New York Times]] and the [[Wall Street Journal]]. Although only two chapters of the book were devoted to race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper, it nevertheless  caused a similar furor in the academic community to Jensen's article. Many critics, including Stephen J. Gould and Leonard Kamin, asserted that the book contained flaws in its analysis and unwarranted simplifications. These criticisms were subsequently presented in books, most notably [[The Bell Curve Debate]] (1995), [[Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth]] (1996) and an expanded edition of Gould's [[The Mismeasure of Man]] (1996). In reponse to the debate, the [[American Psychological Association]] set up a ten-man taskforce, chaired by [[Ulrich Neisser]], to report on the book and its findings.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|p=148}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Matlby|Day|Macaskill|2007|p=334-347}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Hothersall|2003|p=440-441}}</ref> In its report, published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:<ref>{{harvnb|Neisser|1996|p=97}}</ref>
-{{cquote|African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is
+{{cquote|African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.}}
-apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been
-conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.}}
 From the 1980s onwards, the [[Pioneer Fund]] continued to fund hereditarian research on race and intelligence, in particular the two English-born psychologists [[Richard Lynn]] of the [[University of Ulster]] and [[J. Philippe Rushton]] of the [[University of Western Ontario]], its president since 2002.  Rushton returned to the cranial measurements of the nineteenth century, using brain size as an extra factor determining intelligence; in collaboration with Jensen, he most recently developed updated arguments for the genetic explanation of race differences in intelligence.<ref>{{harvnb|Rushton|Jensen|2005}}</ref>
@@ Line 92: / Line 83: @@
 -441|publisher= McGraw-Hill|edition=4th|year=2003|
 id=ISBN 0072849657}}
+*{{citation|first=Arthur|last=Jensen|authorlink=Arthur Jensen|title=Race and the genetics of intelligence: A reply to Lewontin|journal = Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|year=1970|volume= 26|pages= 17-23}}
 *{{citation|first=Richard|last=Lynn|authorlink=Richard Lynn|title=The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund|publisher=[[University Press of America]]|year=2001|id=ISBN 076182040X}}
 *{{citation|first=N.J.|last=Mackintosh|authorlink=Nicholas Mackintosh|title =IQ and Human Intelligence|year=1998|publisher = Oxford University Press|id=ISBN 019852367X}}

v t e Sex differences in humans
Biology	Sexual differentiation Disorders In research Physiology
Medicine and Health	Autoimmunity Life expectancy Mental disorders Autism Depression Schizophrenia Substance abuse Suicide Stroke care
Neuroscience and Psychology	Aggression Cognition Coping Emotional intelligence Empathy Intelligence Memory Narcissism Neurosexism Sexuality Age disparity in relationships Attraction Desire Fantasy Jealousy
Sociology	Crime Education in the U.S. Gender inequality Leadership Religion Social capital Social support