« Hognotes - 09/28/2012 | Main | Nine-Banded Books now accepting advance orders for Peter Sotos' MINE »

Comments

I was leafing through Intelligence, Race, and Genetics a few hours before I read the news: quite the shock!

Curiously when privately polled it seems far more researchers agree with Jensen than the Gould/Kamin position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book)

It would be interesting to see an update of Snyderman-Rothman survey results, since we now have decades of longitudinal behavior-genetic data. I suspect the support for moderate to strong hereditarianism would remain solid, with the same caveats regarding racial differences duly noted.

To my knowledge, Jensen never argued that the Black-White IQ gap was "genetic"; rather, he argued that the contributory role of heredity could not be discounted in light of available evidence, that resilient differences could not be accounted for by "test bias," and that a significant biological factor was consistent with extant research. This was not and is not an "extreme" position.

Steve Sailer and others have noted that Jensen's death has yet to be noted by mainstream news organizations. This actually surprises me.

The NY Times obit is up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hpw&pagewanted=all

It's reasonably fair, but the last bit quoting Sonja Grover feels tacked-on, and the closing quote is a complete non-sequitur.

I would also take issue with the assertion that "Stephen Jay Gould ... devoted much of his 1981 book, 'The Mismeasure of Man,' to criticizing Professor Jensen’s claims." While it's true that Gould criticized Jensen's claims, he did so mainly by attacking the work of 19th century scientists, often dishonestly. The bait and switch was the main point of Jensen's review of Mismeasure, linked above.

Hi Chip,

My G Factor collects dust, like yours. I skimmed through it, with a bad conscience, knowing I should have focused a bit more. But forgive the pop culture reference; he had me, as in that Tom Cruise movie I hope you never saw (Jerry McGuire), at hello.

It's all so depressing, this IQ business. I got more than I deserve; am appalling lazy, but good things seem to fall in my lap. My utterly useless talents reap rewards. I can't bring myself to condemn welfare-collecting lowlifes on the brownstone steps, swilling malt liquor: there but for a few dozen iq points go I. The racial aspect: yes, that's the worst part. It will divide the country, more than it already has.

I appreciate your work. Thanks.

It is an ubiquitous fallacy. However, though it may be stupid, you can't really be surprised or blame people for deploying it; I've often come to the conclusion that "If I were thinking completely rationally I'd really just commit suicide"--but try saying that around anyone who cares about you without having them flip the fuck out. They don't even want to think about whether it's true or not, because of how my actual taking action would affect them, and they remain pissed off at me even when I explain that I'm not thinking completely rationally, so no need to go composing your funeral speech... nope, still pissed off. And that's just a conclusion that would eliminate a single person. A conclusion that affects millions? Shew. Fireworks in 3...2...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Affiliated Sites

Blog powered by Typepad