Talk:Arthur Jensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Im too lazy to correct it myself, but the page says "heritability measures the percentage of variation of a trait due to inheritance, within a population." This is not true. Heritability measures variance attributable to genes either within or between groups. The "criticism" here is that Jensen supposedly derives emperical conclusions about between-group heritability FROM within group h2 values.


Is the criticism section from Gould supposed to be in this article?-Grick 06:04, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Given the controversial nature of Jensen's research and conclusions, I don't think it is beyond the pale to juxtapose it with criticism from a prominent source. --Fastfission 00:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Interpreting Jensen's words

"suggests that the average white-black difference in g has a biological component"

Journalists and race activists might interpret this as a claim that genes determine intelligence, but I think they are misinterpreting the scientific usage of the word suggests.

A similar misinterpretation is made in global warming of the IPCC statement which "suggests" that CO2 and similar emissions cause excessive atmospheric warming.

There seems to be a climate of (for want of a better word) "pouncing". Someone makes a statement which arouses you - or can be used to arouse the public - and you simply declare that it means something.

I wonder if Wikipedia will be able to deal with this tendency to impute meaning. Elabro 14:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Gould given prominance in this article? Gould was not an expert on intelligence.

Why is Gould given his own section in most wikipedia articles when it comes to "intelligence" and related fields? It appears that either some think that Gould was an expert in the field or want, to at least, leave that impression. He wasn't, as far as I know.

Gould wrote an entire book on the history of intelligence testing. See The Mismeasure of Man.

Writing a book does not make one an expert. In fact, a substantial number of those who are well-known and expert in psychometrics are on the record as being highly critical of Gould's methods, his selective use of data, and even accuse Gould of misrepresentations. Hardly a glowing endorsement.

[edit] Removed the unsourced statement claiming racism

It appears that the unsourced claim of racism may violate the wikipedia policy that

"Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Second, there is no substantiation of that claim, sourced or unsourced. No examples given by the unknown parties making the charge of racism, sourced or unsourced, and no information given otherwise. Frankly, it appears to be ad hominem which falls squarely within wikipedia's above cited prohibition.

Someone continues to replace the Gil-White article on Resurrecting racism despite libelous content. Gil-white states about African Americans "The claim that they were innately stupid because they had done poorly on IQ tests was therefore obviously nonsense, but this was Arthur Jensen's claim." is perhaps the most insulting as Jensen has NEVER stated this and it is essentially libel. I have read the majority of jensen's work and to state this is patently absurd and evidence of lack of neutrality again.

The source is Francisco Gil-White, a trained anthropologist with notability of his own. While there is obviously vehement disagreement between Gil-White and Jensen (same goes with Lynn and Rushton), the opinion itself is shared (perhaps not in those exact works, but shared nevertheless) by several othe researchers. Our job is to report on such opinions, properly attributed, not to censor those opinions we find politically incorrect or extreme.--Ramdrake 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The attribution by Gil-white is libelous and untrue. If you can point me to the source where Jensen makes that statment, fine, do so. I wonder if you have an unbiased POV on this topic sionce you continue to replace an article that misstates Jensen's opinion so blatabtly. Your job is not to include any pseudoscientific article that misquotes a biography, is it?

Nevertheless, Francisco Gil-White's paper is a reliable and verifiable source. This is not about whether Gil-White is right. This is about wht has been said. Some very harsh criticism has been leveled on both sides. Besides, you affirming that "Jensen never said that" is patently original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia; I'm not saying anything about it not being true. But if you can find a published source that says that isn't right, we can also include that. Until then, the link is germane and sourced. And please also sign your comments with four tildes.--Ramdrake 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The exact quote Gil-White relies on is: “Jensen achieved instant notoriety when he challenged the received view that intelligence is primarily a function of environment, not genes. This [environmental] position had gained ground [after] WWII, gradually replacing the earlier eugenic thesis to the contrary... In his [1969] Harvard Educational Review paper, Jensen claimed that previous attempts to narrow the black/white gap on IQ tests were doomed to failure because, according to him, blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing.” It is a cited quote from Peter Shoneman.
AFAIK, this is close enough to saying they were innately stupid, just better worded. So, I really don't see the libel.--Ramdrake 23:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is why you should not be editing these pages. Saying African Americans have a lower group MEAN does not speak to individuals. The cirve is asymprotic. Saing Chinese have a lower AVERAGE height does not mean they are INNATELY shorter. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
1)Your first sentence is a personal attack. Please be careful not to say this again. Second, the argument you're bringing here is a non-sequitur to Jensen's reported statement that "blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing." Innately means that they are so because of their genes (that it is in them at birth "in-nate"). It doesn't mean they're ALL shorter (or dumber) than everybody else. You haven't addressed the citation at all.--Ramdrake 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the cite for the statement you just made "blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing". It was a reported statemnt from where exactly? Have you read Jensen's work, Ramdrake?
The link is here: [1], the very reference you just removed from the article, so since you are proving it is germane, I just put it back.--Ramdrake 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am aksing for the cite to that statement by Jensen, not Gil-White and other's mischaracterization of what he wrote. Where is the original cite for Jensen's statment ""blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing" I repeat, have you ever read Jensen's work? As you did not respond to the last question, I have to assume you did not and are relying on a poorly written mischaracterization that is libelous and so I removed it.

BenGibson 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In this particular instance, Gil-White is a secondary source. If you want to prove Jensen didn't say that, find the article by Shoneman and prove the quote is incorrect. The onus is on you; I'm just reporting a verifiable source. Again, the reference goes back in.--Ramdrake 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on me to prove a non-event? You do understand that this is impossible, don't you? Once again, why are you constantly editing references to Jensen if you have not read his work? The reference is inaccurate, Jensen does not say that. I am removing it.BenGibson 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I think you're confusing things. We aren't required to provide a chain of evidence for every cited statement. That is to say, there is no requirement that if Jensen says something, that we must provide evidence for his statement. So if he states incorrectly that a scientific study supports his racialist theories, we cannot remove his statement on the basis that it isn't accurate, or doesn't properly cite his evidence. Similarly with Gil-White - you may disagree with his judgement of Jensen, but you cannot remove his criticism simply because you disagree with his interpretation. We've cited Gil-White's critique as relevant, but nowhere are we required to prove, in any case, that the critique is true or valid. I hope you understand the crucial difference here. --JereKrischel 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not following me. The quote is incorrect and libelous.If the critique is obviously incorrect (as it is to individuals who have actually read Jesnen's work) it's not about disagreement of interpretation. It's factually incorrect. I also hope you understand the difference between saying somone said soemthing and citing an actual statemnt by that person. Gil-white does not cite Jensen's articles when speaking about what he says, because Jeensen never says these things, thus he uses secondary sources to attribute statements to Jensen that he never actually made. Do You understadn the crucial difference there?BenGibson 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Gil-White specifically cites someone talking about Jensen's 1969 article:

“Jensen achieved instant notoriety when he challenged the received view that intelligence is primarily a function of environment, not genes. This [environmental] position had gained ground [after] WWII, gradually replacing the earlier eugenic thesis to the contrary... In his [1969] Harvard Educational Review paper, Jensen claimed that previous attempts to narrow the black/white gap on IQ tests were doomed to failure because, according to him, blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing.”

Do you have a copy of his 1969 paper to invalidate the claims being made? --JereKrischel 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Would that satisfy you enough to pull the reference?BenGibson 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If you could provide us the full text of the 1969 paper, so that we could all judge for ourselves whether or not the characterization reported by Gil-White was accurate or inaccurate, I could possibly be convinced. --JereKrischel 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, it amy take a few days if I don't have it in my file set. Until such time, I will discontinue edits.BenGibson 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. Your enthusiasm is appreciated. I'm sure we can all work together to make this a better article. --JereKrischel 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with the article is that it's a 'Bill said that Bob said that Ben said' allegation supported with a link within the article that goes no place except back to the original 'Bill, Bob, amd Ben' allegation.
Exactly. Going back to the Wikipedia policy
"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
Actually, it is well sourced. Gil-White is directly sourced, and he directly sources a critique which directly sources a 1969 paper by Jensen. There isn't any circular reference at all, just a dispute over whether or not two published individuals (Gil-White and Shonemann), have accurately portrayed Jensen's statements in his 1969 paper. (See Shonemann, P. H. 2005. "Psychometrics of intelligence," in Encyclopedia of social measurement, vol. 3, pp. 193-201: Elsevier. (p.199)) --JereKrischel 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You have Jensen"s "direct quote" JereKrischel? That Jensen said "blacks are deficient in the particular genes" -- or a quote that supports Gil-Whites reference to the Nazism and Jensen in the same breath (although Jensen is part Jewish himself) -- than by all means, JereKrischel, provide those Jensen quotes here since, for some odd reason, that was never provided in the link.


Let me add that not only does the link in question fall under the poorly sourced prohibition, I suspect that either Gill-White, at best, doesn't know what he's talking about. Jensen "revived" the use of IQ tests?? Really! By the way, here's an abstract, in its entirety, from a government source, for Jensen's paper How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement. - You'll find, I hope, the tone is a little less 'wild eyed' than that found in the Gill-White chapter. Nowhere does it say, no where does it even imply, that Jensen said Blacks where "innately stupid," or that Jensen is a "eugenicist," or even imply that Jensen is somehow carrying the banner for the Nazis.
And yes "wild eyed" best describes the tone of the Gill-White article. Read the end of the linked Gill-White article where he states In order to get the full chill, however, it is important first to paint a more complete picture of what the eugenics movement was, the better to understand what the likes of Arthur Jensen and Jon Entine have been trying to revive. Than turn to Gill-White's chapter 7, the one titled Intelligence testing as tool of the eugenic program of extermination. There's the full chill.
Now read the abstract to Jensen's paper. The link -

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED023722&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b800c4a95

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement
Abstract: The importance and consequences of raising the average ability level (IQ) of the population requires consideration of the ability level that society requires, how the relevant abilities are distributed, and the efficiency of the current educational process. Within the framework of these factors, the document discusses the determinants of mental ability and the measures commonly used, the sources of variance in IQ, and the ways in which intelligence might be boosted. The latter include both genetic and non-genetic influences. Such prenatal factors as nutrition, length of pregnancy, maternal stress, and intrauterine environment have and effect on infant intelligence. Postnatal environmental influences have not been found to markedly affect IQ, with the exception of extreme isolation. In relation to disadvantaged children, whose learning and ability patterns are different from those of middle-class children, it is important that these differences be recognized as a precondition to developing appropriate educational strategies.
Now where's the information in this abstract that supports the Gill-White link? Just not there is it.
If you have the full paper (rather than just the abstract), we can both look at it to see if there is any support for it. However, the citation given by Gil-White (Shonemann, P. H. 2005. "Psychometrics of intelligence," in Encyclopedia of social measurement, vol. 3, pp. 193-201: Elsevier. (p.199)) is from a respectable publication (no matter how you feel about Gil-White). I think the burden of proof lies on you to discredit Shonemann by presenting us the full text of the 1969 article. --JereKrischel 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, your citation is for a "Speech given before the annual meeting of the California Advisory Council of Educational Research (San Diego, October 1967)". Is there a reason you think your citation is regarding Jensen's 1969 article? You should probably search for 1969 and Jensen on that site [2]. --JereKrischel 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not so surprisingly, the only reprint I can find on the Net is provided by someone called "Jerry Abbott," who, from his comments at the end of Jensen's paper, appears to be the other extreme of the Gil-White type. Here's the link to Jensen's 1969 paper.

http://telesat.com.co/jabpage/features/jensen/jensen.html

Now you can provide those Gil-White attributed quotes of Jensen, the ones where Jensen states Blacks are "innately stupid," where Jensen is involved in the eugenics movement or is a eugenicist, and where Jensen states those items that the reasonable Gil-White used to support his references to Jensen and Nazism. Don't forget to post all of those Jensen quotes you'll find in their proper context.

First of all, thank you for the reference! The comments posted at the end were especially illuminating.

Regarding what Shonemann said: "Jensen claimed that previous attempts to narrow the black/white gap on IQ tests were doomed to failure because, according to him, blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing.”

As evidence for this, Jensen says the following in his paper:

So all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference.

Educators would probably do better to concern themselves with teaching basic skills directly than with attempting to boost overall cognitive development. By the same token, they should de-emphasize IQ tests as a means of assessing gains, and use mainly direct tests of the skills the instructional program is intended to inculcate. The techniques for raising intelligence per se, in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of the biological sciences than in psychology and education.

So in fact, the only thing I see as missing in the context of Shonemann is that although Jensen calls out doom for narrowing the B-W IQ/g gap, he does call for "schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs, and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities.".

Insofar as eugenics, Jensen clearly calls for that:

Much more thought and research should be given to the educational and social implications of these trends for the future. Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population? The possible consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be viewed by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans.

It seems that although Shonemann's interpretation may be a slanted one, it certainly isn't unfounded. --JereKrischel 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's it JereKrischel?? Gil-White and Shoneman are only "slanted?" Out the entire paper that's all you could come up with after the claims made by Gil-White? Where's the quotes that "Blacks are stupid" or his advocating eugenics, nor is there any hint of carrying on a brand of Nazi ideology. Where?? Where's the impending superabundance of Jensen quotes from the JereKrischel search. That's it? Those quotes are where you rest your case? You're kidding me -- no? Those quotes will apply the final coup de grace to the poorly source claim? Amazing.
And yes, I do have something to add in regards to the Gil-White linked chapter related to the poorly sourced in addition to his misrepresentations of Jensen. It seems that there is a common theme found in certain circles in regards to this topic. It seems that when some have nothing of substance to provide, Gil-White and others decide to go heavy on the ad hominem attacks. In fact, rather than addressing the relevant data, Gil-White seems to select ad hominem attack as his vehicle of choice. Argument peppered throughout with urgent adjectives rather than reasoned, supported disagreement.
"Now, since Jensen is a direct intellectual descendant of a eugenicist and fraud, Cyril Burt, it does not look good that Jensen should be the one to have broken the taboo against 'intelligence testing' in 1969, reviving eugenic arguments."
Whether Cyril Burt did ANYTHING wrong is a matter of high dispute. Of course, you'd never know that reading the Gil-White, who states it as if it's undisputed fact. I wonder if Gil-White would make his brave claim if Burt were alive. I somehow doubt it. Second, that "made-up" and 'fraudulent' data of Burt's is "made-up" mainstream data, it doesn't need Burt for support, something which is never mentioned by Gil-White when he mischaracterizes Burt. In fact, it's as if Gil-White wants to create the impression that 'but for Burt' the data wouldn't be there. Another mislead. Not that it's a concern for wikipedia, like the Jensen defamations are, since Burt is dead and as I'm certain Gil-White knows, you can't be sued for defaming a dead person.
Heck, there's even ad hominem attack in the book summary
"These 'researchers' were also the major propagandists of the eugenics movement, which movement is responsible for creating the German Nazis. This is also documented in the second half of Resurrecting Racism, as is the fact that today's IQ 'researchers' continue this fraudulent and dangerous tradition." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs).


Again, simply because you don't agree with what someone has to say, does not make it poorly sourced, or untrue. Although I agree that ad hominem attacks don't make for a good argument (as with your biting sarcasm against me), the same argument can be made against the gross oversimplifications and generalizations proposed by racialist hereditarians. Here at Wikipedia, we're not in the business of deciding who is right and wrong, however.
Regarding possible defamation of Jensen by Gil-White, please note regarding defamation law in the U.S.:
This changed with the landmark 1960s case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States modified the law of libel to be in accord with constitutional requirements. The court held that where a public figure was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with actual malice - that is, that it was made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This decision and the ones that followed its lead created a major revolution in the doctrine of libel law.
You are more than welcome to challenge Gil-White in court for defamation, but Wikipedia is not a place to arbitrate that. The article linked is relevant, and the secondary reference by Shonemann has textual support in the original text by Jensen. Your displeasure with such criticism is noted, and justly ignored. --JereKrischel 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the legal advice JereKrischel, but I have to tell you, you even got the application of NY Times V. Sullivan wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs).
Please feel free to correct the Defamation#United_States_law section, and the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan article, if you have citations which refute the statement on actual malice and libel. IANAL, although others who have edited those articles may be, and could answer your questions and concerns in more detail. --JereKrischel 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


So....the fact that the article states that Jensen said blacks were inherently stupid was an outright lie is meaningless to wikipedia? BenGibson 20:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't an outright lie, even though it is an unfavorable presentation of what Jensen said. Reading the paper, you clearly understand that he believes that there is a genetic reason for the poor performance of blacks as a group, and he advocates for abandoning trying to diminish the IQ gap. Yes, he does advocate for improving performance in other areas, but that doesn't mitigate in any way his statements that he believes the evidence points to blacks as a group being inferior because of their genetic makeup.
The fact that folk like Jensen and Rushton of the Pioneer Fund publish outright lies about the evidence regarding race and intelligence doesn't mean Wikipedia should censor them - and neither should we censor published criticism of them. --JereKrischel 09:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What outright lies have they published, Jere? I am intensely curious about this. BenGibson 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Start with Lieberman's critic "How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank" here. It should give you a certain primer.--Ramdrake 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Read it, somewhat unconvincing. Isn't it interesting that anthro people are typically at the core of the anti-intelligence debate? Of course, it doesn't appear that we will see eye to eye on this topic. As a "primer" you ought to read the g factor.BenGibson 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if you can imagine that people find your critique of Gould just as unconvincing, you're a step closer to understanding what NPOV would be here. Even though we don't see eye to eye, I think we can all understand clearly that we cannot take what we hold to be patently true, and deny any other POV. I think we're moving into an interesting discussion, of course, but I think we've gotten away from talking about improving the article. I'll let this sit for a day then archive the discussion on this topic. --JereKrischel 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent?

"Jensen is both among the most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century[3] and a highly controversial figure."

I believe that the source for this assertion is not from a very NPOV source, I wouldn't say Jensen ranks among the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.

You might what to find a third party source for support. Otherwise, it appears that you've done nothing but state your own 'point of view' - at least twice.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Talk%7EArthur_Jensen_64a7.html"