Talk:Arthur Jensen/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Arthur Jensen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"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)

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)

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.

Agreed. Whoever added the Gould criticisms in an additional section in this article is "privileging" Gould's criticism and is not following W:NPOV

207.69.139.7 00:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Z. Orland207.69.139.7 00:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

File:Jensen demonstrators.gif

Why did you remove this image? It's sourced and it shows how he has "faced criticism" for his... work. I think it is a great addition to this article and it is recent enough to help readers understand this man.futurebird 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to remove the whole image, just the overlong blockquote in the reference. I've restored the image with all the appropriate captions. People can still read the article if they follow the link. The blockquote was a bit much, both as a caption, and as forcing POV. Hope it makes more sense now.--Ramdrake 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find Arthur Jensen listed on a university web page... http://www.csueastbay.edu/ecat/20062007/u-epsy.html#section1

futurebird 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source.futurebird 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is unapolegetically biased. It uses peacock terms in the beginning and gets worse every paragraph. Mentioning Gould's criticisms only is making it seem as though experts in psychology do not critize him and that he is only controversial among the far left. I decided to add some tags for now.YVNP 09:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry article was better than thought but still not goodYVNP 10:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved some of the criticism to the criticism section. There's still quite a bit in other sections but it appears to fit best there IMO. ~Stan~

I'm sick and tired of articles dealing with intelligence that don't include a Neurobiology perspective, or the views of Neurobiologists and brain surgeons. Even though myself I majored in Psychology, Psychologists are hardly qualified to make statements or research about intelligence, reason being, they don't know anywhere near as much about the human brain as Neurobiologists do. We need hard data on synaptic transmision, how neurons interact, etc, not conjecture based on questionaires that the Psychologists themselves designed. No one in the mind and brain sciences has complete knowledge of how the brain works; only about 5% of it (if even that) is understood so far. Of all the body's organs, the human brain, amazing though it is, is grossly underresearched. What Neurobiologists know NOW, hasn't changed in 20 years, whereas other branches of human biology have made mile long leaps.

If at all possible, to help out this article and others, please, some data from Neurobiologists. Psychologists provide conjecture on tests they write themselves; most of Psychology is questionaire based, and even intelligence testing, is made up of questions in accordance to the design of the Psychologist who made it. However, as far as raw data of the brain itself, that is Neurobiologist territory. They, not psychologists, should have the floor on human intellect. I think it would greatly help the article, actually this controversial subject, if their often unheard of views on human intellect were presented. My apologies if my suggestion sounded soapboxish. Thank you for your patience and time.

206.63.78.105stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 08:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a biography, not an article on intelligence. Jensen is not a neurologist and so neurology is left out. 163.1.143.167 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph in this section (beginning with 'The work became') is nicely-written, but clearly original research and as such should probably be removed. I'm only one voice, so if anyone agrees, then take action. 163.1.143.167 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Take another look. Most, if not all, of it is taken from the cited source High Impact Science and the Case of Arthur Jensen. Exactly what is in the paragraph that you consider original research? Please bear in mind that "original research" refers to unsourced research by the editor who wrote the paragraph, not the research of the source that is cited. Ward3001 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Matisse was correct in eliminating that category, as it is a super-cat that already encompasses Intelligence Researchers. This makes its use redundant.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that particular category and have removed it, but not the others. They are relevant to Jensen. Ward3001 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the parts left in still hold some relevant to Jensen. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is a lot of criticism of Jensen. It makes me wish I know enough to tell if his ideas are new/controversial, or if the page just was made biased.

Marquita Jensen 70.171.178.191 (talk)

You reverted edits that strived to make this article more NPOV, first of all by properly balancing and attributing opinions about Arthur Jensen, second by removing weasel words that tended to disparage the reputation of researcher Stephen Jay Gould. Can you please explain why you reverted?--Ramdrake 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is already over the top on the negative side. Go take a look at Gould's article and check words in praise. Should those be removed? If so let's remove this material from both articles and others like these. If not, I suggest that removing the mentions in the Jensen article are pushing a POV.

If it's important to leave in the word "famed" in this article when it comes to Gould, that's fine.

First of all, it starts with "Jensen is among the world's most reknowned psychologists", which is an absolute statement, and while there is a reference, it needs to be said who says that, because many others don't think the same, and my readings tend to confirm he's controversial at best. This is why these look like POV edits. If yu want t remve the wrd "famed" beside Gould's name, I don't object, as it's also a matter of opinion. However, I would strongly suggest your revert yourself, as you've now broken the 3-revert rule. It's not a matter of tit for tat, or balancing one's reputation against another's; it's just a matter of verifiably representing the reality; which is that Jensen is a very controversial figure, notwithstanding the fact that he compares himself with Gandhi.--Ramdrake 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Jensen is a controversial figure. How did the original deletion in the introduction (which I placed back and you continually reverted) correct that? There's plenty of material in the article already indicating Jensen is controversial 'in some circles.' I ask you again, should the introduction in the Gould article be revised to conform with what you seem to want to push in the Jensen article? Certainly if these words are POV than thyose in the Gould article are also POV. No?

Also Jensen didn't compare himself with Gandhi, not that it's relevant.

I'M not comparing the two articles, and neither should you, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a proper argument at Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that the praise given Jensen in the intro isn't properly attributed ("Elvis is the best musician that ever lived"), and also possibly a bit out of tone with the amount of controversy that he's generated. His bio intro shouldn't read like a PR piece, and now it does, due to your 4 reverts.--Ramdrake 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the reason that you deleted the material is because you feel it's not 'properly attributed' than that should have been noted with a request for a source. Instead, for some reason that wasn't done and instead the material was simply deleted without reasons given. In fact, there is / was a source linked in the material you deleted. Did you check that linked support before deletion?

And as far as not comparing himself with Gandhi, I quote: One of the tenets of my own philosophy is to be as open as possible and to strive for a perfect consistency between my thoughts, both spoken and published, in their private and public expression. This is essentially a Gandhian principle, one that I have long considered worth striving to live by.--Ramdrake 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the Socratic method isn't comparing yourself to Socrates. Sorry, but that's not comparing himself to Gandhi, that's advocating a principle, just as it's stated. Just don't agree with your logic regarding that objection.

I agree, this is'nt relevant.

Marquita Jensen 70.171.178.191 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I took out the word "famed" futurebird 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

William H. Tucker's meticulously researched book on Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund provides a lot of historical context to the activities of Arthur Jensen and cites many statements to persons who corresponded with Jensen (whose letters appear in various archival collections, for example the William Shockley papers at Stanford University). This will be an excellent source for further improvements of this article. Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One particularly important issue to look at while examining the sources on psychology during the last fifty years is which viewpoints of Jensen have stood up as new data have been discovered, and which have not. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.

I think the article would be better if some indication was given as to what statements were wrong. This is pretty ambiguous as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.208.157 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The article refers to associative learning as memorizing ability. It is not. It is a process where associations are created between stimulus. Secondly, new evidence supports associtive learning is equally and uniquely correlate with g, as is (concept) induction, working memory, or processing speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are going to write an article on Arthur Jensen and his claims about g and factor Analysis it is important that you include experts on the subject. Arthur Jensen is not a specialist when it comes to g theory. I recommend that Louise Guttman, Lee Cronbach, Oscar Kempthorn and Peter Schonemann receive mention for proving empirically that g does not exists.

Arthur Jensen's muddling of terminology must also be addressed:

There is a fundamental difference between g (as Spearman, who had coined the term, had defined it), and a first principal component (PC1) of a positive correlation matrix. Spearman's g was defined as a latent (implied) 1-dimensional variable which accounts for all correlations among any intelligence tests. His tetrad difference equation states a necessary condition for such a g to exist.

The important proviso for Spearman's claim that such a g qualifies as an "objective definition" of "intelligence", is that all correlation matrices of "intelligence tests" must satisfies this necessary condition, not just one or two, because they are all samples of a universe of tests subject to the same g. It is now generally acknowledged (and easily verified empirically, see below) that this condition is routinely violated by all correlation matrices of reasonable size. Hence, such a g does not exist any more than odd numbers divisible by 4 exist.

2. Realizing this, Jensen has substituted the PC1 for g , but still calls it "g". As long as the matrix is positive (has positive elements throughout), such a PC1 always exists, is unique and always can be scaled to be positive (Perron's theorem). If the matrix is a covariance matrix, a PC1 can be interpreted as the linear combination of the tests with the highest variance among all linear combinations whose weight vector is restricted to unit length. Such a PC1 may be useful for many things, but it is not g. In particular, it no longer serves the purpose for objectively defining "intelligence", because every PC1 is unique for the particular correlation matrix at hand. Nor is there any way of assessing the "similarity" of two PC1s defined on different sample spaces. Moritz and I have written a program for demonstrating this plain fact, which I mention in passing on p. 200 loc.cit.

3. Since g does not exist, it is meaningless to debate what it might "measure". Such debates are equivalent to debates about the eye color of Easter bunny. However, one can ask what a particular PC1 "measures". The answer to this is: different things at different times.

A good example for showing that it often does not "measure" what is commonly associated with the intuitive notion of "intelligence" is AFQT in The Bell Curve (TBC).

a. ASVAB has 10 variables. Herrnstein and Murray wisely refrain from giving the correlations!

b. For 5 variables, Ree and Earl, 1991,; Kass et al., 1983; Bock and Moore, 1984, and W. Thmpsen, unpubl. computed the corrrelations: 1. mechanical comprehension, 2.electronic info, 3. automobile info, 4. numerical operations, 5. coding speed.. The results were very similar, e.g., Bock and Moore, 1984:

              ms  ei    as |  no   cs  

mc 1 1. 55 53 | 27 26 ei 2 55 1. 53 | 27 23 N ~ 12,000 as 3 53 53 1. | 18 17

---

no 4 27 27 18 | 1 59 cs 5 26 23 17 | 59 1.

c. Now this is very clearly a 2-dimensional subspace of the 10-dimensional testspace, and hence counter-indicative of the existence of g (as Spearman had defined it). For example, the tetrad difference for for mc, no, ei, cs, is (55)(59) - (26)(27) = 25, which is not zero. None of these variables seem to have much to do with "g" as commonly conceived. The point is simply that the ASVAB is not 1-dimensional, and hence not a battery of "intelligence tests" in the sense of Spearman. Bock and Moore showed that it is approximately 4-dimensional.. Herrnstein and Murray use 4 different subtests of the ASVAB, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetical reasoning, and mathematical knowledge, but again refrain from presenting the correlations which would permit a check whether these four are approximately 1-dimensional.

d. Now, there have been hundreds of criticisms of the Bell Curve, but I can't remember a single one pointing out the plain fact that the ASVAB is more than 1-dimensional and hence a patent refutation of the existence of g. Unfortutnately, nobody has invited me to review TBC.

To return to the question what PC1s "measure": in this case, the PC1 of the first 3 variables measure "shop" knowledge, and the PC1 of the remaining two variables (both speeded tests) measure mental speed. As one can see from the off-diagonal correlations, these two PC1s have very little in common (as one might expect). In this case (since all 5 variables are defined on the same sample space, we actually could compute the correlation between both PC1s if we wanted to. It is probably around .4, explaining 16% of each others variance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 04:57:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Indented line The article on g factor says that its existence as a statistical phenomenon is uncontroversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.208.157 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, the existence of the g factor is uncontroversial among actual experts (i.e. psychometricians) but have been denied by many outsiders, and some experts. Schonemann is perhaps the most vehement critic. Deleet (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:19, 11 August 2009 146.244.138.85 "conceptual learning, or synthesizing ability, occurs with significantly greater frequency in whites than in blacks. He suggested that from the data, one might conclude that on average, white Americans are more intelligent than African-Americans.ref http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000187 Encyclopedia of Psychology ref"

Revision as of 16:01, 12 August 2009 69.112.3.52 "conceptual learning, or synthesizing ability, occurs with significantly greater frequency in Asians than in whites. He suggested that from the data, one might conclude that on average, Asian Americans are more intelligent than white Americans.<ref http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000187 Encyclopedia of Psychology ref"

single contrib by 69.112.3.52 reference is now a dead link.

Five and a half years, is that a record? And what race might you be, 69? GangofOne (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Arthur Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060327023519/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/jensen-gould-fossils to http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/jensen-gould-fossils

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He was without racial bias. He took it for granted that all human beings should be judged on their merits as individuals and could not understand how others might misuse his research to do otherwise. ...

He could not invent one that had external validity (predicted real world outcomes) and thus began his study of ethnic differences. Many young scholars today would suppress such a finding and curb their desire to know the truth. Which is to say that Jensen had the integrity of a true scholar and they do not. ...

With Jensen no longer alive, we will have to invent him. But we cannot really do that, because no one is so constructed as to put the same energy and imagination into a fictitious opponent as we put into polishing our own ideas.

— Flynn, James R. (March 2013). "Arthur Robert Jensen (1923–2012)". Intelligence. 41 (2): 144–145. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.10.012.

--The Master (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's important to read through the entire obituary for Jensen to gain a more full perspective of Flynn's view of Jensen, but, yes, that writing is useful for updating this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 14:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arthur Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053715/http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031%283%29%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf to http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031%283%29%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429015400/http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000064/ to http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000064/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722020238/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401053715/http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031%283%29%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf to http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031%283%29%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There are several things in this section that do not accord with my recollections of Jensen's work, such that his position is described in more controversial terms than is warranted. His 1969 article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" reported IQ scores for many populations from within the United States, but I don't think it reported data from populations of other countries. Thus the sentence containing the phrase: "... conceptual learning, or synthesizing ability, occurs with significantly greater frequency in whites than in non-whites," does not reference the context of discussion, which was focussed on the troubling differences in school based performance between Black Americans and Caucasian Americans. Jensen found these differences troubling; he did not interpret these differences to draw prejudicial conclusions or to support prejudicial attitudes.

Further, I don't think Jensen drew conclusions about world-wide racial groups, and I don't think he tried to establish that there was a hierarchy of races. He was interested in boosting IQ and scholastic achievement. This section gives the misleading impression that Jensen claimed that Caucasians were superior to all other races. Jensen certainly did not claim that Caucasians scored higher than the Oriental races. I recall that his article contained data from American populations of Chinese origin, and that the IQ scores for those populations were very high.

I remember clearly that Jensen's emphasis was on racial differences rather that racial superiority or inferiority. The articled ended with a discussion of the likelihood that Black American students would benefit from a different style of teaching than the one that appeared to be successful with Caucasian American students; that is, he presented the view that one of the differences between these two races involved learning style, such that Black students had been and still were at a educational disadvantage, because conventional teaching practices were better suited to the learning style of Caucasian Americans. Jensen was quite hopeful about this and advocated for the relevant research to be done.

I may make some revisions after I have reviewed the relevant references. Discussion is welcome, of course. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Arthur Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204122045/http://www.amren.com/928issue/928issue.html to http://www.amren.com/928issue/928issue.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204123140/http://www.amren.com/929issue/9209issue.html to http://www.amren.com/929issue/9209issue.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051022010256/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041220072845/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Rushton-Jensen2003PAID.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Rushton-Jensen2003PAID.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429214028/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL2.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)