History of the race and intelligence controversy
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (February 2024) |
Race |
---|
History |
Society |
Race and... |
By location |
Related topics |
The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate about possible explanations of group differences encountered in the study of
History
Early history
In the 18th century, debates surrounding the institution of slavery in the Americas hinged on the question of whether innate differences in intellectual capacity existed between races, in particular between black people and white people.[9] Some European philosophers and scientists, such as Voltaire, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Carl Linnaeus, either argued or simply presupposed that white people were intellectually superior.[10] Others, such as Henri Gregoire and Constantin de Chasseboeuf, argued that ancient Egypt had been a black civilization, and that it was therefore black people who had "discovered the elements of science and art, at a time when all other men were barbarous."[11] During the French Revolution, Jean-Baptiste Belley, an elected member of the National Convention and the Council of Five Hundred who had been born in Senegal, became a leading proponent of the idea of racial intellectual equality.[12]
In 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote of his "suspicion" that black people were "inferior to... whites in endowments both of body and mind."[11] However, in 1791, after corresponding with the free African-American polymath Benjamin Banneker, Jefferson wrote that he hoped to see such "instances of moral eminence so multiplied as to prove that the want of talents observed in them is merely the effect of their degraded condition, and not proceeding from any difference in the structure of the parts on which intellect depends."[13]
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the idea that there are differences in the brain structures and brain sizes of different races, and that this implied differences in intelligence, was a popular topic, inspiring numerous typological studies.[14][15][16] Samuel Morton's Crania Americana, published in 1839, was one such study, arguing that intelligence was correlated with brain size and that both of these metrics varied between racial groups.[17]
Through the publication of his book Hereditary Genius in 1869, polymath Francis Galton spurred interest in the study of mental abilities, particularly as they relate to heredity and eugenics.[18][19] Lacking the means to directly measure intellectual ability, Galton attempted to estimate the intelligence of various racial and ethnic groups. He based his estimations on observations from his and others' travels, the number and quality of intellectual achievements of different groups, and on the percentage of "eminent men" in each of these groups. Galton hypothesized that intelligence was normally distributed in all racial and ethnic groups, and that the means of these distributions varied between the groups. In Galton's estimation, ancient Attic Greeks had been the people with the highest incidence of genius intelligence, followed by contemporary Englishmen, with black Africans at a lower level, and Australian Aborigines lower still.[20] He did not specifically study Jews, but remarked that "they appear to be rich in families of high intellectual breeds".[20]
Meanwhile, the American abolitionist and escaped slave Frederick Douglass had gained fame for his oratory and incisive writings,[21] despite having learned to read as a child largely through surreptitious observation.[22] Accordingly, he had been described by abolitionists as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that people of African descent lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[23][24] His eloquence was so notable that some found it hard to believe he had once been a slave.[25] In the later years of his life, one newspaper described him as "a bright example of the capability of the colored race, even under the blighting influence of slavery, from which he emerged and became one of the distinguished citizens of the country."[26]
Other abolitionists of the 19th century continued to advance the theme of ancient Egypt as a black civilization as an argument against racism. On this basis, scholar and diplomat Alexander Hill Everett argued in his 1927 book America: "With regard to the intellectual capabilities of the African race, it may be observed that Africa was once the nursery of science and literature, and it was from thence that they were disseminated among the Greeks and Romans."[27] Similarly, the philosopher John Stuart Mill posited in his 1849 essay "On the Negro Question" that "it was from Negroes, therefore, that the Greeks learnt their first lessons in civilization."[28][27]
In 1895, R. Meade Bache of the University of Pennsylvania published an article in Psychological Review claiming that reaction time increases with evolution.[29] Bache supported this claim with data showing slower reaction times among White Americans when compared with those of Native Americans and African Americans, with Native Americans having the quickest reaction time. He hypothesized that the slow reaction time of White Americans was to be explained by their possessing more contemplative brains which did not function well on tasks requiring automatic responses. This was one of the first examples of modern "scientific racism", in which a veneer of science was used to bolster belief in the superiority of a particular race.[30][31]
1900–1920
In 1903, the pioneering African-American sociologist
At the same time, the discourse of scientific racism was accelerating.[36] In 1910 the sociologist Howard W. Odum published his book Mental and Social Traits of the Negro, which described African-American students as "lacking in filial affection, strong migratory instincts, and tendencies; little sense of veneration, integrity or honor; shiftless, indolent, untidy, improvident, extravagant, lazy, 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."[37][38] As the historian of psychology Ludy T. Benjamin explains, "with such prejudicial beliefs masquerading as facts," it was at this time that educational segregation on the basis of race was imposed in some states.[39][18]
The first practical intelligence test was developed between 1905 and 1908 by Alfred Binet in France for school placement of children. Binet warned that results from his test should not be assumed to measure innate intelligence or used to label individuals permanently.[40] In 1916 Binet's test was translated into English and revised by Lewis Terman (who introduced IQ scoring for the test results) and published under the name Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales. Terman wrote that Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and Native Americans have a mental "dullness [that] seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come."[41] He also argued for a higher frequency of so-called "morons" among non-white American racial groups, and concluded that there were "enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence" which could not be remedied by education.[42]
In 1916 a team of psychologists, led by
Early IQ tests were also used to argue for limits to immigration to the US. Already in 1917, Goddard reported on the low IQ scores of new arrivals at Ellis Island. Yerkes argued on the basis of his army test scores that there were consistently lower IQ levels among those from Southern and Eastern Europe, which he suggested could lead to a decline in the average IQ of Americans if immigration from these regions were not limited.[46][47]
1920–1960
In the 1920s, 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,
In 1923, in his book A study of American intelligence, Carl Brigham wrote that on the basis of the Yerkes army tests: "The decline in intelligence is due to two factors, the change in races migrating to this country, and to the additional factor of sending lower and lower representatives of each race." He concluded that: "The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present mental capacity must, of course, be dictated by science and not by political expediency. Immigration should not only be restrictive, but highly selective."[46] The Immigration Act of 1924 put these recommendations into practice, introducing quotas based on the 1890 census, prior to the waves of immigration from Poland and Italy. While Gould and Kamin argued that the psychometric claims of Nordic superiority had a profound influence on the institutionalization of the 1924 immigration law, other scholars have argued that "the eventual passage of the 'racist' immigration law of 1924 was not crucially affected by the contributions of Yerkes or other psychologists".[49][50][51]
In 1929,
In the 1930s, the English psychologist
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 argued 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.[58][59]
The hereditarian view began to change in the 1920s in reaction to excessive eugenicist claims regarding abilities and moral character, and also due to the development of convincing environmental arguments.
1960–1980
In 1965
The
One of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, of the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Although earlier in his career Jensen had favored environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he had changed his mind during 1966-1967 when he was at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Here Jensen met Shockley and through him received support for his research from the Pioneer Fund.[70][79] Although Shockley and Jensen's names were later to become linked in the media,[70][80] Jensen does not mention Shockley as an important influence on his thought in his subsequent writings;[81][82] rather he describes as decisive his work with Hans Eysenck. He also mentions his interest in the behaviorist theories of Clark L. Hull which he says he abandoned largely because he found them to be incompatible with experimental findings during his years at Berkeley.[83]
In a 1968 article published in Disadvantaged Child, Jensen questioned the effectiveness of child development and antipoverty programs, writing: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."[84] In 1969 Jensen wrote a long article in the Harvard Educational Review, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"[85]
In his article, 123 pages long, Jensen insisted on the accuracy and lack of bias in intelligence tests, stating that the absolute quantity g that they measured, the
Later, writing about how the article came into being, Jensen said that the editors of the Review had specifically asked him to include his view on the heritability of race differences, which he had not previously published. He also maintains that only five percent of the article touched on the topic of race difference in IQ.[83] Cronbach (1975) also gave a detailed account of how the student editors of Harvard Educational Review commissioned and negotiated the content of Jensen's article.[91][92]
Many academics have given commentaries on what they considered to be the main points of Jensen's article and the subsequent books in the early 1970s that expanded on its content. According to Jencks & Phillips (1998), in his article Jensen had argued "that educational programs for disadvantaged children initiated as the War on Poverty had failed, and the black-white race gap probably had a substantial genetic component." They summarised Jensen's argument as follows:[93]
- "Most of the variation in black-white scores is genetic"
- "No one has advanced a plausible environmental explanation for the black-white gap"
- "Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that part of the black-white gap is genetic in origin"
According to Loehlin, Lindzey & Spuhler (1975), Jensen's article defended 3 claims:[94][page needed]
- IQ testsprovide accurate measurements of a real human ability that is relevant in many aspects of life.
- Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly (about 80%) heritable and parents with low IQs are much more likely to have children with low IQs
- Educational programs have been unable to significantly change the intelligence of individuals or groups.
According to Webster (1997), the article claimed "a correlation between intelligence, measured by IQ tests, and racial genes". He wrote that Jensen, based on empirical evidence, had concluded that "black intelligence was congenitally inferior to that of whites"; that "this partly explains unequal educational achievements"; and that, "because a certain level of underachievement was due to the inferior genetic attributes of blacks, compensatory and enrichment programs are bound to be ineffective in closing the racial gap in educational achievements."[95] Several commentators mention Jensen's recommendations for schooling:[96][page needed] according to Barry Nurcombe,[97]
Jensen's own research suggests that IQ tests amalgamate two forms of thinking which are hierarchically related but which become differentially distributed in the population according to SES: level 1 and level 2, associative learning and abstract thinking (g), respectively. Blacks do as well as whites on tests of associative learning, but they fall behind on abstract thinking. The educational system should attend to this discrepancy and derive a more pluralistic approach. The current system puts minority groups at a marked disadvantage, since it overemphasizes g-type thinking.
Jensen had already suggested in the article that initiatives like the
Shockley conducted a widespread publicity campaign for Jensen's article, 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.[70][99]
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 making social classes more rigid, separated by biological differences, resulting in a downward trend in average intelligence that would conflict with the growing needs of a technological society.[100]
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 Inequality of Man" (1973). He was severely critical of anti-hereditarians 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".[104] "Race, Intelligence and Education" was immediately criticized in strong terms by IQ researcher Sandra Scarr as an "uncritical popularization of Jensen's ideas without the nuances and qualifiers that make much of Jensen's writing credible or at least responsible."[105] Later scholars have identified errors and suspected data manipulation in Eysenck's work.[101] An inquiry on behalf of King's College London found 26 of his papers to be "incompatible with modern clinical science".[106][102][107] Rod Buchanan, a biographer of Eysenck, has argued that 87 publications by Eysenck should be retracted.[103][101]
Student groups and faculty at Berkeley and Harvard protested Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen's article,
This was accompanied by commentaries, criticisms and denouncements from the academic community. Two issues of the
Ideological differences also emerged in the controversy. The circle of scientists around Lewontin and Gould rejected the research of Jensen and Herrnstein as "bad science". While not objecting to research into intelligence per se, they felt that this research was politically motivated and objected to the reification of intelligence: the treatment of the numerical quantity g as a physical attribute like skin color that could be meaningfully averaged over a population group. They claimed that this was contrary to the scientific method, which required explanations at a molecular level, rather than the analysis of a statistical artifact in terms of undiscovered processes in biology or genetics. In response to this criticism, Jensen later wrote: "... what Gould has mistaken for 'reification' is neither more nor less than the common practice in every science of hypothesizing explanatory models to account for the observed relationships within a given domain. Well known examples include the heliocentric theory of planetary motion, the Bohr atom, the electromagnetic field, the kinetic theory of gases, gravitation, quarks, Mendelian genes, mass, velocity, etc. None of these constructs exists as a palpable entity occupying physical space." He asked why psychology should be denied "the common right of every science to the use of hypothetical constructs or any theoretical speculation concerning causal explanations of its observable phenomena".[63][117][118]
The academic debate also became entangled with the so-called "Burt Affair", because Jensen's article had partially relied on the 1966 twin studies of the British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt: shortly after Burt's death in 1971, there were allegations, prompted by research of Leon Kamin, that Burt had fabricated parts of his data, charges which have never been fully resolved.[119] Franz Samelson documents how Jensen's views on Burt's work varied over the years: Jensen was Burt's main defender in the US during the 1970s.[120] In 1983, following the publication in 1978 of Leslie Hearnshaw's official biography of Burt, Jensen changed his mind, "fully accept[ing] as valid ... Hearnshaw's biography" and stating that "of course [Burt] will never be exonerated for his empirical deceptions".[121] However, in 1992, he wrote that "the essence of the Burt affair ... [was] a cabal of motivated opponents, avidly aided by the mass media, to bash [Burt's] reputation completely",[122] a view repeated in an invited address on Burt before the American Psychological Association,[123] when he called into question Hearnshaw's scholarship.[124]
Similar charges of a politically motivated campaign to stifle scientific research on racial differences, later dubbed "Neo-Lysenkoism", were frequently repeated by Jensen and his supporters.[125] Jensen (1972) bemoaned the fact that "a block has been raised because of the obvious implications for the understanding of racial differences in ability and achievement. Serious considerations of whether genetic as well as environmental factors are involved has been taboo in academic circles", adding that: "In the bizarre racist theories of the Nazis and the disastrous Lysenkoism of the Soviet Union under Stalin, we have seen clear examples of what happens when science is corrupted by subservience to political dogma."[126][127]
After the appearance of his 1969 article, Jensen was later more explicit about racial differences in intelligence, stating in 1973 "that something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ differences between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic factors." He even speculated that the underlying mechanism was a "biochemical connection between skin pigmentation and intelligence" linked to their joint development in the ectoderm of the embryo. Although Jensen avoided any personal involvement with segregationists in the US, he did not distance himself from the approaches of journals of the far right in Europe, many of whom viewed his research as justifying their political ends. In an interview with Nation Europa, he said that some human races differed from one another even more than some animal species, claiming that a measurement of "genetic distance" between blacks and whites showed that they had diverged over 46,000 years ago. He also granted interviews to Alain de Benoist's French journal Nouvelle École and Jürgen Rieger's German journal Neue Anthropologie of which he later became a regular contributor and editor.[128][129][130][131]
The debate was further exacerbated by issues of racial bias that had already intensified through the 1960s because of civil rights concerns and changes in the social climate. In 1968 the Association of Black Psychologists (ABP) had demanded a moratorium on IQ tests for children from minority groups. After a committee set up by the American Psychological Association drew up guidelines for assessing minority groups, failing to confirm the claims of racial bias, Jackson (1975) wrote the following as part of a response on behalf of the ABP:[132]
Psychological testing historically has been a quasi-scientific tool in the perpetuation of racism on all levels of scientific objectivity, it [testing] has provided a cesspool of intrinsically and inferentially fallacious data which inflates the egos of whites by demeaning Black people and threatens to potentiate
Black genocide.
Other professional academic bodies reacted to the dispute differently. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, a division of the
1980–2000
In the 1980s, political scientist James Flynn compared the results of groups who took both older and newer versions of specific IQ tests. His research led him to the discovery of what is now called the Flynn effect: a substantial increase in average IQ scores over the years across all groups tested. His discovery was confirmed later by many other studies. While trying to understand these remarkable test score increases, Flynn had postulated in 1987 that "IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence".[135][136] By 2009, however, Flynn felt that the IQ test score changes are real. He suggests that our fast-changing world has faced successive generations with new cognitive challenges that have considerably stimulated intellectual ability. "Our brains as presently constructed probably have much excess capacity ready to be used if needed. That was certainly the case in 1900."[137] Flynn notes that "Our ancestors in 1900 were not mentally retarded. Their intelligence was anchored in everyday reality. We differ from them in that we can use abstractions and logic and the hypothetical to attack the formal problems that arise when science liberates thought from concrete situations. Since 1950, we have become more ingenious in going beyond previously learned rules to solve problems on the spot."[138]
From the 1980s onwards, the Pioneer Fund continued to fund hereditarian research on race and intelligence, in particular the two English-born psychologists
In 1989, Rushton was placed under police investigation by the Attorney General of Ontario, after complaints that he had promoted racism in one of his publications on race differences. In the same year, Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware had an extended battle with her university over the legitimacy of grants from the Pioneer Fund, eventually settled in her favour.[70][143]
Both later responded with an updated version of Henry E. Garrett's "egalitarian dogma", labelling the claim that all races were equal in cognitive ability as an "egalitarian fiction" and a "scientific hoax".
In 1994, the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book
Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences among individuals ... The bell curve for whites is centred roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85 ... black 17-year olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year olds in reading, math and science, with Hispanics in between.
Another early criticism was that Herrnstein and Murray did not submit their work to academic peer review before publication.
In 1999 the same journal Intelligence reprinted as an invited editorial a long article by the
In response to the debate on The Bell Curve, the
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.
Jensen commented:
As I read the APA statement, [...] I didn't feel it was contradicting my position, but rather merely sidestepping it. It seems more evasive of my position than contradictory. The committee did acknowledge the factual status of what I have termed the
g, the inadequacy of test bias and socioeconomic status as causal explanations, and many other conclusions that don't differ at all from my own position. [...] Considering that the report was commissioned by the APA, I was surprised it went as far as it did. Viewed in that light, I am not especially displeased by it.[158]
Rushton found himself at the centre of another controversy in 1999 when unsolicited copies of a special abridged version of his 1995 book
2000–present
In 2002,
In 2005 the journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law of the
In 2006, a systematic analysis by James Flynn and William Dickens showed the gap between black and white Americans to have closed dramatically during the period between 1972 and 2002, suggesting that, in their words, the "constancy of the Black-White IQ gap is a myth."[5] They argued that their results refute the possibility of a genetic origin, concluding that "the environment has been responsible" for observed differences.[5] A subsequent review led by Richard Nisbett and co-authored by Flynn, published in 2012, reached a similar conclusion, stating that the weight of evidence presented in all prior research literature shows that group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.[176]
On the other hand, a 2007 meta-analysis by Rindermann found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education leads to increased well-being later on.[177] Hunt (2010, pp. 437–439) considers Rindermann's analysis to be much more reliable than Lynn and Vanhanen's. However, a 2017 systematic review notes that other researchers have dismissed Rindermann's findings on the basis that "the meaning of variables shifts when you aggregate to different levels; a conceptual, methodological point that is well-established in the field of multi-level modelling."[178] In particular, James Flynn writes that "Rindermann's results suggest that different factors lie behind the emergence of g in international comparisons and the emergence of g when we compare the differential performance of individuals. This renders g(l) and g(ID) so unlike that they have little significance in common."[179] Similarly, Martin Brunner and Romain Martin argue that Rindermann's identification of "a common factor underlying measures of intelligence and student achievement on the cross-national level" is methodologically flawed, stating that given "the level of analysis applied . . . this factor cannot be interpreted as general cognitive ability (g). Rather it is an indicator of a nation's prosperity."[180]
In 2007,
A 2009 debate in the journal Nature on the question "Should scientists study race and IQ?" involved position papers by Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams arguing "yes" and Steven Rose arguing "no". It is notable that both sides agreed that, as Ceci and Williams put it, "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences."[1] Subsequent editorials in Nature have affirmed this view, for example the 2017 statement by the editorial board that "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races."[2]
In a meta-analysis of studies of IQ estimates in Sub-Saharan Africa, Wicherts, Dolan & van der Maas (2010, p. 10) concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen had relied on unsystematic methodology by failing to publish their criteria for including or excluding studies. They found that Lynn and Vanhanen's exclusion of studies had depressed their IQ estimate for sub-Saharan Africa, and that including studies excluded in IQ and Global Inequality resulted in average IQ of 82 for sub-Saharan Africa, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.[182] A 2010 systematic review by the same research team, along with Jerry S. Carlson, found that compared to American norms, the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans was about 80. The same review concluded that the Flynn effect had not yet taken hold in sub-Saharan Africa.[183]
Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010) argued that studies reporting support for evolutionary theories of intelligence based on national IQ data suffer from multiple fatal methodological flaws. For example, they state that such studies "... assume that the Flynn Effect is either nonexistent or invariant with respect to different regions of the world, that there have been no migrations and climatic changes over the course of evolution, and that there have been no trends over the last century in indicators of reproductive strategies (e.g., declines in fertility and infant mortality)." They also showed that a strong degree of confounding exists between national IQs and current national development status.[184] Similarly, Pesta & Poznanski (2014) showed that the average temperature of a given US state is strongly associated with that state's average IQ and other well-being variables, despite the fact that evolution has not had enough time to operate on non-Native American residents of the United States. They also noted that this association persisted even after controlling for race, and concluded that "Evolution is therefore not necessary for temperature and IQ/well-being to co-vary meaningfully across geographic space."[185]
In 2016, Rindermann, Becker & Coyle (2016) attempted to replicate the findings of Snyderman & Rothman (1987) by surveying 71 self-identified psychology experts on the causes of international differences in cognitive test scores; only 20% of those invited participated. They found that the experts surveyed ranked education as the most important factor of these differences, with genetics in second place (accounting on average for 15% of the gap, with high variability in estimates among experts) and health, wealth, geography, climate, and politics as the next most important factors. About 90% of experts in the survey believed there was a genetic component to international IQ gaps. The authors emphasized, however, that their study serves as an "opinion instrument" rather than "an indicator of truth." Notably, the study relied on "self-selection of experts," which the authors acknowledge as a limitation, and focused on self-identified experts in psychology rather than genetics.
In 2018, in response to a resurgence of public controversy over race and intelligence, the geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell made a statement in The Guardian that described the idea of genetic IQ differences between races as "inherently and deeply implausible" because it goes against basic principles of population genetics. There he argued, "To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What's more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change." Mitchell concluded that, "While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next."[186]
See also
Notes
- ^ S2CID 205044224.
There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.
- ^ S2CID 4449918.
Historical measurements of skull volume and brain weight were done to advance claims of the racial superiority of white people. More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.
- S2CID 222163480.
[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new).
- S2CID 143910026.
- ^ S2CID 6593169.
- PMID 22963427. Retrieved 22 July 2013.
- S2CID 85351431.
- ^ Birney, Ewan; Raff, Jennifer; Rutherford, Adam; Scally, Aylwyn (24 October 2019). "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer". Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large.
'Human biodiversity' proponents sometimes assert that alleged differences in the mean value of IQ when measured in different populations – such as the claim that IQ in some sub-Saharan African countries is measurably lower than in European countries – are caused by genetic variation, and thus are inherent. . . . Such tales, and the claims about the genetic basis for population differences, are not scientifically supported. In reality for most traits, including IQ, it is not only unclear that genetic variation explains differences between populations, it is also unlikely.
- JSTOR 3401408.
- ^ Baker 1974, pp. 18–27
- ^ ISBN 0-19-535730-2.
- ISBN 0-674-03436-8.
- OCLC 1043555596. Retrieved 2019-08-31. (2) "Thomas Jefferson to Marquis de Condorcet". Library of Congress. August 30, 1791. pp. pp. 1–2. Retrieved February 28, 2021. (3) Bedini, 1999, p. 166.
- ^ Morton 1839
- ^ Bean 1906
- ^ Mall 1909
- ^ Fish 2002, p. 159, Chapter 6, "Science and the idea of race", by Audrey Smedley
- ^ a b Benjamin 2006, pp. 188–189
- ^ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 7–10
- ^ a b Baker 1974, pp. 40–44
- JSTOR 30147499.
- ^ Douglass, Frederick (1851). Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, an American slave. Written by himself (6 ed.). London: H.G. Collins. pp. 43–44.
- ISBN 978-0-631-20578-4. "Moreover, though he does not make the point explicitly, again the very fact that Douglass is ably disputing this argument on this occasion celebrating a select few's intellect and will (or moral character)—this fact constitutes a living counterexample to the narrowness of the pro-slavery definition of humans."
- ISBN 1-56004-206-0. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
- JSTOR 274419. p. 16: "He spoke too well.… Since he did not talk, look, or act like a slave (in the eyes of Northern audiences), Douglass was denounced as an imposter."
- ^ "Local Items". Oxford Press. January 2, 1886.
- ^ ISBN 0-19-535730-2.
- S2CID 147100311.
- doi:10.1037/h0070013.
- ^ Benjamin 2006, p. 188
- ISBN 978-0-205-14993-3.
- ISBN 978-0-465-04395-8.
- ISBN 978-1-4129-4050-4.
- ^ Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). "The Talented Tenth". The Negro Problem.
- ^ Frazier, Ian (19 August 2019). "When W. E. B. Du Bois Made a Laughingstock of a White Supremacist". The New Yorker.
- ^ Feuerherd, Peter (21 February 2019). "W.E.B. DuBois Fought "Scientific" Racism". JSTOR Daily.
- ^ Odum, Howard W. (1910). Mental and Social Traits of the Negro. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 300.
- doi:10.1037/h0072417
- ^ Benjamin 2009, pp. 213–214
- ^ Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian 2011.
- OCLC 557712625.
- ^ a b Benjamin 2006, p. 189
- ^ Mackintosh 1998, p. 17
- ^ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 20–21
- ^ Kevles 1998
- ^ a b Brigham 1923, p. 178,210
- ^ Blumenthal, Thomas W.; Gannon, Paul C.; Nathan, Scott A.; Plimpton, Samuel (2002). "Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement" (PDF). Facing History.
- ISBN 978-0-415-09258-6. Reprint of 1924 book.
- ^ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 22–23
- ^ Samelson 1979, p. 135
- .
- ISBN 978-1-4286-4126-6. Reprint of 1929 textbook.
- ^ Benjamin 2006, pp. 189–190
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, p. 145
- ^ Tucker 1996, pp. 239–249
- ^ Tucker 2009, pp. 1–15
- ^ Kevles 1998, pp. 134–138
- ^ Klineberg, Otto (1935), Negro intelligence and selective migration, Columbia University Press
- ^ Klineberg, Otto (1935), Race differences, Harper and Brothers
- ^ A history of Modern Psychology in Context, Wade E. Pickren and Alexandra Rutherford, Wiley, 2010, page 163
- ^ Samelson 1978
- ^ Benjamin 2006, pp. 190–191
- ^ a b Segerstråle 2001
- ^ The structure & measurement of intelligence, Hans Jürgen Eysenck and David W. Fulker, Transaction Publishers, 1979, page 16.
- ^ Cooper, D. Y. (2010). "William Bradford Shockley". American National Biography.
- ^ Tucker 1996, p. 194
- ^ Tucker 2002, pp. 43, 180–181
- ^ Tucker 1996, pp. 193–194
- ^ Rushton, J. P. (2002). "The Pioneer Fund and the Scientific Study of Human Differences" (PDF). Albany Law Review. 66: 207–262. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-03-27.
- ^ a b c d e f Tucker 2002
- ^ Rose 2009
- ^ Lynn 2001 The official history of the Pioneer Fund written by a board member.
- ^ Winston 1996
- ^ Winston 1998
- ^ Garrett 1961a
- ^ Garrett 1961b, p. 256
- ^ Albee 1996, p. 90
- ^ Jackson 2005, pp. 111–112
- ^ Shurkin 2006
- ^ Alland 2002, pp. 121–124
- ^ Roger Pearson's 1992 book "Shockley on Race and Eugenics" contains a foreword by Jensen, giving a lengthy assessment of Shockley
- ^ In Shurkin 2006, pp. 270–271, Jensen is reported as saying that Shockley's main contribution was to distract opponents and that "I have always been amazed that someone as bright as he could have contributed so little over so long a span of time".
- ^ .
- ^ See:
- Tucker 2002, pp. 148, 255
- Tucker 1996, p. 197
- Byrd & Clayton 2001, p. 436
- Jensen 1968
- ^ Jensen 1969
- ^ Tucker 1996, p. 203
- ^ Gottfredson 1998
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 363–365
- ^ a b Tucker 1996, p. 204
- ^ Lerner 2002, p. 270
- ^ Cronbach 1975, p. 3
- ^ a b c Jensen 1972
- ^ Jencks & Phillips 1998, p. 16
- ^ Loehlin, Lindzey & Spuhler 1975
- ^ Webster 1997, pp. 19–20
- ^ See:
- ^ Nurcombe, De Lacey & Walker 1999, p. 45, Chapter 2, The Great Debate
- ^ See:
- ^ Wooldridge 1995
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, p. 365
- ^ a b c O'Grady, Cathleen (2020-07-15). "Misconduct allegations push psychology hero off his pedestal". Science. Retrieved 2020-07-24.
- ^ a b "King's College London enquiry into publications authored by Professor Hans Eysenck with Professor Ronald Grossarth-Maticek" (PDF). October 2019.
- ^ PMID 31841048.
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 366–367
- ISBN 978-0-89859-055-5; article previously published in Science, 1971, 174, 1223–1228.
- ^ O'Grady, Cathleen (2020-07-15). "Misconduct allegations push psychology hero off his pedestal". Science. Retrieved 2020-07-24.
- ^ Boseley, Sarah (11 October 2019). "Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled 'unsafe'". The Guardian.
- ^ Cronbach 1975, pp. 3–5
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 368–373
- ^ Segerstråle 2001, pp. 17–24 Segerstråle gives a detailed account of the Sociobiology Study Group, founded in 1975.
- ^ Segerstråle 2001, p. 33,44,272
- ^ Ornstein 1974, p. 174
- ^ Wooldridge 1995, pp. 374–376
- ^ See:
- Wooldridge 1995, p. 374
- Block & Dworkin 1976, p. 89
- ^ Sesardić 2005, pp. 132–134
- ^ See:
- Wooldridge 1995, p. 375–376
- Block & Dworkin 1976, p. 330–335, "Five Myths About Your IQ"
- ^ Segerstråle 1992
- ^ Jensen 1982
- ^ See:
- Wooldridge 1995, p. 375
- Samelson 1997
- Mackintosh 1995
- Mackintosh 1998, p. 74–76
- Alland 2002
- ^ See:
- ^ Jensen 1983, pp. 17, 20
- ^ Jensen 1992a, p. 121
- ^ Jensen 1992b
- ^ Samelson 1997, pp. 146–148
- ^ See:
- ^ Jackson 2005, p. 184
- ^ Jensen 1972, p. 328
- ^ Tucker 1996, pp. 203, 261–264
- ^ Kühl 2001, p. 112
- ^ Jensen 1973, p. 363
- ^ Rose 1975, p. 202
- ^ See:
- Jensen 1980, p. 16
- Wooldridge 1995, p. 376
- Hickman & Reynolds 1986, p. 411
- ^ Modgil & Modgil 1987, p. 44
- ^ Scarr & Carter-Saltzman 1982, p. 796
- ^ Richards 1997, p. 279
- ^ Maltby, Day & Macaskill 2007, p. 302
- ^ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence? (p. 110). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
- ^ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence? (pp. 10-11). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
- ^ Rushton & Jensen 2005
- ^ See:
- ^ See:
- ^ See:
- ^ Gross 1990
- ^ See:
- Winston 1996, p. 246
- Winston 1996, p. 236, footnote: "Rushton's (1994) notion of the 'equalitarian fiction' is that Blacks and Whites are genetically equal in cognitive ability. Gottfredson's (1994) notion of the 'egalitarian fiction' is that 'racial-ethnic groups never differ in average developed intelligence' (p. 53). I have never seen a scholarly source which maintained that groups never show mean differences in intelligence test scores. Gottfredson gives no reference for anyone who holds this position."
- ^ See:
- Jackson 2005, pp. 201–202
- Jensen 1998, p. 420, The meaning of race
- MacDonald 1998, p. 103
- ^ See:
- Maltby, Day & Macaskill 2007, pp. 334–347
- Hothersall 2003, pp. 440–441
- Joseph L. Graves
- James Kaufman
- ^ Gottfredson 1997.
- ^ Chamorro-Premuzic 2007, p. 84 "More importantly differential psychologists have been unanimous in their support for The Bell Curve. In fact, in the year the book was published, 52 eminent intelligence experts (not only from differential psychology) published a dossier entitled 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' in which they endorsed the core claims and data endorsed by Herrnstein and Murray."
- ^ Gillborn 2008, p. 112 "The Bell Curve sparked huge controversy in the 1990s with its claims that African Americans (and 'underclass whites') were genetically predisposed to lower intelligence and higher criminality. In 1994, as the controversy raged on, a group of 52 professors (including Rushton, Lynn, Eysenck and Jensen) presented themselves as 'experts in intelligence and allied fields' and signed a statement that was published in The Wall Street Journal under the title 'Mainstream science on intelligence'. Among the statements of supposedly 'mainstream' scientific opinion were the following: 'Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences among individuals ... The bell curve for whites is centred roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85 ... black 17-year olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year olds in reading, math and science, with Hispanics in between.' These views are presented as if distilled from numerous 'scientific' studies and the tone is somewhat dry. But the meaning is clear. First, the authors are saying that intelligence is largely a matter of genetic inheritance. Second, they are saying that most whites are naturally more intelligent than most black people; in fact, that the 'average white' is more intelligent than 8 out of 10 African Americans!"
- ^ Gillborn 2008, p. 112
- ^ Gottfredson 1997
- ^ Arthur S. Goldberger and Charles F. Manski (1995) "Review Article: The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray", Journal of Economic Literature, 36(2), June 1995, pp. 762–776. "HM and their publishers have done a disservice by circumventing peer review ....a process of scientific review is now under way. But, given the process to date, peer review of The Bell Curve is now an exercise in damage control ...."
- ^ Fish (2002) pp. 1–28
- ^ Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) Intelligence, Race and Genetics Archived 2010-07-26 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Tucker 2002, p. 2
- ^ See:
- Tucker 2002, pp. 2, 203, 206–209
- ^ See:
- Neisser 1996, p. 97
- Mackintosh 1998, p. 148
- Maltby, Day & Macaskill 2007, pp. 334–347
- Hothersall 2003, pp. 440–441
- ISBN 0-8133-4274-0.
- ^ Tucker 2003
- ^ Rushton 2000
- ^ Psych prof accused of racism Archived 2011-05-15 at the Wayback Machine, UWO Gazette, February 2000
- ISBN 0-275-97510-X
- ^ Comments in interview could bring charges of inciting racism against PM Vanhanen's father Helsingin Sanomat, August 12, 2004
- ^ "KRP ei aloita esitutkintaa Vanhasen lausunnoista". National Bureau of Investigation (in Finnish). August 18, 2004. Archived from the original on 2014-07-26. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
- doi:10.1037/004367. Archived from the originalon 2012-07-17.
- S2CID 41387871.
- .
- S2CID 92984213.
- ^ "EHBEA Statement on National IQ Datasets, European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association" (PDF). 27 July 2020.
- ^ Rushton & Jensen 2005, pp. 246–8
- ISSN 1076-8971.
- ISSN 1076-8971.
- ISBN 978-0-415-44433-0.
- ISBN 978-0-393-06505-3.
- .
- PMID 22963427. Retrieved 22 July 2013.
- ^ Hunt 2010, p. 440-443.
- S2CID 152101102.
- ^ Flynn, James (August 2007). "What lies behind g(I) and g(ID)". European Journal of Personality. 21 (5): 722–724.
- ^ Brunner, Martin; Martin, Romain (August 2007). "Not Every g is g". European Journal of Personality. 21 (5): 714–716.
- ^ See:
- Hunt-Grubbe, C. "The elementary DNA of dear Dr. Watson", Times Online (London), October 14, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007. Archived 2008-04-15 at the Wayback Machine
- Science always has and should be open to debate. Times Online (London). 2007-10-21.
- James Watson's Disastrous Interview. Gelf. 2007-10-14
- Race remarks get Nobel winner in trouble, NBC News, AP, October 18, 2007. Retrieved October 18, 2007.
- Syal, R. "Nobel scientist who sparked race row says sorry - I didn't mean it", Times Online (London), October 19, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
- "Museum drops race row scientist", BBC, October 18, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
- "Watson Returns to USA after race row", International Herald Tribune (New York), October 19, 2007. Retrieved on November 10, 2007
- Watson, James (September–October 2007). "Blinded by Science. An exclusive excerpt from Watson's new memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science". 02138 Magazine: 102. Archived from the original on 2007-10-24. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our desire to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.
- "The complex James Watson". Times Literary Supplement. Jerry A. Coyne, December 12, 2007
- How to Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science The Science Network interview with James Watson
- On Point "James Watson on how to climb the slippery double helix of life" - Tom Ashbrook talks to James Watson about his new memoir, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science."
- van Marsh, A. "Nobel-winning biologist apologizes for remarks about blacks", CNN, October 19, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
- Watson, J.D. "James Watson: To question genetic intelligence is not racism", Independent (London), October 19, 2007. Retrieved October 24, 2007
- Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory. October 18, 2007. Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D. Regarding Dr. Watson's Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007 Archived 2010-09-10 at the Wayback Machine. Press release. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
- Wigglesworth, K.DNA pioneer quits after race comments, Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2007. Retrieved December 5, 2007
- "Nobel prize-winning biologist resigns."", CNN, October 25, 2007. Retrieved on October 25, 2007.
- "DNA Pioneer Watson Resigns Amid Cloud of Scandal" by Malcolm Ritter AP 10/25/07 11:29 AM PhT
- Watson, J.Statement by James D. Watson "Retirement", New York Times, 25 October 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2007.
- ^ Wicherts, Dolan & van der Maas 2010.
- ^ Wicherts et al. 2010.
- ^ Wicherts, Borsboom & Dolan 2010.
- ^ Pesta & Poznanski 2014.
- ^ Mitchell, Kevin (2 May 2018). "Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely: The idea that intelligence can differ between populations has made headlines again, but the rules of evolution make it implausible". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
References
- Albee, George W. (1996), "The Psychological Origins of the White Male Patriarchy", The Journal of Primary Prevention, 17 (1): 75–97, S2CID 23459374
- Alland, Alexander (2002), Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79–104, ISBN 978-0-312-23838-4, Chapter 5, "Race and IQ: Arthur R. Jensen and Cyril Burt"
- Bean, Robert Bennett (1906), "Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain" (PDF), American Journal of Anatomy, 5 (4): 353–432, hdl:2027.42/49594
- ISBN 978-0-19-212954-3
- Benjamin, Ludy T. (2006), Brief History of Modern Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 188–191, ISBN 978-1-4051-3206-0
- Benjamin, Ludy T. (2009), A History of Psychology in Letters, Wiley, ISBN 978-1-4051-5033-0
- Block, Ned; Dworkin, Gerald, eds. (1976), The I.Q. controversy: Critical readings, Pantheon Books, ISBN 978-0-394-73087-5
- Brigham, C. C. (1923), A study of American intelligence, Princeton University Press
- Byrd, W. Michael; Clayton, Linda A. (2001), An American Health Dilemma: Race, Medicine, and Health Care in the United States, 1900-2000, Routledge, pp. 430–438, ISBN 978-0-415-92737-6, "Science as Racialism"
- Cattell, Raymond B. (1971), The structure of intelligence in relation to the nature-nurture controversy, Intelligence (ed. R. Cranco), Grune & Scratton
- Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas (2007), Personality and Individual Differences, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-3008-0
- Davis, Bernard D. (1983), "Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press", Public Interest, 73 (73): 41–59, PMID 11632811
- ISBN 978-0-203-41859-8
- ISBN 978-1-56000-360-1
- ISBN 978-0-8058-3757-5
- ISBN 978-0-85200-375-6
- ISBN 978-0-7100-0651-6
- ISBN 978-0-8058-1110-0
- S2CID 5304813
- Garrett, H. E. (1961b), "The egalitarian dogma", Mankind Quarterly, vol. 1, pp. 253–257
- Gillborn, David (2008), Racism and education: coincidence or conspiracy?, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-41897-3
- Gordon, Robert A. (1992), "Letter, June 15", New York
- S2CID 144192789
- Gross, Barry R. (1990), "The case of Philippe Rushton", Academic Questions, 3 (4): 35–46, )
- Herrnstein, R. N. (1973), IQ in the Meritocracy, Little Brown
- Hickman, Julia A.; Reynolds, Cecil R. (1986), "Are Race Differences in Mental Test Scores an Artifact of Psychometric Methods? A Test of Harrington's Experimental Model", The Journal of Special Education, 20 (4): 409–430, S2CID 146501293
- Hothersall, David (2003), History of Psychology (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, pp. 440–441, ISBN 978-0-07-284965-3
- ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7
- Jackson, G. D. (1975), "Another psychological view from the Association of Black Psychologists", American Psychologist, vol. 30, pp. 88–93,
- Jackson, John P. (2005), Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education, ISBN 978-0-8147-4271-6
- ISBN 978-0-8157-4609-6
- Jensen, A. R. (1968), "The Culturally Disadvantaged and the Heredity-Environment Uncertainty", Disadvantaged Child (Ed. J. Hellmuth), Vol. 2, Brunner-Mazel, p. 54
- Jensen, A. R. (1972), Genetics and Education, Harper and Rowe
- Jensen, A. R. (1973), Educability and Group Differences, Harper and Rowe
- S2CID 5422380
- ISBN 978-0-02-916430-3
- Jensen, A. R. (1982), "The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons", Contemporary Education Review, pp. 121–135
- Jensen, A. R. (1983), "Sir Cyril Burt: A personal recollection", Association of Educational Psychologists Journal, vol. 6, pp. 13–20
- Jensen, A. R. (1992a), "Scientific fraud or false accusation? The case of Cyril Burt", in Miller, D. J.; Hersen, M. (eds.), Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences, Wiley, pp. 97–124
- Jensen, A. R. (1992b), "The Cyril Burt scandal, research taboos, and the media", The General Psychologist, vol. 28, pp. 16–21 (Transcript of invited address, sponsored by Div. 1, at APA Convention, Washington, DC, August 14, 1992.)
- ISBN 978-0-275-96103-9
- S2CID 92984213
- ISBN 978-0-674-44557-4
- Kühl, Stefan (2001), The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, ISBN 978-0-19-514978-4
- Lerner, Richard M. (2002), Concepts and theories of human development, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-8058-2798-9
- ISBN 978-0-7167-0753-0
- ISBN 978-0-7618-2040-6
- ISBN 978-0-7596-7221-5, archived from the original(PDF) on 2009-03-14, retrieved 2010-05-16
- Mackintosh, N. J., ed. (1995), Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed?, ISBN 978-0-19-852336-9
- ISBN 978-0-19-852367-3
- 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,
- Modgil, Sohan; Modgil, Celia (1987), Arthur Jensen, consensus and controversy, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85000-093-8
- Maltby, John; Day, Liz; Macaskill, Ann (2007), Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence, ISBN 978-0-13-129760-9
- ISBN 978-0-8133-4274-0
- 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, Philadelphia: J. Dobson
- Nurcombe, Barry; De Lacey, P. R.; Walker, Susan-Lee (1999), Children of the dispossessed: Far-West preschoolers 30 years on, Advances in applied developmental psychology, vol. 16 (2nd ed.), Stamford, CT: Ablex, ISBN 978-1-56750-421-7
- Ornstein, Allan C. (1974), Race and politics in school/community organizations, Goodyear, ISBN 0876207743
- Ornstein, Allan C. (1982), "The Education of the Disadvantaged: A 20-Year Review", Educational Research, 24 (3): 197–211,
- ISBN 978-1-878465-23-8
- Pesta, Bryan J.; Poznanski, Peter J. (2014), "Only in America: Cold Winters Theory, race, IQ and well-being", Intelligence, 46: 271–274,
- Plotnik, Rod; Kouyoumdjian, Haig (2011). "Intelligence". Introduction to Psychology. Cengage Learning.
- Pyle, David W. (1979), Intelligence, an introduction, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-7100-0306-5
- Richards, Graham (1997), Race, racism, and psychology: towards a reflexive history, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-10141-7
- Richardson, Angélique (2003), Love and eugenics in the late nineteenth century: rational reproduction and the new woman, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-818700-4
- Rindermann, Heiner; Becker, David; Coyle, Thomas R. (2016), "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests", Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 399, PMID 27047425
- Rose, S. P.(1975), "Scientific racism and ideology", in Ebling, F. J. (ed.), Racial Variation in Man, Wiley
- Rose, Anne E. (2009), Psychology and Selfhood in the Segregated South, The University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0-8078-3281-3
- S2CID 55536677
- ISBN 978-0-9656836-2-3
- doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235, archived from the original(PDF) on 2012-07-22
- PMID 11610360
- Samelson, Franz (1979), "Putting psychology on the map: Ideology and intelligence testing", in Buss, A. R. (ed.), Psychology in social context, Irvington Publishers
- Samelson, Franz (1997), "What to do about fraud charges in science; or, will the Burt affair ever end?", Genetica, 99 (2/3): 145–151, S2CID 23231496
- ISBN 978-0-521-29687-8
- S2CID 152168853
- Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter (2001), Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-286215-0
- ISBN 978-0-521-82818-5
- Shurkin, Joel N. (2006), Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the Electronic Age, Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-4039-8815-7
- Snyderman, M.; Rothman, S. (1987), "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing", American Psychologist, 42 (2): 137–144,
- ISBN 978-0-8058-3267-9
- Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K. (2006), "Racing toward the finish line", American Psychologist, 61 (2): 178–179,
- ISBN 978-0-252-06560-6
- ISBN 978-0-252-02762-8
- JSTOR 3134390
- ISBN 978-0-252-03400-8
- Valencia, Richard R., ed. (1997), The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice, Stanford series on education and public policy, vol. 19, Falmer Press, ISBN 978-0-7507-0665-0
- Webster, Yehudi O. (1997), Against the multicultural agenda: a critical thinking alternative, Praeger, ISBN 978-0-275-95876-3
- Wicherts, Jelte M.; Borsboom, Denny; Dolan, Conor V. (2010), "Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence", Personality and Individual Differences, 48 (2): 91–6,
- Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolan, Conor V.; Carlson, Jerry S.; van der Maas, Han L. J. (June 2010), "Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect", Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (3): 135–151,
- Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolan, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L. J. (January 2010), "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans", Intelligence, 38 (1): 1–20,
- Winston, Andrew (1996), "The context of correctness: A comment on Rushton", Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 5 (2): 231–250, S2CID 143563715
- Winston, Andrew (1998), "Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby", Journal of Social Issues, 54: 179–210,
- ISBN 978-0-521-39515-1
Further reading
- Ehrenreich, Eric (2007), "Otmar von Verschuer and the "Scientific" Legitimization of Nazi Anti-Jewish Policy", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 21 (1): 55–72, S2CID 143526786, archived from the originalon 2009-07-20
- Evans, Gavin (2019), Skin Deep: Journeys in the Divisive Science of Race, London: OCLC 1059232398
- Zenderland, Leila (2001), Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing, Cambridge Studies in the History of Psychology, ISBN 978-0-521-00363-6
- Chambliss, J. J. (1996), Philosophy of education: An encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0-8153-1177-5
External links
- Media related to Race and intelligence controversy at Wikimedia Commons