Talk:Arthur Jensen

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

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

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

Interpreting Jensen's words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed the unsourced statement claiming racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, Francisco Gil-White's paper is a reliable and verifiable source. This is not about whether Gil-White is right. This is about wht has been said. Some very harsh criticism has been leveled on both sides. Besides, you affirming that "Jensen never said that" is patently original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia; I'm not saying anything about it not being true. But if you can find a published source that says that isn't right, we can also include that. Until then, the link is germane and sourced. And please also sign your comments with four tildes.--Ramdrake 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

AFAIK, this is close enough to saying they were innately stupid, just better worded. So, I really don't see the libel.--Ramdrake 23:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why you should not be editing these pages. Saying African Americans have a lower group MEAN does not speak to individuals. The cirve is asymprotic. Saing Chinese have a lower AVERAGE height does not mean they are INNATELY shorter. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

1)Your first sentence is a personal attack. Please be careful not to say this again. Second, the argument you're bringing here is a non-sequitur to Jensen's reported statement that "blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing." Innately means that they are so because of their genes (that it is in them at birth "in-nate"). It doesn't mean they're ALL shorter (or dumber) than everybody else. You haven't addressed the citation at all.--Ramdrake 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the cite for the statement you just made "blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing". It was a reported statemnt from where exactly? Have you read Jensen's work, Ramdrake?

The link is here: [1], the very reference you just removed from the article, so since you are proving it is germane, I just put it back.--Ramdrake 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aksing for the cite to that statement by Jensen, not Gil-White and other's mischaracterization of what he wrote. Where is the original cite for Jensen's statment ""blacks are deficient in the particular genes required for complex information processing" I repeat, have you ever read Jensen's work? As you did not respond to the last question, I have to assume you did not and are relying on a poorly written mischaracterization that is libelous and so I removed it.

BenGibson 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In this particular instance, Gil-White is a secondary source. If you want to prove Jensen didn't say that, find the article by Shoneman and prove the quote is incorrect. The onus is on you; I'm just reporting a verifiable source. Again, the reference goes back in.--Ramdrake 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on me to prove a non-event? You do understand that this is impossible, don't you? Once again, why are you constantly editing references to Jensen if you have not read his work? The reference is inaccurate, Jensen does not say that. I am removing it.BenGibson 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Gil-White specifically cites someone talking about Jensen's 1969 article:

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

Do you have a copy of his 1969 paper to invalidate the claims being made? --JereKrischel 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Would that satisfy you enough to pull the reference?BenGibson 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide us the full text of the 1969 paper, so that we could all judge for ourselves whether or not the characterization reported by Gil-White was accurate or inaccurate, I could possibly be convinced. --JereKrischel 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it amy take a few days if I don't have it in my file set. Until such time, I will discontinue edits.BenGibson 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The problem I have with the article is that it's a 'Bill said that Bob said that Ben said' allegation supported with a link within the article that goes no place except back to the original 'Bill, Bob, amd Ben' allegation.

Eminent?

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

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

You might what to find a third party source for support. Otherwise, it appears that you've done nothing but state your own 'point of view' - at least twice.