No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Communicating intelligence research: Media misrepresentation, the Gould Effect, and unexpected forces
... It was accused, among many other things, of being pseudoscience, because race is an arbitrary social construction (Tate and Audette, 2001) [2]. There are countless historical and also more recent examples of race critique (Gottfredson, 2010;Nyborg, 2003 [3,4]; Rushton and Jensen, 2005 [1]; Scarr, 1987;Sesardic, 2010;Woodley, Dutton, Figueredo, Carl, et al., 2018, online [5][6][7]). Fortunately, these authors have already provided insightful responses to the controversy, so this introduction can be limited to adding only a few more significant examples. ...
... A further obstruction to differential behavioral research is the widespread misrepresentation of facts on individual and group differences in intelligence, both in science, in the popular literature, and the media. So widespread and detrimental is this source of distortion that it recently got its own name-the "Gould Effect" (Woodley, Dutton, Figueredo, Carl, et al., 2018, online [7]). The effect is based on Steven Jay Gould's still widely held assumption that research on intelligence differences is deeply corrupted by its inherent racist, sexist, and elitist motivation. ...
... The UNESCO statement suggested in fact that, for historical reasons, research on race with biological connotations ought to be substituted by studies of ethnic groups in a cultural context. Many later biologists, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and their academic organizations faithfully copied this unscientific and essentially politically motivated course, and some even began around 1950 to take an active and consequential stance against colleagues, whom they began to characterize as fraudulent race researcher (e.g., Woodley, Dutton, Figueredo, Carl, et al. 2018 [7]; for an earlier review, see Nyborg, 2003 [4]). ...
It is often claimed that race is a social construct and that scientists studying race differences are disruptive racists. The recent April 2018 “Race Issue” of the widely distributed National Geographic Magazine (NG) provided its millions of readers with a particularly illustrative example of this position. As discussions of race issues often recur, in both scientific and lay literature, stir considerable polemics, and have political, societal and human implications, we found it of both scientific and general interest to identify and dissect the following partly overlapping key contentions of the NG race issue magazine: (1) Samuel Morton’s studies of brain size is reprehensible racism (2) Race does not relate to geographic location, (3) Races do not exist as we are all equals and Africans, (4) Admixture and displacement erase race differences as soon as they appear, and (5) Race is only skin color deep. Also examined is the claim that Race does not matter. When analyzed within syllogistic formalism, each of the claims is found theoretically and empirically unsustainable, as Morton’s continuously evolving race position is misrepresented, race relates significantly to geography, we are far from equals, races have definitely not been erased, and race, whether self-reported or defined by ancestry, lineage, ecotype, species, or genes, is much more than skin color deep. Race matters vitally for people and societies. We conclude that important research on existing population differences is hurt when widely respected institutions such as NG mobilize their full authority in a massively circulated attempt to betray its scientific and public readership by systematically misrepresenting historical sources and scientific positions, shaming past scientists, and by selectively suppressing unwanted or unacceptable results–acts included as examples of academic fraud by the National Academy of Sciences (US, 1986). Any unqualified a priori denial of the formative evolutionary aspects of individual and population differences threatens to impede the recent promising research on effects of genome wide allelic associations, which would lames us in the vital quest to develop rational solutions to associated globally pressing societal problems.
... Understanding the frequency and severity of controversies in the field of intelligence research is not only of inherent scientific interest, but may also go some way to counteracting what has been termed the 'Gould Effect' (Woodley of Menie et al., 2018). This denotes the tendency for the 'controversialisation' of intelligence research to have harmful downstream consequences, such as derailing individual careers, skewing public perceptions, and discouraging researchers from pursuing fruitful lines of inquiry. ...
... The third era, which we term the 'Watson era', covers incidents involving several individuals who made controversial comments in the mid 2000s, including James Watson, Frank Ellis and Larry Summers. The fourth era, which covers a number of incidents involving researchers who attended the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) and subsequently came under sanctions for having done so (Woodley of Menie et al., 2018). Note that if we exclude the incidents for 2018 involving researchers who did not attend the LCI, the sum of severity-weighted incidents for that year (3) is still higher than any for any other year in our database. ...
The field of intelligence research has seen more controversies than perhaps any other area of social science. Here we present a scientometric analysis of controversies involving intelligence researchers working in the democratic Western world since 1950. By consulting books and articles, conducting web searches, and contacting some of the individuals involved, we assembled a large database of controversies. Each entry in our database represents a controversy involving a particular individual in a particular year. We computed a measure of controversy by combining the number and severity of incidents, separately for each individual and each year. The individual-level distribution is highly skewed, with just a few individuals accounting for a disproportionate share of the controversy. When tracking the level of controversy over time, we find four relatively distinct ‘eras’, of which the most recent era—the ‘LCI era’—may be the most significant to date.
... The controversy surrounding these conferences might suggest that it is still a fringe activity, regarded with considerable concern in mainstream academia. However, attendees at these conferences have defended their content, arguing that many presentations involved research which had been published in mainstream academic literature (Woodley of Menie et al. 2018). ...
Demography was heavily involved in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century but, along with most other social science disciplines, largely rejected eugenic thinking in the decades after the Second World War. Eugenic ideology never entirely deserted academia, however, and in the twenty-first century, it is re-emerging into mainstream academic discussion. This paper aims, first, to provide a reminder of demography’s early links with eugenics and, second, to raise awareness of this academic resurgence of eugenic ideology. The final aim of the paper is to recommend ways to counter this resurgence: these include more active discussion of demography’s eugenic past, especially when training students; greater emphasis on critical approaches in demography; and greater engagement of demographers (and other social scientists) with biologists and geneticists, in order to ensure that research which combines the biological and social sciences is rigorous.
... In this respect, it is similar to The Bell Curve in being a moderate scientific summary. It will no doubt get the same treatment as The Bell Curve, namely consistently negative media treatment (see for perspective: Woodley of Menie et al., 2018;Carl & Woodley of Menie, 2019;Rindermann et al., 2020). ...
Human Diversity is Charles Murray’s latest book. This review evaluates the claims made in the book and places both the author’s theses and their criticisms in their historical context. It concludes that this book is valuable as an updated summary of current knowledge about psychological differences (in the averages) between genders, races, and social classes. As such it is a useful introduction into the field for everyone interested in it.
... In this respect, it is similar to The Bell Curve in being a moderate scientific summary. It will no doubt get the same treatment as The Bell Curve, namely consistently negative media treatment (see for perspective: Woodley of Menie et al., 2018;Carl & Woodley of Menie, 2019;Rindermann et al., 2020). ...
Human Diversity is Charles Murray’s latest book. This review evaluates the claims made in the book and places both the author’s theses and their criticisms in their historical context. It concludes that this book is valuable as an updated summary of current knowledge about psychological differences (in the averages) between genders, races, and social classes. As such it is a useful introduction into the field for everyone interested in it.
... The means for these questions were M = 2.61 and 2.77, on a scale from 1 (low, no) to 9 (high, strong), with 82% and 78% of the sample, respectively, not seeing any intention to discriminate. These results contrast with published allegations of discriminatory intent and unfair treatment against intelligence research (e.g., Blinkhorn, 1982;Gould, 1981;Tengely-Evans, 2018;Woodley of Menie et al., 2018). Perhaps more convincing than estimates of ideological impact by experts in the field are analyses of people from outside the field, which may be less influenced by intradisciplinary viewpoint (cf. ...
Experts (Nmax = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r = .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r = .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r = .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts' backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts' background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy.
... You are now free to send to a different publication." This series of events should probably be interpreted in the light of a recent shaming of Shackelford by a journalist, which happened in between the invitation and the submission of the entry, which has made him more wary of taking on "controversial" material (Schulson, 2018; for context, see Woodley of Menie et al., 2018). ...
The nature of race differences, and even the mere “existence” of human races, continues to be a major source of controversy and confusion. This brief review summarizes the empirical evidence about race differences and the conceptual issues related to taxonomy, as well as practical implications for medicine and the social sciences. The review shows that human races are distinctive phenotypically and genotypically, the latter with regard to the frequencies of a very large number (millions) of alleles. Distributions of these traits are clinal rather than discrete, and human races are subject to continuous change across evolutionary time.
... Therefore, excluding intelligence research from the social contract requires destroying trust in intelligence research by targeted defamation of intelligence researchers, both living and dead. This strategy is being pursued by ideology-driven groups up to hate groups today [73], and may become public policy in the future. While destroying trust in intelligence research is the desired outcome, it is less clear whether distrust of science can or should be prevented from spreading from intelligence research to other fields of inquiry. ...
Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences, including differences between ethnic and racial groups, needs to be prevented because it produces true knowledge that is dangerous and socially undesirable. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals. The conclusion is that intelligence differences provide powerful explanations of many important real-world phenomena, and that denying their causal role requires the promotion of alternative false beliefs. Acting on these false beliefs almost invariably prevents the effective management of societal problems while creating new ones. The proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research and the results it is expected to produce, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about cognitive differences into benign outcomes, whatever the truth may be. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies will apply such knowledge in malicious rather than beneficial ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies.
... This tendency has arguably had two major adverse consequences on intelligence research. The first is the pervasive mischaracterisation of the field in psychology textbooks and the popular media, including widespread repetition of factual errors and logical fallacies, as well as claims that contested hypotheses are 'pseudoscientific' [20,[23][24][25][26][27]. The second adverse consequence is recurring witch-hunts against intelligence researchers, including protests, petitions, threats, physical attacks and institutional sanctions [28][29][30][31]. ...
There is a large amount of evidence that groups differ in average cognitive ability. The hereditarian hypothesis states that these differences are partly or substantially explained by genetics. Despite being a positive claim about the world, this hypothesis is frequently equated with racism, and scholars who defend it are frequently denounced as racists. Yet equating the hereditarian hypothesis with racism is a logical fallacy. The present article identifies ten common arguments for why the hereditarian hypothesis is racist and demonstrates that each one is fallacious. The article concludes that society will be better served if the hereditarian hypothesis is treated the same way as any other scientific claim—critically, but dispassionately.
... Indeed, the data from our replication indicate that the test may be a suitable measure of intelligence even for a modern sample, despite any prejudices or ulterior motives that may have existed among the test creators at the time. We believe that Stephen Jay Gould [1] was largely incorrect in his assessments of the Army Beta and that his approach to the Army Beta is largely representative of The Mismeasure of Man as a whole (see [55,56] for other perspectives of how Gould distorted research topics that he finds socially distasteful). The test's content, instructions, and time limits were appropriate for the examinee population at the time. ...
: In The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould argued that the preconceived beliefs and biases of scientists influence their methods and conclusions. To show the potential consequences of this, Gould used examples from the early days of psychometrics and allied fields, arguing that inappropriate assumptions and an elitist desire to rank individuals and/or groups produced incorrect results. In this article, we investigate a section of The Mismeasure of Man in which Gould evaluated the Army Beta intelligence test for illiterate American draftees in World War I. We evaluated Gould’s arguments that the Army Beta (a) had inappropriate content, (b) had unsuitable administration conditions, (c) suffered from short time limits, and (d) could not have measured intelligence. By consulting the historical record and conducting a pre-registered replication of Gould’s administration of the test to a sample of college students, we show that Gould mischaracterized the Army Beta in a number of ways. Instead, the Army Beta was a well-designed test by the standards of the time, and all evidence indicates that it measured intelligence a century ago and can, to some extent, do so today.
... Since the first of the five criticisms we mentioned above has been answered extensively elsewhere (Flynn, 2017;Carl, 2018a;Woodley of Menie et al., 2018), here we focus our attention on the other four. We begin by briefly responding to each of the criticisms individually. ...
The OpenPsych journals were set up in 2014 by Emil Kirkegaard and Davide Piffer due to dissatisfaction with existing journals in differential psychology and behavioural genetics. To date, 51 papers have been published in total, encompassing a range of topics from differential psychology and behavioural genetics to socio-political science. However, the journals have come under criticism in both online articles and unpublished offline discussions. This editorial responds to the main criticisms that have been levelled at them, namely that it is unethical or illegitimate to: (1) publish research on politically controversial topics; (2) publish papers in journals of which one is an editor; (3) have papers be reviewed by individuals who do not possess satisfactory academic credentials; (4) have papers be reviewed by individuals with controversial political views; and (5) have papers be reviewed by individuals who are personally acquainted with the authors. Since the first of these criticisms has been answered extensively elsewhere, here we focus our attention on the other four.
Intelligence is a hallmark of human existence and a core psychological trait. Research to understand its nature has a long history of empirical testing of hypotheses in the best scientific tradition. Nonetheless, there is considerable controversy about some questions regarding how genes influence intelligence differences among people and why there are average cognitive test score differences among some groups. These controversies tend to be more acrimonious and ad hominin than for other scientific questions. Despite efforts to delegitimize intelligence research, the field is expanding from psychometric approaches to neuroscience methods. Intelligence research findings may be informative for addressing social issues like income inequality and for education reform, including college admission procedures, but there must be respectful discussions about what the data mean and what they do not mean.
There is a long history of academic and non-academic activism directed against those areas of social-scientific research, specifically behavior genetics and differential psychology (especially intelligence research) , that seek to understand the determinants of variation in socially significant psychological and behavioral traits and outcomes. This research becomes particularly controversial when it addresses the potential genetic contributions to differences between population groups, e.g. studies of socially important variables such as intelligence and any variation in them between "racial" or "ethnic" groups. . We consider recent controversies related to these areas of inquiry. Crucial among these is an attempt to brand science on population differences as part of a particular form of rightist political activism, aiming to insert justifications for “White nationalism” and related ideologies into scientific, political, and public discourse. Unfortunately, the coherence of this thesis depends heavily on guilt-by-association allegations and suppression of conflicting evidence. We begin with a more general review of controversies in the disciplines at issue and then review, and further challenge, the specific argument concerning such political activism. We subsequently argue that these criticisms might themselves be embedded within a program of egalitarian activism/left-wing activism, which includes certain scholars and scientists working in relevant fields (e.g., sociogenomics), who aim to ensure that science is both conducted and presented to the public in ways that could only further egalitarian moral-political goals. Ultimately, this egalitarian activism is harmful, as it has broader chilling effects on research and science communication (claims for which we offer empirical evidence), and ethics, as it risks fomenting political polarization. To be sure, those on the political right are not innocent either. Many have engaged in behavior that has fanned the flames of controversy in these areas of science and have spread erroneous ideas about findings in them. It would be ideal if efforts were made to depoliticize social science in particular to the greatest extent possible, but a more productive course of action might involve critical introspection and the active pursuit of lines of research that challenge potential misconceptions.
In this revised and updated edition of Hunt's classic textbook, Human Intelligence, two research experts explain how key scientific studies have revealed exciting information about what intelligence is, where it comes from, why there are individual differences, and what the prospects are for enhancing it. The topics are chosen based on the weight of evidence, allowing readers to evaluate what ideas and theories the data support. Topics include IQ testing, mental processes, brain imaging, genetics, population differences, sex, aging, and likely prospects for enhancing intelligence based on current scientific evidence. Readers will confront ethical issues raised by research data and learn how scientists pursue answers to basic and socially relevant questions about why intelligence is important in everyday life. Many of the answers will be surprising and stimulate readers to think constructively about their own views.
The term ‘chumocracy’ has been used to describe a tendency within the UK’s Conservative government to appoint friends and allies to key public positions; this image seriously underestimates the scale and influence of networks that shape policy and supply individuals to key roles. This paper maps networks that converge around conservative and sometimes extreme views on race and education. These networks include media figures, academics, public officials and a range of campaigning organisations. They are characterized by an authoritarian ideology, including hereditarian and pseudoscientific beliefs, that views Black and working-class populations as unstable and threatening. They shape policies that seek to silence critical debate about structural racism, while promoting an education characterised by intensified testing, selection, curricular control and strict discipline.
Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.
Objectives:
Our aim in this study was to understand how genetics ideas are appropriated and mobilized online toward the political projects of White nationalism and the alt right. Studying three different online venues, we investigated how genetics is used to support racial realism, hereditarianism, and racial hierarchy. We analyzed how these ideas are connected to political and metapolitical projects. In addition, we examined the strategies used to build authority for these interpretations.
Methods:
We analyze three online venues in which genetics has been mobilized to advance racial realism and hereditarian explanations of racial differences. These were (a) the use of genetic ancestry tests in online nationalist discussions, (b) blogs and other venues in which the human biodiversity ideas are articulated, (c) activities surrounding the OpenPsych collection of online journals. Ethnographic and interpretive methods were applied to investigate scientific and political meanings of efforts to mobilize genetic ideas.
Results:
We found that White nationalists use genetic ancestry tests to align White identity with ideas of racial purity and diversity, educating each other about genetics, and debating the boundaries of Whiteness. "Human biodiversity" has been mobilized as a movement to catalog and create hereditarian ideas about racial differences and to distribute them as "red pills" to transform online discourse. The OpenPsych journals have allowed amateur hereditarian psychologists to publish papers, coordinate activity, and legitimate their project at the academic margins.
Conclusions:
These various appropriations of genetics aim to further racial realism and hereditarian explanations of racial social and behavioral differences. Beyond these substantive aims, on a "metapolitical" level, they serve to reframe concepts and standards for political and scientific discussion of race, challenge structures of academic legitimacy and expertise, and build a cadre of ideological foot soldiers armed with an argumentative toolkit. As professional anthropologists and geneticists aim to accurately communicate their science and its implications for understanding human differences to the public, they must contend with these substantive claims and metapolitical contexts.
We argue for the superiority of biologically informed models of human behavior and behavioral variation relative to their purely sociocultural/environmental competitors. It will be shown that opposition to models of the former type emanates largely from scientific ignorance, political motivations, and tacit (but critical) assumptions about the roles of “nature” and “nurture” in human behavior. Chapter 2 surveys a very wide set of empirical and theoretical work that attests to the explanatory power of these biologically informed models. A further matter that this chapter addresses is the substantial collective academic effort to block dissemination of biobehavioral theories of human behavior. We argue that this stems mostly from the substantial overrepresentation of those on the political left in academia, a fact that several researchers have noted.
Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences is too dangerous to be allowed to proceed unchecked. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals, finding that knowledge about intelligence differences is not always more harmful than alternative false beliefs. The main conclusion is that the proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about the world into benign outcomes. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies are unable to apply such knowledge in benign ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies.
SCIENTIFIC Human intelligence is an important concept in psychology because it provides insights into many areas, including neurology, sociology, and health. Additionally, IQ scores can predict life outcomes in health, education, work, and socioeconomic status. Yet, most students of psychology do not have an opportunity to take a class on intelligence. To learn what psychology students typically learn about intelligence, we analyzed 29 textbooks for introductory psychology courses. We found that over 3/4 of textbooks contained inaccurate statements. The five most commonly taught topics were IQ (93.1% of books), Gardner’s multiple intelligences (93.1%), Spearman’s g (93.1%), Sternberg’s triarchic theory (89.7%), and how intelligence is measured (82.8%). We learned that most introductory psychology students are exposed to some inaccurate information about intelligence and may have the mistaken impression that nonmainstream theories (e.g., Sternberg’s or Gardner’s theories) are as empirically supported mainstream theories (such as Spearman’s g).
This chapter presents a case study of collective fraud in 20th century academia and the public media in connection with a demonization of Arthur Jensen. The chapter delineates some historical examples of persecution, and presents a simple model according to which Jensen's change of mind from largely neutral to a more biologically based thinking about restrictions on development collides with a strong Zeitgeist of unconditional equality and strongly prohibitive notions about inheritance. The account of the attacks on Jensen is divided into the immediate reactions around 1969-1971, and the later reactions, continuing until today. Further, the chapter addresses the questions of why people were afraid to acknowledge the conservative effect of genes on human development and behavior, and why they preferred to regress to plausibility arguments rather than to reality. Moreover an account of how destructive social reductionism is presented, characterizing large parts of the 20th century, could infect many levels of academia and large parts of the public sphere with a collective fraud that, on the surface of it, looked very much like a superior moral stance in questions of equality and defense of the deprived. The chapter concludes with a simple prescription to cure the academic disease of collective fraud in academia-breaking down the egalitarian fictions and beginning again to act like scientists and demand the right to free inquiry.
Presents findings of a task force established by the American Psychological Association to report on the issues of what is known and unknown about intelligence. Significant conceptualizations of intelligence are reviewed, including the psychometric approach, theories of multiple forms of intelligence, cultural variations, theories of developmental progressions, and biological approaches. The meaning of intelligence test scores, what they predict, and how well they predict intelligence is discussed. Genetic factors and intelligence, focusing on individual differences, conventional IQ tests, and other tests intended to measure cognitive ability, are described. Environmental factors such as social and biological variables are discussed, and sex and ethnic group differences are addressed. Recommendations for future research are presented.
A rank-ordered list was constructed that reports the first 99 of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Eminence was measured by scores on 3 quantitative variables and 3 qualitative variables. The quantitative variables were journal citation frequency, introductory psychology textbook citation frequency, and survey response frequency. The qualitative variables were National Academy of Sciences membership, election as American Psychological Association (APA) president or receipt of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and surname used as an eponym. The qualitative variables were quantified and combined with the other 3 quantitative variables to produce a composite score that was then used to construct a rank-ordered list of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.
Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent evolutionary biologist and science historian, argued that ‘‘unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm’’ because ‘‘scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth’’, a view now popular in social studies of science. In support of his argument Gould presented the case of Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physician and physical anthropologist famous for his measurements of human skulls. Morton was considered the objectivist of his era, but Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data and in his prizewinning book The Mismeasure of Man argued that Morton skewed his data to fit his preconceptions about human variation.Morton is now viewed as a canonical example of scientific misconduct. But did Morton really fudge his data? Are studies of human
variation inevitably biased, as per Gould, or are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted? We investigated these questions by remeasuring Morton’s skulls and reexamining both Morton’s and Gould’s analyses. Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases.
We constructed a corpus of digitized texts containing about 4% of all books ever printed. Analysis of this corpus enables
us to investigate cultural trends quantitatively. We survey the vast terrain of ‘culturomics,’ focusing on linguistic and
cultural phenomena that were reflected in the English language between 1800 and 2000. We show how this approach can provide
insights about fields as diverse as lexicography, the evolution of grammar, collective memory, the adoption of technology,
the pursuit of fame, censorship, and historical epidemiology. Culturomics extends the boundaries of rigorous quantitative
inquiry to a wide array of new phenomena spanning the social sciences and the humanities.
Raymond Cattell, the father of personality trait measurement, was one of the most influential psychologists in the twentieth century, with a professional career that spanned almost seventy years. In August 1997, the American Psychological Association announced that Cattell had been selected the recipient of the American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in Psychological Science. Then, only two days before the scheduled ceremony, the APF abruptly postponed the presentation of the award due to concerns involving Cattell's views on racial segregation and eugenics. In addition to his mainstream research, in his publications Cattell had also posited evolutionary progress as the ultimate goal of human existence and argued that scientific criteria should be used to distinguish "successful" from "failing" racial groups so that the latter might be gradually "phased out" by non-violent methods such as regulation of birth control. The Cattell Controversy discusses the controversy that arose within the field in response to the award's postponement, after which Cattell withdrew his name from consideration for the award but insisted that his position had been distorted by taking statements out of context. Reflecting on these events, William H. Tucker concludes with a discussion of the complex question of whether and how a scientist's ideological views should ever be a relevant factor in determining the value of his or her contributions to the field. © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. All rights reserved.
Neven Sesardic defends the view that it is both possible and useful to measure the separate contributions of heredity and environment to the explanation of human psychological differences. He critically examines the view--very widely accepted by scientists, social scientists and philosophers of science--that heritability estimates have no causal implications and are devoid of any interest and subjects the arguments to close philosophical scrutiny. His conclusion is that anti-heritability arguments are based on conceptual confusions and misunderstandings of behavioral genetics.
Objectives.
—To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication.
Data Sources.
—Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES.
Study Selection.
—Ophthalmolgy abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included.
Data Extraction.
—Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant' results and sample size) and full publication.
Data Synthesis.
—Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median.
Conclusions.
—Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.(JAMA. 1994;272:158-162)
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
y desire to tilt at the windmill of Stephen Jay Gould was "inspired" by an experience I had with the Animal Behavior Reading Group in my department. Our group is composed of several faculty members and graduate students who select an article for dissection and criti- cism each week or so. Some time ago I suggested that our group read an essay entitled The Diet of Worms and the Defenestration of Prague (Gould 1996) because it was so beautifully suited for dissection and criticism. For those of you who no longer wade through Gould's Natural History essays, let me summarize The Diet. Gould begins with a lengthy discourse on European his- tory and ends with a stern lecture on why we should not apply evolutionary theory to an analysis of elements of human behavior, such as genocide and male/female mat- ing tactics. The article irritated me because it served up the very same arguments that Gould has dished out time and again in Natural History. I fully expected the graduate student members of the reading group to notice that this was vintage Gould and to pounce upon the many familiar flaws in his little lecture. To my surprise and chagrin, they did not do so, and in fact seemed to find his presentation novel and were happy to argue with me when I tried to convince them of the essay's shortcomings. Naturally, I have rationalized my failure to win over some of my graduate stu- dent colleagues. Perhaps one has to be old enough to have read Natural History for
a b s t r a c t What is academic freedom, what guarantees it, and what would you do if your university violated yours? Few of us academics entertain these questions or ponder possible answers. This leaves us individually and collectively vulnerable to encroachments on our right to free and open inquiry. I use a case study from 1989–1994 to illustrate how violations of academic freedom develop, the typical pretexts used to justify them, and what is required to halt and reverse them. My aim is to help scholars recognize when academic freedom is at risk and how better to safeguard it in daily academic life. To this end, I describe the general social mechanisms that operate both inside and outside academe to selectively burden and suppress unpopular research. The case study provides concrete examples to illustrate six specific lessons. Like free speech in general, academic freedom (1) has maintenance costs, (2) is not self-enforcing, (3) is invoked today to stifle unwelcome speech, (4) is often violated by academic institutions, (5) is not often defended by academics themselves, and (6) yet, requires no heroic efforts for collective enjoyment if scholars consistently contribute small acts of support to prevent incursions.
In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, one of the world's leading experts on language and the mind, explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. With characteristic wit, lucidity, and insight, Pinker argues that the dogma that the mind has no innate traits-a doctrine held by many intellectuals during the past century-denies our common humanity and our individual preferences, replaces objective analyses of social problems with feel-good slogans, and distorts our understanding of politics, violence, parenting, and the arts. Injecting calm and rationality into debates that are notorious for ax-grinding and mud-slinging, Pinker shows the importance of an honest acknowledgment of human nature based on science and common sense.
Toby young breeds contempt
- Anonymous
Anonymous (2018). Toby young breeds contempt. Private Eye, 1461, 11.
Science is not always "self-correcting" fact-value conflation and the study of intelligence
- N Cofnas
Cofnas, N. (2016). Science is not always "self-correcting" fact-value conflation and the
study of intelligence. Foundations of Science, 21, 477-492.
The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded 2nd edition)
- S J Gould
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded 2nd edition). New York,
NY: W.W. Norton and Co.
The neuroscience of intelligence
- R J Haier
Haier, R. J. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Why capitol pages fear retaliation
- R Parry
Parry, R. (2006). Why capitol pages fear retaliation. Consortium Newshttp://www.
consortiumnews.com/2006/100206.html (Retrieved on: 27/03/2018).
Expose: London's eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links
- B Van Der Merwe
Van der Merwe, B. (2018). Expose: London's eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links.
London Studenthttp://londonstudent.coop/news/2018/01/10/exposed-londoneugenics-conferences-neo-nazi-links/ (Retrieved on: 10/01/2018).
A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history
- N Wade
Wade, N. (2014). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. London, UK:
Penguin Books.