Re-examining psychology Book

There are also more subtle personal reasons for distancing oneself from viewing the race question in a genetic context. Anyone who does so risks getting called a racist and is often misunderstood and even shunned by friends or colleagues. It puts one in a difficult position socially and professionally, which not everyone can tolerate. I myself don't like it, but I sometimes wonder why I seem to tolerate it. I believe one has to have relatively little need to be liked. I suppose it's a kind of eccentricity to be willing to risk strong disapproval.

Jensen
***

The late Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man, Howard Gardner's numerous books on "multiple intelligences," and Joseph Graves's The  Emperor's New Clothes argue that Jensenism and the controversial best-seller The Bell Curve (which draws heavily on Jensen's work) are marginal science at best, pseudoscience at worst. Here, Jensen replies to these and other critics. He also answers the questions I think you yourself would like to ask him. He tells you why he believes the scientific basis of Jensenism is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, why the experts in the relevant disciplines of behavior genetics and psychometrics agree with him and not his critics, and why the public has been so misinformed.

This book also introduces you to Arthur Jensen, the man behind the "ism," so that you can understand why he took up such a controversial research program and why he has pursued it so relentlessly. Finally, it takes you on the intellectual odyssey of the behavioral sciences over the past third of a century, detailing the sea changes that have taken place since Jensen and Jensenism first hit the front pages in 1969.

Frank Miele

Jensen:

Good intentions must be backed up by evidence that the prescribed means for achieving them actually work.
The marked individual differences and average race and sex differences in abilities are real and important in relation to education, employment, and other social and economic variables. It is presently not within our power to materially reduce these differences by purely psychological or educational means, or any other means yet known. If so-called progressive programs depend on the egalitarian notion that such differences are only a superficial effect of unequal social privilege or lack of opportunity and can be changed easily by psychological and educational interventions or measures such as Affirmative Action, they are in conflict with the evidence and need to be seriously reconsidered.
*
If anyone has legitimate scientific criticisms of my research, they should submit them to the same respectable peer-reviewed journals in which my research appeared. Many scholars have done this, either on their own initiative or by an editor's invitation, and, as is the custom, I have been allowed to reply in the same journal. That is the way of science. The intemperate and slanderous propaganda pieces masquerading as criticism that you have mentioned are something else again, and are worthy of contempt from the scientific community.
*
As far as I'm aware, for example, only two members of Division 5, Lloyd Humphreys and myself, ever published a critique of Gould's Mismeasure of Man, which attacked not only Jensenism but psychological testing and measurement in general. And our critiques were not published in any journal controlled by Division 5. Too many measurement psychologists have, in my opinion, been negligent in defending their own field against attacks by patently incompetent critics from outside the field and ideologues who oppose the whole idea of studying human variation in behavioral traits. Most academicians, of course, speak up on controversial issues only after they are no longer controversial. If it weren't so disheartening, it would be amusing to see so many of them run for cover when threatened by ideological criticism.
*
... getting into the race-IQ issue in terms of genetics would threaten one's receiving research grants from federal agencies, and many behavioral geneticists' research is supported by federal grants. It would be a true loss if support for this research, which is generally excellent and essential for advancing the science, were cut off. The appropriations to the federal granting agencies are controlled by Congress, which is, of course, a political body. So when it comes to much of the scientific research done in the United States, politics rules. And some research topics are more at the mercy of Political Correctness than others. There are also more subtle personal reasons for distancing oneself from viewing the race question in a genetic context. Anyone who does so risks getting called a racist and is often misunderstood and even shunned by friends or colleagues. It puts one in a difficult position socially and professionally, which not everyone can tolerate. I myself don't like it, but I sometimes wonder why I seem to tolerate it. I believe one has to have relatively little need to be liked. I suppose it's a kind of eccentricity to be willing to risk strong disapproval.
*
Finally, my book was accepted and published, after rejection by eight other publishers. This would be of no interest if it were a crummy or incompetent piece of work, but the experts in this field who were asked by the publishers to review the manuscript expressed highly favorable opinions of it and urged publication.

The reviews of The g Factor in the professional journals so far have been highly favorable. I think it was the two chapters (out of 14) that discussed racial differences in g that caused so many publishers to decide against acceptance. My experience, however, was not unique. I know of two publishers that were willing to relinquish a huge advance on royalties for solicited and contracted books when they found that they touched on racial differences, even in the most minor way. It has been my experience that if a book doesn't denounce or completely dismiss the idea that genetics may have anything to do with racial differences in any behavioral trait, especially intelligence, most publishers will not touch it.
*
The idea of a consensus is not very meaningful or important in science, especially at the frontiers of knowledge. At first, a consensus is nearly always opposed to any innovation. The technical competence of the work is a better guide. Behind the frontiers of a developing science, of course, a consensus of generally accepted opinion among workers in a given field may be quite meaningful. For example, there is now such a consensus among experts in psychometrics and behavioral genetics regarding the practical validity of IQ tests, the existence of a g factor, and its substantial heritability, to mention only a few points.