Reviews for Measured lies

The average rating for Measured lies based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-04-10 00:00:00 John Mills Among personal characteristics of any individual, none is more sensitive topic of discuss than that of intelligence. We all have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude towards it, at the same time considering everyone to be equal while constantly measuring ourselves to others. And, of course, we all think that we are above the average when it comes to intelligence. However, all our scientifically based attempts to quantify intelligence have shown what all of us would expect to find if we were just more honest with ourselves: intelligence varies, sometimes substantially, it is fairly stable throughout our lives, and it has a large heritable component. It is possible to conceive that these psychometric findings would have been accepted by now in public discourse were it not for the persistent and sometimes significant race and sex differences. These differences go against everything that our PC culture has taught us, and people who dare to even hint at them are permanently branded as racist and sexist in public discourse. Even being in top echelons of intellectual elite does not inoculate you from this, as a president of Harvard and co-discoverer of DNA have recently found out. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Arthur Jensen, one of the foremost authorities on individual differences in cognitive ability, has been one of the most controversial figures in science for the past forty years. A former University of California at Berkeley professor of Psychology, he became almost a household name in the late 60s upon the publication of an article in which he speculated about the genetic basis of large racial differences in IQ. Ever since then his scientific work and has been maligned in popular press, and the term "jensenism" entered the English language. The aim of this book is to provide a critical look at this controversy, and to provide an opportunity for Jensen himself to answer some of his critics. The book consists of a series of interviews, conducted by Frank Miele, through which most of Jensen's controversial research and statements are examined. Miele does not pull any punches, and throws almost every at Jensen almost every criticism that he had been faced with over the past several decades. Jensen, meanwhile, passes all the challenges. He provides us with very convincing and well-researched arguments that strongly support his position. One of the most controversial aspects of the intelligence research is the existence of general intelligence, or the so called "g-factor." This is the idea that all of our mental abilities are very strongly correlated with each other, and the ability to excel at one set of mental tasks is the best predictor of our ability to excel at others. There is over a century of hard quantitative research that strongly supports this view, and Jensen in his answers to the critics provides all the relevant information showing why that is the case. Even though g-factor has been inferred from statistical analysis, it is not an artifact of mathematical sleigh-of-hand, but a very well documented real property of human mind. Recent neurological research has only served to further confirm and strengthen this hypothesis. Jensen also does not shy away from actual and verifiable fact that races are indeed real, and not culturally constructed. It is rather surprising, although maybe in hindsight it ought not to be, that the racial grouping that was found based on the genetic research matches perfectly with the racial classification that had been developed in the nineteenth century. It serves no purpose to try to brush these findings under the carpet, as it is too often done in present day academia. It only leads to the schizophrenic situation where at one hand we are "celebrating diversity" and promoting people based on their skin color, while at the same time claiming that races are nothing but cultural artifacts. The last chapter of the book may be its weakest. Here Jensen is asked to provide his own ideas for public policy, and one gets sense that here he is definitely out of his depth. Admittedly, he himself has stated very clearly that for the most part of his career he had avoided politics, so we should not be to critical of him in this regard. Nonetheless, it is obvious that he is more than sympathetic to the use of government to provide solutions to social ills, be they actual or perceived. This sentiment goes decidedly against all the progress that has been made in promoting greater individual freedom. For a book consisting of a series of interviews, it is very conceptually demanding, and some of the arguments can be very technically intricate. If you are able to follow this kind of reasoning the rewards are immense and well worth the effort.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-07-28 00:00:00 Marianne De Keyser 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.