Contributors Phillip L. Ackerman School of Psychology Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, USA Britt Anderson Department of Neurology (JT 1209) University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL, USA Rosalind Arden 8 Hillfield Road Redhill, Surrey RHl 4AP, U.K. Gerald V Barrett Barrett & Associates, Inc. Human Resource Consulting 500 West Exchange Street Akron, OH, USA Christopher R. Brand Consultant to the Woodhill Foundation (USA) 71 South Clerk Street Edinburgh, U.K. Nathan Brody Department of Psychology Wesleyan University Middletown, CT, USA Thomas R. Carretta Air Force Research Laboratory Wright-Patterson AFB OH, USA John B. Carroll University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC, USA Denis Constales Department of Mathematical Analysis University of Ghent Ghent University, Ganglaan 2 Gent, Belgium Ian J. Deary Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. X Contributors Lee Ellis Department of Sociology Minot State University Minot, ND, USA Gilles Gignac Assessment Unit Swinburne Centre for Neuropsychopharmacology Swinburne University of Technology Hawthorn, Vic, Australia Linda S. Gottfredson School of Education University of Delaware Newark, USA Mark T. Green Center for Leadership Studies Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, TX, USA Richard J. Haier Department of Pediatrics University of California at Irvine Irvine, CA, USA Harrison Kane Exceptional Student Education University of Nevada Putnam County School District PL, USA Alissa J. Kramen Barrett & Associates, Inc. Human Resource Consulting 500 West Exchange Street Akron, OH, USA David F. Lohman Psychological and Quantitative Foundations College of Education University of Iowa Iowa City, lA, USA Sarah B. Lueke Barrett & Associates, Inc. Human Resource Consulting 500 West Exchange Street Akron, OH, USA Richard Lynn Department of Psychology University of Ulster Coleraine, N. Ireland Ted Nettelbeck Department of Psychology University of Adelaide Adelaide, Australia Helmuth Nyborg Department of Psychology University of Aarhus Risskov, Denmark Contents xi Robert Plomin Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre Institute of Psychiatry London, U.K. Malcolm J. Ree Center for Leadership Studies Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, TX, USA J. Philippe Rushton Department of Psychology University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada Dean Keith Simonton Department of Psychology University of California at Davis Davis, CA, USA Herman H. Spitz 389 Terhune Road Princeton, NJ 08540-3637, USA Robert J. Sternberg Department of Psychology Yale University New Haven, CT, USA Philip A. Vernon Department of Psychology University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada Anthony Walsh Department of Criminal Justice Administration Boise State University Boise, ID, USA John C. Wickett Assessment Strategies Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada General Introduction: Arthur Jensen — The Man, His Friends and This Book Helmuth Nyborg This book celebrates two triumphs in modem psychology: the successful development and application of a solid measure of general intelligence, and the personal courage and skills of the man who made this possible — Arthur R. Jensen from Berkeley University. This photo is the property of Time Incorporated. Published with permission of LIFE Editorial Services, New York, USA. xiv Helmuth Nyborg The photo of Art Jensen is taken in his studio at home in 1969 — right at the time his famous Harvard Educational Review article came out. That article changed his life as well as the fields of education, psychometrics, differential psychology and behavior genetics forever. The Man Arthur Robert Jensen is a great scientist but he will probably never ".. . receive the kind of recognition others with even lesser accomplishments have been given. He will not receive the honors his work merits from organizations like the American Psychological Association, The National Academy of Science, or the National Association for the Advancement of Science, to name a few. The reasons for this lack of recognition are obvious. He has taken controversial and politically unpopular stands on issues that are important to the study of intelligence". These thought-provoking words by editor Douglas K. Detterman open a special honorary issue — A king among Men: Arthur Jensen — appearing in the journal Intelligence (1998). There is, of course, nothing new in clashes between eminent scientists and the Establishment. Pioneers are by definition ahead of their time and they often stray far beyond the prevailing Zeitgeist. However, in the case of Arthur Jensen the controversy soon turned into a remarkably vicious sequence of events, that started immediately after he made pubUc, in the (in)famous article in 1969, that he now felt obliged to acknowledge, contra his previous view, that certain genetic restrictions affected development — after inspecting a mountain of largely neglected evidence, that he had stumbled upon almost by accident. Jensen's change of mind elicited nothing less than an academic disaster, and marked a sharp turning point in his professional career. From being considered by most as a well recognized, honest, exclusively data-oriented scientist, perhaps a bit boring, but very clever educational psychologist who specialized in the not too emotionally arousing area of serial learning effects, Jensen suddenly found his work grossly distorted and misrepresented, and himself threatened and ridiculed. Colleagues low and high competed for stabbing him in the back, influential professional organizations published issue statements against him, and not few asked for his removal from office. Over a short time a massive opposition developed and began to form the sinister contours of a well- organized, widespread, self-reinforcing, collective fraud in modem academia. Later analyses suggest that the infection actually had begun to infect deep layers of academia and the public press since the early 1930s, but its full impact became particularly obvious in connection with the publication of Jensen's 1969 article. It spread and now threatens academic freedom in many modem universities in the United States and elsewhere. The photo (opposite) is taken when controversy encircled Jensen, and shows one of the first graphical illustrations of the different IQ distributions for blacks and whites. I know Art well enough to appreciate that he personally prefers to entirely side-step all emotionally and politically motivated controversy, and to get on with what really General Introduction: Arthur Jensen — The Man, His Friends and This Book xv This photo is the property of Time Incorporated. Published with permission of LIFE Editorial Services, New York, USA. matters to him: work, solid work, much of it! In terms of controversy. Art contrasts his mentor and classmate in the London School of Differential Psychology, Hans Eysenck. Both are industrious beyond measure, but Hans simply loved a good fight (Gray 1997: xi), whereas Art thinks it is basically a waste to time. The major bulk of the present volume is accordingly devoted to a scientific treatment of what interests Art most as a professional scientist — the origin, the models, the brain base, the methods and the validity (but curiously enough less the broad application) of general intelligence, g. However, considering its unique history-of-science interest, I could not resist the temptation to analyze the nature of the ghastly story of the controversy that surrounds Art ever since 1969, but out of respect for his general attitude I have relegated it to a remote Chapter 20 in this volume. I find the story must be told for at least two reasons. First, it reveals the remarkably fine personal qualities and the rare application of Gandhian principles of an eminent scientist that stood headstrong and almost alone in a true Ibsen's sense against a dreadfully strong head wind. Second, it illustrates how easily even a solid scientific case can be bogged down by a majority if not single scientists takes upon them the troublesome responsibility of defending academic freedom, even if being hounded personally and professionally, and threatened xvi Helmuth Nyborg to his life and family by hoards of angry politically correct ideologues drawing their nourishment from the prevailing Zeitgeist. His Friends It has been said: If you have no enemies, you have no point of view. Art has many enemies, and I will describe some of the more prominent in Chapter 20 in this volume. Fortunately, he also has friends. What do they say about him? Sandra Scarr (1998), herself certainly no stranger to controversy, understands quite well that Art Jensen was bound to run into trouble because he "relentlessly pursues a hard-edged, hypothetic-deductive science that treads on a more emotional, humanistic psychology. Art has no sympathy for mushy thinking. For him, impressions and feelings are not data and have no place in psychology . . ." (p. 227). The friends (and fiends) know immediately that emotionality is no important part of Art. All who watch Art at close quarters recognize that he always looks opponents straight in the face, listens carefully and patiently, and then pours out counter data if there are any, or surprisingly readily admits to total agnosticism in the matter — or he begins to speculate aloud on the best way to find a solution. Data and analysis, not emotions, are what matters. Art spent three years working at the late Hans Eysenck's Psychology Department in the University of London's Institute of Psychiatry. Hans once remarked with a smile that he probably had "high emotional stimulus value", as judged by the violent reactions of many of his critics that often went berserk when they saw, heard, or read anything from or about him. I think this applies in spades to Art as well. While Art is always cool, he easily gets critics boiling over his sharpness. The photo of Art (opposite) is taken when he visited Hans in London in 1971. It was Hans who introduced Art to the details of Galton, Spearman, and Thurstone's works and thus provided "... a much needed antidote to the predominantly Freudian or psychoanalytic concepts that informed my clinical work" (Jensen 1998: 184). It was Hans who planted Art's view of psychology as a natural science branch of biology, and it was Hans who made Art believe that ".. . differential psychology, broadly conceived, was exactly the path for me." Hans and Art were invited to present the Fink Memorial lectures at the University of Melbourne in Australia in September 1977, and that tour ended in a disaster. Art was to talk first, but his lecture was disrupted by bullies, and he had to run for his life, protected by at least 50 police officers. Hans was scheduled to talk the next day, but he was bullied too, and nobody could hear a word. The photo on page xviii was taken on that occasion by professor Brian Start, in his office. If Art is loyal to data, he is entirely unfaithful to theory. I know this comes as a surprise to many of his opponents, who claim he is square, preconceived, and immovable. "In fact" writes Detterman (1998: 177) "I have never known anybody with fewer prejudices .. . Jensen has no loyalty whatsoever to any theory or hypotheses even if they come from his own ideas." Allow me to give a recent example of this. Art has long been of the opinion that the sexes do not differ in g, and further that those who nevertheless find a difference are not General Introduction: Arthur Jensen — The Man, His Friends and This Book xvii using proper methods (Jensen 1998: Chapter 13). It was therefore not entirely without trepidation I in December 2002 gave a lecture on the matter in front of him at the meeting of the Third Annual Conference for the International Society for Intelligence Research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. The main point of the lecture was that there is, in fact, a moderate male lead in g, but you will see it only if you use Art's own highly sophisticated factor-analytic methods, which, by the way, were the same methods that led Art to believe that there is no difference (see the details in Chapter 10 xviii Helmuth Nyborg Photo taken in London in 1971 by Methuen Publishers. in this volume). After the lecture Art came up to me and just said: This is the best lecture I have ever heard on sex difference." To another colleague he said: "It seems I have to rethink the matter." The point of the story: give Art a proper analysis and good data, and his mind will follow, entirely independently of his previous view. That is far more than one can say about most of his critics! Jensen is courageous! Sandra Scarr admires Jensen's never failing personal courage in defending data as he sees them. Sandra's words have particular weight here, because she has herself often proved willing to step into the frying pan to defend controversial behavior genetics data. Sandra thus ". .. witnessed his steadfastness in the face of a screaming, unruly mob who disrupted his lecture on learning and intelligence and threatened his personal safety. I learned what it was like to be spat upon and to put my body on the line to get Art out of a University of Minnesota auditorium. It was shocking and frightening, as surely the radicals intended, but it was most of all infuriating, because no disciplinary actions were taken against those who assaulted us." What the audience missed that day was a treatment of test bias, which eventually came to totally redefine expert opinion in this important matter (Chapter 20 reports on many such unworthy attempts to repress unpopular scientific information). Where does Art's courage come from? Well, it surely is partly a function of his particular personahty organization, partly due to a principle, and partly due to a rational need for change. Art thus writes: ". .. rather than duck for cover, which I peculiarly felt would be disgracefully un-Gandhian, I resolved not to be whipsawed by the prevailing