Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

22 Educability and Group Differences
different distributions of those abilities needed for competing in
the performances most closely connected with the reward system
of a society, are brought together to share in the same territory
and culture. What arrangements would be most likely to make
such a situation workable to everyone’s satisfaction It has often
been assumed that such a combination of two or more disparate
populations could not work; hence the fear of True G and the
preference for False E rather than to take the risk of doing
research that might result in True E but could also result in
True G - a risk that many seem unwilling to take. There is indeed
still much room for philosophic, ethical, sociological and political
thought and discussion on these issues. It was with respect to the
scientific investigation of such difficult human problems that
Herbert Spencer remarked, ‘. . . the ultimate infidelity is the fear
that the truth will be bad.’
Readers will find no dearth of published criticisms of my
position. (An extensive bibliography is presented in Genetics and
Education [Jensen, 1972].) Norman and Margaret Silberberg
(1972) made a content analysis of the critical articles following
publication of my HER article, and classified the criticisms into
four major categories:
1. The definition of intelligence: questioning the ‘g’ theory of
intelligence, problems surrounding the measurement of
intelligence (including arguments concerning whether intelligence
means capacity or functional level), and weaknesses
found in Jensen’s proposed Level I and Level II intelligence.
2. Genetics: pitfalls of genetic research and the measurement
of heritability.
3. Compensatory education: arguments that IQ can be raised,
the effects of social-environment on achievement, the question
of whether compensatory education has received a fair
trial, and prenatal and other physiological-environmental
factors in school achievement.
4. Political: accusations that Jensen misused data, documentation
that many blacks are intelligent, and the evaluation of
possible furthering of racist prejudices as a result of the
article.
Of course, I have studied all these criticisms, but I have found