Jared Taylor Remembers Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen

Jared Taylor, VDARE, April 11, 2013

Last year, the world lost two giants in the field of race realism. Jean Philippe Rushton on October 2, and Arthur Robert Jensen just 20 days later on October 22.

Arthur Jensen was 89, but Phil Rushton was only 68, and died of complications from Addison’s disease, a rare disorder of the adrenal gland.

Both men spent their careers battling for the truth, mainly the truth about the nature of intelligence, its heritability, and its distribution. Both men also endured years of insults, professional ostracism, andendless lies about what they thought and wrote. Both withstood these torments with great calm and cheerfulness, and always replied politely and generously, even when their critics were ignorant and insulting. They were gentlemen as well as scholars.

I’m not sure that many young scholars will follow in their footsteps. Our period is, if anything, more ferociously closed minded than ever, and not many people have the courage to seek or defend the truth when there is a heavy price to pay for doing so.

It was my privilege to know both of these remarkable men.

My first encounter with Arthur Jensen was entirely indirect. It was in 1970, shortly after he shot to notoriety because of that famousarticle on race and IQ in the Harvard Educational Review. [PDF] I was a student at Yale, and Jensen had been invited to give a lecture. Like virtually everyone on campus, I was an uncompromising egalitarian and I was sure Jensen was wrong, but I wanted to hear what this wicked man had to say.

When I got to the lecture hall, there was a crowd outside but no one was allowed in. The talk had been canceled because of threats of violence. Most of my friends were happy: The “racist,” they said, had been defeated. Although, as I say, I was convinced Jensen was completely wrong, it seemed cowardly and shameful to silence a man, no matter what his views.

It didn’t occur to me, though, that I was behaving shamefully in my own way. I knew nothing about genetics or IQ testing—nothing at all—and yet I was convinced I was right Jensen was wrong. I wasconvinced I knew better than a scientist who had studied the subject thoroughly. How embarrassing to have been such an arrogant ignoramus! But that is how our species works. Most of us just soak up whatever we hear around us, and I had heard only one thing. And what is maybe even more important, most of us would never dare have an opinion that was unfashionable, and Jensen was about as unfashionable as you could get.

The thugs who shut down Jensen’s talk accomplished at least one thing. Probably it was thanks to them that it took me another 15 years to realize that Jensen was right, and that I was wrong. I’m sure Jensen would have given a calm, factual talk and perhaps I would have avoided a decade of ignorance if I had heard him speak.

Jensen was almost the prototype of the cloistered academic without any political axe to grind. Until 1967, he had believed, just like most people, that differences in IQ—both for individuals and groups—are almost entirely governed by childhood environment. In fact, he even got a Guggenheim fellowship to do research for a book he planned to write on how cultural deprivation depresses the intelligence of blacks.

As part of his research, he looked into the genetics of intelligence, with the expectation that he could simply dismiss it as a factor. Jensen’s PhD was in psychology, and he had never studied much genetics, but the deeper he got into the subject, the more his views began to change, and he experienced a complete reversal. The result was that famous 1969 article in which he reached several very important conclusions:

  1. IQ tests are valid and reliable and are not biased against minorities.
  2. There is a substantial genetic contribution not just to individual differences in IQ, but to group differences.
  3. Because of social mobility, genes for high IQ are concentrated in the higher social strata—in other words, it may help to have a well-connected family, but people climb the social ladder mainly because they are smart.

Well, you can imagine how the lefties reacted. They reacted just as they would today.

Yale was not the only place where Jensen was silenced. For a while, everywhere he went his lectures were cancelled.  At UC Berkeley, where he was a professor, there were so many threats against himthat he always filed his movements in advance with the campus police so two officers could to with him wherever he went and protect him. Police warned Jensen’s 11-year-old daughter not to walk to the bus station two blocks away. Jensen’s correspondence was routed through the campus police in case of letter bombs. There is a very account of this, by the way, in Roger Pearson’sbook, Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe.

Through it all, Jensen was cheerful. What worried him most was that other faculty members would see what had been done to him and would be afraid to say anything controversial. He wasn’t worried about threats to his own safety. He was worried threats to science and to truth-seeking.

Jensen continued to do research and to write books and papers, and gradually he was able to lead a normal life.

By the time I met him in 1992, he had more publications and citations than virtually anyone else in psychology. At that first meeting, he gave me an interview that went on for hours. I discovered that Jensen was like all genuinely accomplished men I have met: He had striking insights on subjects in many fields, not just his own.

And something else about Jensen struck me: his complete lack of bitterness. He wasn’t at all angry at his attackers; just baffled. Why couldn’t they be reasonable and look at the data? To him, what mattered were data. It was his job to follow the data wherever it led and he couldn’t understand anyone who didn’t see it that way.

By the mid 1990s, Jensen was hard at work on what was to be his crowning achievement, The g Factor, but he couldn’t find a publisher. The publishing industry was terrified of IQ and race. Methuen and The Free Press, which had been Jensen’s traditional publishers, would not touch the book, but finally Praeger Publishers accepted the manuscript.

I wrote a review of it shortly after it was published in 1998. [The Definitive Word On Intelligence, American Renaissance, September 1998] It is an extraordinary work of science. It is 648 pages long, and although Jensen always wrote very clearly, it deals with difficult subjects. You can imagine how pleased I was when Jensen told me it was the best account of the book anyone had written. He said he knew many of his associates and friends would never read it, and wanted to know if he make copies to send to people.

However, he said he was worried about sending out an article that contained an important error. I had written that if you match black and white children for brain size you will find that they have the same IQs. That was wrong. If you match black and white children for IQ you will find they have the same brain sizes, but the relationship does not work the other way. There are other factors besides brain size, including efficiency of the brain, and if you want to match blacks and whites to be matched for intelligence, all those criteria have to be met. So similar brain size is a necessary but not sufficient condition for finding blacks with the same IQs as whites. Jensen insisted that you get things right.

The g Factor is a milestone in our understanding of intelligence, and yet it is now essentially out of print. A new copy will cost you $103 on ebay, and the cheapest second-hand copies are $70. There is noKindle edition. Needless to say, discredited rubbish like Steven Gould’s Mismeasure of Man is widely available.

With the help of people like Hans Eysenck, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, Thomas J. BouchardHelmuth Nyborg, and Michael Levin, Jensen eventually convinced most real experts that genes account for 50 to 80 percent of variation in individual IQ and contribute substantially to group variation. Within that circle of experts, Jensen was something of demi-god.

In 2003, his colleagues published a 642-page collection of articles that were both tributes to a great scientist and major contributions to the field. It is called The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen.  Although the public and the media continued to think of Jensen as some kind of demon, he at least had the satisfaction of winning the deepest respect of the smartest people in his field.

Unfortunately, that book will cost you $200 in paper, and the Kindle edition is $172. This seems crazy to me. I’ve never heard of a Kindle book that costs so much.

Arthur Jensen was very conscious of dysgenic trends and was worried that the great achievements of Western civilization were going to be lost. It distressed him to think that after evolving to the point of producing Beethoven and Puccini and Shakespeare, our species might degenerate to the point that no one, or maybe just a handful people would have the brains to appreciate genius at this level.

However, Jensen had no racial consciousness. When I spoke to him about dysgenics and race, this is what he said:

“I’m merely interested in the preservation of civilization, regardless of where it is. Some people are so afraid, of say, the Asians taking over in this country. Well if they can take over and do a better job than the rest of us, if they preserve the great things of both Western and Asian civilization, I don’t think the world will be worse off. Race and color and national origin and that sort of thing, don’t really matter much to me at all. I’ve just never thought along those lines.”

It may seem odd that Arthur Jensen of all people, should have said, “race doesn’t really matter much to me at all,” but I think he was expressing himself accurately. Race interested him as a scientificproblem, but he had not personal interest in it as a white man.

This may disappoint the people in this room, but it shows how utterly objective he was about the whole question. Unlike us, he didn’t care if whites disappeared, so long as there was someone left to take care of our civilization.

This complete absence of any political commitment makes it all the more remarkable that Jensen stayed in a specialty that provoked so much hatred and animosity.

This single-minded pursuit truth is what science is supposed to be about—and almost never is. This spirit of disinterested inquiry is badly, badly needed in every scientific subject that causes controversy: global warminghomosexualitysex differences, disposal of nuclear waste, genetically modified crops, etc.  There are not nearly enough Jensens to go around. We were incredibly lucky that this extraordinary man chose to study intelligence.

Let me now turn to Philippe Rushton. The first time I ever saw him was on the Geraldo Rivera television program. It was in 1989, shortly after his ground-breaking work on race differences first began to get wide attention. One of the guests was Barry Mehler[Email him] of Ferris State University, who has tried to make a career of denouncing scientists if he doesn’t like their research. Prof. Mehler was so happy he could hardly control himself. “I amtrained in unmasking academic racism,” he shouted, “and you are a racist!” Rushton replied quietly, “I am an academic, yes.”

Another guest was a black man named Charles King,   who clearly understood nothing Rushton was saying. “Are you saying I am your inferior?” he thundered. “No,” replied Rushton, “I am saying we are different.” The whole program was a remarkable contrast of reasonable explanations and unflappable good manners on the one hand, and screaming ignorance on the other.

I met Rushton not long after that impressive performance, and through the many years that followed, the qualities I saw on that program never left him. He was also polite to a fault, even in the face of the vilest provocation. But it is as a man of science that he will be remembered

Like so many people who end up in our camp, Rushton did not start out as a dissident. He grew up with conventional views but changed his mind when he realized that his views weren’t supported by the facts. Again, we see the same interest in the data that was Arthur Jensen’s passion.

Rushton grew up in England and moved to Canada, but he spent a sabbatical year in US Berkeley, in 1981. Berkeley is a diverse place, and Rushton couldn’t help noticing that in a multi-racial society, people care most about their own group. Hispanics supported recognition of Spanish as an official language, Jews were interested in what was happening in Israel, and blacks associated with and supported each other. This led to Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory, according to which people are most altruistic towards those to whom they are biologically close, and less altruistic and can even be hostile to those who are biologically distant.

This led naturally into a study of race differences—differences in intelligence and brain size, in particular —but Rushton’s scope broadened to include all physiological and behavioral race differences. This was what resulted to his application of r-K theoryto human races and his brilliant 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior. If you don’t know what r-K theory is, read that book. It will change the way you see our society.

Needless to say, Rushton suffered the same kinds of attack and hostility as Jensen. The media went crazy, of course, with calls for him to be fired from University of Western Ontario, even though he had tenure. The Premier of the Province of Ontario even tried to pressure the president of the university to fire him. Thugs disrupted his classes, even attacked him physically.

The Attorney General of Ontario began a police investigation to see whether Rushton had broken laws banning the promotion of “ hatred against any identifiable group.” Rushton could theoretically have gone to prison for two years, but after eight months of investigation, the authorities declared that Rushton was “loony but not criminal.”

Throughout it all, Rushton was the perfect gentleman and scholar.

Needless to say, his research funding disappeared, and he gotsupport from the Pioneer Fund. In 2002 Rushton became president of the fund, which he ran for 10 years.

Rushton had a close association with American Renaissance. He spoke at no fewer than six AR conferences, and was invariably the main attraction. The first time he spoke, in 1996, a fascinated audience kept him on his feet for more than an hour past the scheduled end of the Q&A period. Rushton mentioned to me afterwards that his legs were aching, but that it was a pleasure to speak to such a well-informed group.

Rushton had agreed to speak at the conference we held last year here in Tennessee, but he had to withdraw, saying his health would not allow him to travel. Still, I was shocked to hear that he had died that same year.

Rushton and Jensen knew each other, of course, and they collaborated on a number of papers. In fact, I think the best short summary of the race-and-IQ question ever written was a 2005 paper they wrote together, called “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability.”

Those two men had a tremendous influence on an important circle of scholars. The facts about race and intelligence are essentially settled, and there isn’t much debate among real experts. And yet, sometimes it seems we as far as ever from any public recognition that important traits are heritable, much less that racial differences are heritable.

As far as public policy is concerned, Jensen could have been a plumber and Rushton could have been an interior decorator. But they were not those things, and during very productive careers they built up a formidable body of knowledge. It will be the job of others, of people like us, to try to apply that information to the real world. The best tribute to these great scientists is to make their work known to as many people as we can.

And, now, I have talked enough, and in the time we have left, I would like to hear from you about your own reminiscences of Art Jensen and Phil Rushton.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JohnEngelman

    Arthur Jensen gave this interview to Jared Taylor in 1992. It is still as timely and relevant as the day it was recorded…

    Jensen: Now what if you had different racial groups that are compatible in abilities, general values and standards of living, as the Asians here seem to be? I mean, they’ve been conspicuously successful in our society, and what problems they’ve had have largely stemmed from their success.

    AR: Well, it seems to me that if there are two racial groups that can live side by side in harmony, it appears to be whites and Asians

    Jensen:…Where the differences in basic characteristics are not conspicuous, as in the case of Asians and whites, and when persons can fit in and do the same kinds of jobs and do them as well as anyone else, it may work. See, there are blacks who fit in this way too — who do all right…

    • The__Bobster

      Go kiss a rice paddy.

    • Garrett Brown

      Stop spamming.

    • David Ashton

      A good example of Engelman’s “Very Little Book of Quotations”.

      The Declaration of Independence was not a statement of racial equality but a statement against dynastic rule by monarchs.
      Your position is becoming increasingly explicit: the USA is a land for anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere (so long as they have a high IQ). Their language, loyalty, customs, religion and race do not otherwise count at all.
      Of course, the IQ figures you cite are group averages, with a considerable overlap and not much difference between the Europid and Mongolid scores. Also, check the MAINLAND China and Israel estimates.
      A humanitarian eugenic policy for whites and blacks in the USA would be a wiser course than importing masses of Chinese, least of all as the “immediate supervisors” you apparently welcome.

      • JohnEngelman

        As you may have noticed I get my quotations from Jared Taylor and from others who have spoken at American Renaissance Conferences.

        My attitude about immigration is more ambivalent than you give me credit for. I recognize that significant rates of immigration of any racial group, even that of Ashkenazim and Orientals, contributes to the growing income gap, especially during a period of high and persistent unemployment.

        Nevertheless, I like Jews and Orientals for reasons I am able to explain using my “Very Little Book of Quotations.”

        • David Ashton

          “May” have noticed!!!
          Selective quotations, not all of which are without criticism. When I wrote to Rushton, for example, about how representative his sample of IQ was for the east Asians as a whole, he declined to reply.

          • JohnEngelman

            He declined because of reasons I indicated.

          • David Ashton

            I didn’t know he informed you about my personal inquiry.

            See above please on Chinese criminality. Of course clever criminals can do more harm than Engelmen-bashing violent street thugs (though the Triads attack their own quite nastily).

  • JohnEngelman

    A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

    The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast “a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural).”

    The paper, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of theUniversity of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg ofYale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors’ reply.

  • JohnEngelman

    This is the best summation of race realism that I have read: “For the past twenty years I have studied race differences in brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personalty, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability. On all of these traits. Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum. Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites fall in between.

    – RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR, by Professor J. Philippe Rushton

    • The__Bobster

      Is that rice done yet? – John Chinaman’s lover.

    • brengunn

      The fact that that pattern is so consistent makes you think it would ring some bells in the minds of the egalitarians, but no, it doesn’t. It really does make you question the intellectual rigour of Western universities, that something so obvious can be dismissed so casually.

      And, on a darker note, it makes you question the herd mentality of human beings, at once passive, incurious and willing to be lead without question but also aggressive, vindictive and drives people to actively try to ruin a persons career, reputation and livelihood over a difference of opinion. It’s dangerous.

      Like Mr,Taylor, I hate people who campaign against ideas they dislike and seek to shut down all debate, whether on the left or the right of the political spectrum, these people are a bane to education and free speech. They do not deserve their places in our houses of learning.

      • JohnEngelman

        The belief that the races are intrinsically equivalent goes back to “An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.” It was published in 1944, and written by Gunnar Myrdal. He was a Swede who had won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

        According to “American Dilemma” high rates of black crime and illegitimacy, and inferior average black intellectual performance were caused by racial discrimination, and they were used to justify the continuation of racial discrimination. Gunnar Myrdal argued that when racial discrimination ended blacks would soon prove that they were as capable and as decent as whites.

        The book was pure speculation, and ignored the behavior and performance of whites in northern American states where blacks were not discriminated against. Nevertheless, at the end of the Second World War it was what many whites wanted to believe. Blacks had contributed loyally to the war effort. Nazi theories about race had discredited the belief that racial differences were significant.

        “An American Dilemma” influenced the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of 1954 which began the civil rights movement. It inspired that movement.

        Although the basic thesis of “An American Dilemma” has been disproved by subsequent events, that thesis has become a dogma that is dangerous to question.

        • Bantu_Education

          “Blacks had contributed loyally to the war effort.”

          Hmmm, not sure about that. I’ve read that they were pretty useless and cowardly in combat operations then, as now. I’ve also heard that one of the reasons why the Germans chose to counter-attack where they did (the Ardennes) in the Battle of the Bulge was because they knew that sector was “defended” by blacks who had been posted there because it was considered an unlikely spot for action. Sure enough the “Americans” fled in disarray in the initial attack and it took real (white) Americans to turn the tide.

    • MBlanc46

      That’s the book that had the greatest influence on my progress from integrationist to race realist.

    • David Ashton

      These categories are not absolute but overlapping.
      The “white” category is higher in this “hierarchy” than it sounds.
      Also the racial categories are not on a simple top-down phylogenic spectrum; the races are “different” in “outward” adaptation to diverse climatic and social experiences.

  • JohnEngelman

    Both men spent their careers battling for the truth, mainly the truth about the nature of intelligence, its heritability, and its distribution. Both men also endured years of insults, professional ostracism, andendless lies about what they thought and wrote. Both withstood these torments with great calm and cheerfulness, and always replied politely and generously, even when their critics were ignorant and insulting. They were gentlemen as well as scholars.

    – Jared Taylor, VDARE, April 11, 2013

    In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    – George Orwell

    • Morris LeChat

      wow, so you picked this thread to clear your daily blockage

  • Katherine McChesney

    Well, it appears that John Engleman has taken over this thread.

    • The__Bobster

      You mention “Asian” and he comes spamming like Pavlov’s dog.

      • JohnEngelman

        * drool *

  • David Ashton

    A big IF.

    You presumably want Asians to take over in the USA anyway.
    Jensen is being disingenuous because he recognized “race and color” elsewhere in his writings, and had to do so to make average racial group comparisons in measurable traits. He explained all this not in Chinese, but in English – this is not a trivial point.

    • JohnEngelman

      Asians will not “take over the USA.” I do believe they have earned their prominence in this country, just as i believe Jews have, because of their superior intelligence.

      • David Ashton

        Then Jensen’s point is so hypothetical, it carries no weight.

        We have heard all this stuff from you verbatim over and over and over again.
        Now give it, and us, all a rest.

        • The__Bobster

          Anti-Engelman posts will not stand. This one will disappear too.

        • JohnEngelman

          Please do not respond to my comments unless you are able to advance the discussion.

          • LHathaway

            “It should be obvious to everyone not blinded by race bigotry that Orientals and whites live with and work with each other harmoniously”.

            You can bet Asian men don’t like it. You are the one who is blinded.

          • JohnEngelman


            What don’t I see? What don’t I know?

          • Aurelius

            Would you agree then that this country was founded by and for whites and that regardless of IQ they have the right to keep the country that way, not allowing Jews or Asians to control it?

          • JohnEngelman

            No. I see the United States as a country dedicated to the principle “that all men are created equal.”

            I have read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution many times. If either document says that white Gentiles deserve rights denied to members of other racial groups, I missed it. Please quote the passages I missed.

          • Aurelius

            All men are not created equal. The Declaration and Constitution were written by whites addressing other whites. There was no need to be explicit with regard to whom the country belonged. Your egalitarianism is now laid bare. I have no clue why you are at this website other than possibly to mislead and subvert.

          • JohnEngelman

            Like many you project your values onto the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Others with at least equal validity project different values onto those documents.

            I see the United States as a country which from its beginning was multi national, multi racial, and meritocratic, and which is becoming more so. Origins of class, race, and ethnicity do not matter here. Talent does.

            In a sense you are more egalitarian than I am because you think white men with single digit IQs deserve better lives in the United States than Orientals and Jews with genius level IQs.

            How can I mislead anyone on American Renaissance when I so frequently substantiate my arguments with facts I have found here?

          • David Ashton

            See Jared Taylor’s NPI Essay “What the Founders REALLY Thought about Race”, February 17, 2012. You can download it.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”

            Mulatto women existed because many whites who were considered to be gentlemen did have relations with negro or mulatto women. One of them was Thomas Jefferson, or a close male relative.

          • David Ashton

            In so far as white masters forced themselves on negro servants this deplorable, and it is not entirely anachronistic to say so because of the contemporary disapproval by other whites. The socially defined “black” population in the USA is of course racially mixed, which probably led to the introduction of genes that raised the average IQ level above that of west Africans, though possibly with some risk of out-breeding depression undermining the health of the population over the years.

          • JohnEngelman


            Jared Taylor
            17 February 2012
            The National Policy Institute

            It is an interesting essay, although Jared Taylor seems to approve of aspects of our history that I regret. Nowhere does he say that whites and Orientals cannot live and work together harmoniously. Nowhere does he say that Orientals are in any way inferior to whites.

          • David Ashton

            Precisely what are these aspects of US history that you regret?

            That the Founding Fathers did not exchange the British King for the Chinese Emperor?

          • David Ashton

            Come on. It is you that keeps monotonously repeating himself, rather than advancing discussion; I am not alone in noticing this, am I? At least I try to vary my contributions and add more documentation which you usually dismiss out of hand.
            I get on perfectly well with our local Chinese food suppliers who come from HK and sometimes return for holidays, but I know from history that the Chinese have clashed with other races including my own.

          • JohnEngelman

            Chinese started coming to the United States in the 1850s and settled mainly in California. They aroused immediate resentment because of their willingness to work for low wages, and the California legislature promptly rolled out a series of anti-Chinese laws that seem incredible today. In 1855, the state levied a $55 per person entry tax on Chinese immigrants. Since this did not stop the flow, California passed a more drastic law just three years later. All people of Chinese or “Mongolian” descent were barred from entering the state except in cases of shipwreck or accident. Survivors were to be expelled as soon as they recovered…

            Throughout this period of constant prejudice and persecution, Chinese worked hard, saved their money, and built better lives for themselves. By the time they had full, legal standing in this country, many Chinese had incomes comparable to those of nativeborn whites. By 1969, Chinese as a group outeamed Italian, German, and even Anglo-Saxon Americans.

            – Jared Taylor from “Paved With Good Intentions”

            When it comes to racial clashes in the United States Chinese have been far more sinned against than sinning. Nevertheless, those splendid people have prevailed.

          • David Ashton

            I was including ethnic clashes inside China.

      • a multiracial individual

        I hate to be a stickler, but no one earns their IQ. Some people are lucky to be born with brains that process information better and faster than others.

        • JohnEngelman

          What you say is true. My point is that the superior achievement and incomes of Orientals in the United States is due to superior achievement rather than some sort of chicanery.

          • a multiracial individual

            When I hear Jewish/Asian conspiracy theories, I remember that Blacks and Mestizos say the same thing about Whites.

          • JohnEngelman

            In each case losers are trying to explain their failures without acknowledging their inadequacies.

          • Bantu_Education

            John, what is your opinion of the very compelling theory (espoused by La Griffe du Lion) that, although Chinese (and other Orientals) may have an above-white-average IQ they are very narrowly distributed and thus above IQ 115 (or thereabouts) Europeans predominate. I recall asking you this question before and I am sure others have also put this to you, but I’ve not seen you answer this and I suspect you are deliberately avoiding doing so. Lets have your honest opinion please.

          • JohnEngelman

            I think it is just another way of trying to deprecate Oriental superiority. Travel to any elite university, or leading corporation. You will see plenty of Orientals.

          • Bantu_Education

            I am not trying to deprecate Orientals – it is quite obvious to me that they do have an above average IQ, but “average” is the apposite word. Its also pretty obvious – both anecdotally – (e.g., their tendency to march in ideological lock-step and apparent need to steal our technical secrets) – and from their lack of Nobel Prizes – that they lack the brilliance and originality in thought of NW Europeans. If the SD of the Oriental IQ was 10 (or even 12.5) rather than 15, this would explain the paradox. It would also explain the similar lack of genius in females and indeed, when if you think about it, Orientals of both genders seem to be more “female” in character.

            The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that it is true. 5 IQ points (or even 7 according to some) is not trivial – if that 5 IQ points continued all the way up the scale for an entire population of 1.5 billion or more people, they would be far ahead of the West. It is they who would have explored and colonised the world and made the vast majority of scientific discoveries, not Europeans. Another thing which is very apparent – Western classical music (which only exceptional genius can compose) is far superior to anything they have and they (Orientals) instinctively know and appreciate our music perhaps more than we do ourselves these days. Note that Africans don’t..!!

            If I could wager money on this, even at bad odds, I would bet my house.

          • JohnEngelman

            You make a valid point about the paucity of Nobel Prizes going to Orientals. Nevertheless, in order to get into an elite university you probably need to have an IQ of at least 130, and plenty of Orientals do get in.

            Since you mentioned Nobel Prizes, this is worth pointing out: “Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals,[2] of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world’s population.”

      • David Ashton

        You suggested I think that children should learn Chinese to follow the instructions of their future superiors.

        • JohnEngelman

          There is a difference between dominance and prominence.

    • JohnEngelman

      If you have children, try to get them to learn Mandarin. It may help them talk to their immediate supervisors.

      • David Ashton

        Immediate supervisors…and eventual supervisors too? So you do expect western countries, after all, to be taken over by the Chinese who will expect their long-nosed subjects, our descendants, to speak the language of their new rulers.
        I live in England, by the way, and have said so many times.

  • bigone4u

    If given an ultimatum to find another country in which to live, I would choose any Euro/white nation over any Far East/Oriental/Asian country. Iceland is preferable to Japan and Switzerland is preferable to China. Prejudiced? Yes, Asians remind me of ants who work in colonies. White people remind me of eagles, soaring alone in the sky and then flying home to their nests to take care of their families. Ants vs. Eagles. I am an eagle.

    • The__Bobster

      Asians are the Borg. They want to absorb us.

    • Melanie Bernard

      I f y o u t h i n k R i c h ar d` s s t o r y i s a m a zi n g, , l a s t m o n t h m y u n c le s s t e p-s o n b a s ic al l y a l s o b r ou g h t h o m e $ 7 3 8 7 s i t ti n g t h e r e f o ur t y h o u r s a m o n t h a n t h e ir h o u s e a n d t h ey ‘r e c o -w o r k e r ‘ s s t e p -m o t he r ` s n e ig h b o u r d i d t h i s f o r 7 -m o n t h s a n d g o t p a i d m o r e t h a n $ 7 3 8 7 p a r t- t im e o n l in e. a p p l i e t h e g u id e o n t hi s w e b-s i t e, Bi g 3 1 . c o m

    • LastBastionOfHope

      I have never had a problem with asians…believe it or not I have often seen asians defending whites when blacks verbally attack them. Behind closed doors when talking about all the problems with blacks, many asians will give you that smirk and head nod as if to say “yup…our people feel exactly the same way as you guys do about them”. They are another race of people high in IQ that values education and moral values. We mirror them considerably. I understand some of the more radical whites will be totally turned off to being “buddy buddy” with asians, but I have many asian friends and I really respect their people. By the way when I say asians in this instance, I mean American asians specifically.

      • David Ashton

        Han Chinese have a racial and xenophobic hostility to black people.
        They have a xenophobic dislike of whites and ethnic minorities in China.
        Non-Chinese communities in east and southeast Asia regard them as hereditary enemies and/or self-centered merchants (like another people beloved of AmRen’s very own John Engelman).
        Their ethnic solidarity was well shown during the post-war struggle against Malayan communism when they formed the backbone of the Maoist revolutionaries.

  • The__Bobster

    This thread: all Engelman, all the time.

  • Garrett Brown

    I’m a much bigger fan of Jensen than I amof Rushton but this was a wonderful article for both. Very well done JT.

  • Oil Can Harry

    Jensen and Rushton could never match the brilliance of Professors Ward Churchill, Cornel West and Grover Furr.

    • bigone4u

      Right you are sir. A fake Indian with fake stories of smallpox infections, a race-hustling jive talking brother from the hood, and a guy named Furr. Is he covered in fur? Never heard of him.

      • Oil Can Harry

        Grover Furr is NOT a muppet from Sesame Street but a New Jersey professor who tells his students that Uncle Joe Stalin never killed a single person nor committed any crimes.

        • bigone4u

          I’m sensing that your original comment was intended as sarcastic humor?

  • W. A. Summers

    Hans J. Eysenck had a seminal influence on both Jensen and Rushton. Jensen was so struck
    by Eysenck’s challenges to American psychological “orthodoxy” in the 1950’s that after reading some of Eysenck’s early Penguins (eg., “Sense and Nonsense in Psychology” ) , he
    arranged to spend two years of postgraduate study in London in Eysenck’s program. Jensen,
    the scientist, likely was not swayed by evidence until about 1966-67, but it is unlikely that his
    professional dialogues, especially with Eysenck, failed to conjecture about the soundness of
    the Blank Slate dogma, from 1963 forward (?) After his sabbatical study periiod with Eysenck
    in the mid-60’s, Jensen returned to spend a year at the Stanford Institute for Advanced Study in the Behaviorial Sciences. At that time, he had considerable dialogue with William Shockley,
    who is due regard also as an influence upon Jensen’s evolution of viewpoint.
    Genius talent in the plastic arts would find a challenging display topic in just an historical
    chronology in America of the “book burning” barriers. The details of Shuey’s ordeal in
    getting her manuscript accessible gave rise to the ad hoc publishing outlets at the hands
    of Henry Garrett and Travis Osborne of Social Science Press and its sequel,
    The Foundation for Human Understanding. No major university library in Russia, Eastern
    Europe, or China should be without a display of the war against realism waged decade after decade after decade.

    • W. A. Summers

      Summers, here, with an addendum:
      An outstanding figure in contemporary psychology, himself greatly inspired by
      Hans Eysenck, is Chris Brand, stringently “retired” from the University of Edinburgh.
      Brand’s 1995 book, also bearing the supra title THE “g” FACTOR was “depublished”
      (a memorable American neologism ) by John Wiley & Sons in 1995. Brand’s book–
      perhaps a well organized essay devoted to a significant extent to how a consensual
      social policy might take shape around what he termed “martyred science”–lives on
      in his tough and principled determination to rescue it from the ashes. It is accessible
      free (limited to a personal copy) online. The prepublication reviews of it (e.g. Lynn, Eysenck ) were quite favorable and it was also reviewed nicely in AR. A resolution
      was passed in May 1995 in support of Brand and in condemnation of Wiley, this by
      the Behavioral Science Section of the National Association of Scholars. But Brand hashad to endure–as Jensen certainly did–the number of scholars who got voiceless whenthe going got rough. For some time, both the manuscipt of Jensen’s “g” book and Brand’s “g” essay were under the Wiley roof. Brand’s essay would have made a very nice complement, worthy of having been published under the same cover.

      • bigone4u

        I looked at Dr. Brand’s website and wikipedia entry. His disrepect for PeeCee (as he calls it) is a breath of fresh air. Although I was familiar with the g factor, I was unfamiliar with his story and other writings and views. Thanks.

        • Kaitlyn David

          @nonhumans:disqus m y bu d d y’ s a un t m a k e s $ 7 7 / h r o n t h e i n t e r n e t . S h e h a s b e e n w i th ou t w o r k f o r e i g h t m o n t h s b u t l a s t m o n t h h e r p a y c h ec k w a s $ 1 6 8 7 6 j u s t w o r k i n g o n t h e i n t e r n e t fo r a f e w h o u r s. R e a d m o r e h e r e, Bi g 3 1 . c o m

      • FrankG

        Essay? Brand’s book stands on its own. It does things Jensen’s book does not,
        as anyone can tell by accessing it online (free).

      • David Ashton

        Dr John Baker’s excellent, scientific book on “Race” suffered a similar fate when OUP tried to call in copies and then followed up by reissuing Ashley Montagu’s propaganda classic, “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth”. Censorship cannot last for ever.

        • W.A. Summers

          OUP’s acts and omissions re Baker’s book have elements of precedent for
          the Brand “depublishing”. But I do not think it is generally factual that OUP
          “called in” copies of Baker’s book. Rather, after the initial printing and successful sales, OUP just failed to reprint and stymied access. Also, Baker was quite distressed at what he (and others ) perceived as a failure of OUP to do any degree of promotion of the book. The Brand book affair is written much larger and is, as a whole, unprecedented. The publisher (Wiley, UK,
          in Chichester–but presumably Chichester revolves around Wiley NY??)
          started a progressive pattern of omissions as the publication date neared–
          dropping the ball on any degree of prepublication distribution, promotion, etcThe author himself was unaware the book had been made accessible to sellers until he saw it displayed in a bookshop in Oxford in late February, as
          I recall, of 1996. An American supporter of his, managed to purchase retail on a credit card, a number of copies and had them distributed for review to
          such persons as H. J. Eysenck and Richard Lynn, among a few others. Then, copies were similarly purchased by this American supporter and sent at his expense by Air Express to the U.S. to be distributed to about three dozen American academics. It was only at that point, that Wiley UK /NY
          sent some complimentary copies to these same American academics. After announcing the “depublication” in mid-April, Wiley UK apparently tried to “call in” all copies remaining in retail bookstores. The Wiley announcement re the “depublishing” referred to objectionable content in the book. However, when closely reviewed and discussed in May 1996 by members of the Behavioral Science Section of the National Association of Scholars, no one could conjecture what portion of the text contained anything remotely relevant to an act of “depublication”. The failure of
          academics generally to cite the book on the strength of its being accessible online free (for a personal dowloading) seems another indication of the
          denial, denial,denial at work decade after decade in America. We just can’t admit that a semi-samizdat circumstance obtains in America and that there is accordingly a burden of courage in citing books that have been denied conventional publication but have merit that cries out for ackowledgement.

        • W.A. Summers

          Jensen was commissioned by OUP New York/Oxford to do a review/analysis
          of the Baker manuscript, that was submitted by Baker in 1972 and reviewed/
          analyzed by Jensen in the late spring (was it? ) of 1973. Reportedly, the Jensen review/analysis was very decisive in tilting OUP toward publication. It would be fascinating to have access to the Jensen review, by courtesy of OUP and the Jensen Estate. It is a bit of a mystery
          why in the 2002 e-interview-based book by Miele, Jensen did not mention Baker explicitly at all in the relevant commentary re Cavalli-Sforza.

    • JohnEngelman

      W. A. Summers,

      I have never seen you here before. Please keep posting.

  • Morris LeChat

    I hope Jarred is around for many more years to come. I don’t want to read about anyone “remembering” him andy tome soon!

    • JohnEngelman

      On that we certainly agree.

      • Morris LeChat

        yes, we agree, but I’m not going to hug you. I’ll shake your hand on that though.

    • Non Humans

      True. I admire his articulate speeches and manner as a true gentleman. These qualities won me over from much cruder realist sites.
      If this race war is to be waged on the intellectual stage, Jared is the Ace in our hand, and a role model for all of us who engage the savage libtards.

      • Morris LeChat

        I read his book back in about 1992. “Paved with Good Intentions, The Failure of Race Relations in AMerica”,something about the way he stated the truth really struck a chord with me. I know that is a cliche, but what I mean is that,…. it was kind of ….kind of something that woke me from a hypnotic state. There is something about the truth that just makes one drawn to people who speak it. More than just drawn to him, I felt like we are on the same side in a struggle, and after reading that, I trusted he was on the same side as me. I trusted that, and still do, completely. I feel…. I feel a kinship and a loyalty to him. I post alot here, I hope my posts don’t damage the cause.

  • Alex Smith

    Can someone here please answer two questions for me–with links? I can’t find the answers.
    1. What percentage of black households depend on means-tested public assistance? (food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, free school lunch, etc.)
    2). What percentage of black women will have an abortion at some point in their lives?

  • wattylersrevolt

    Jared Taylor, what is the constructive point of allowing the troll Engleman to post on AR..going on four years? You are an intelligent man so you must have figured out by now that just about every here has stopped responding to the troll. We have disposed of it many times. The troll takes advantage of the fact that many of us no longer respond to it..there is another possibility of course:the troll is cardboard character creation of AR….not that I want to be conspiratorial.

    • MBlanc46

      Apparently you don’t pay close enough attention to what the man says to know that his name is Engelman.

      • wattylersrevolt

        You don’t know what the it Troll is…so what..big deal about a mispelling…the it Troll is probably a cardboard character creation like the ones in SouthPark.

        Did Rushton,Lynne, Jenson and frog-face Gottfriedson ever take a public stance against the H-1B and L-1 B Visa programs? Did any of them praise the Chinese Exclusion Act? Why hasn’t Jared written a major essay on the wonderfull Chinese Exclusion Act? For tactical reasons he should do it…for it would piss of the asian invader

        Jared Taylor should be publicly known for his enthusiasm for the Chinese Exclusion Act than his enthusiasm for boring IQ test score psychometrics.the ladder of course is much safer..which is why he should give it up.

        • wattylersrevolt

          OK….later…..over and out…

        • MBlanc46

          As Rushton and Jensen are dead, perhaps you should be directing your remarks to Mr. Taylor rather than to me.

  • LastBastionOfHope

    I’m very experienced with IQ testing…it’s what I received my graduate training in. I can assure you that the tests today are very valid and reliable. If you look at the bell curve for these specific tests broken down by race it goes as expected. Blacks are lowest, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians. Usually about 1 SD of 15 (standard deviation) from each other. But when we go from Blacks (avg IQ= 85) to Asians (avg IQ= 115) there is a difference of 30 points or 2 SD’s which is a huge difference. This explains the huge differences between the accomplishments of Asians and Blacks and how they perform in life in general especially academic settings. To put average Black IQ in perspective, borderline mental retardation is generally regarded to be anywhere from 75-80. Remember, average Black IQ is 85, so the majority of the bell curve for Blacks falls very close to this ominous cutoff line. If we could just accept this, it would allow us to finally move on and make realistic policies that actually work.

    It’s also worth noting that cultural factors including race and socioeconomic confounds are all controlled for in today’s testing. Yet, somehow the media is still allowed to lie and pretend they do not control for such factors. It’s because they are scared the stark truth will cause Blacks to riot and of course in today’s world “everyone is a winner” and “everyone is the same”. Socioeconomics play a role of course as one would expect, but when poor whites are matched against poor blacks, the results are the same. Whites just perform better.

    Finally, the thing that always makes me want to bash my head against a wall is the fact that most blacks have absolutely no clue about statistics or any of this stuff. So when you try to make these arguments, it’s in one ear and out the other. They will say “so you’re saying all blacks are dumb?”…no. It’s the AVERAGE black IQ…that means there are some very smart blacks, but there is simply a much smaller proportion of them when compared to whites and asians. The majority of black scores on the bell curve just happen to centralize around the 85 mark. Also remember that because the average is 85, not only does it mean some of them performed higher than that, but plenty also performed lower which really gets into that ominous borderline region. Many lay people today will try to silence you by saying stupid things like “you don’t know every black person”. Saying that clearly demonstrates that they have no clue how statistics works especially given the fact that you don’t NEED to know every black person to know how groups generally perform. There is a thing called “generalizability” referring to the ability to validly apply the results to the general population. All these new tests have generalizability. Some of the validity coefficients are so high they are in the .90+ range with 1 representing 100% predictability (which is impossible in stats anyway).

    • Tom_in_Miami

      I don’t believe that Asians have an “avg IQ= 115.” It’s more like 105 to 107.

      • David Ashton

        It is quite clear that the migrant, business and student communities around the Pacific rim are brighter than the huge great mass of peasants in the Chinese interior.

  • wattylersrevolt

    I vote to ban the troll John Engleman..an it. I am not opposed to asianphiles and asians comming to this website to debate us. But as I previously mentioned the it Troll know as Engleman has been disposed of many times. So 95 percent of us just don’t bother to respond. The it Troll Engleman takes advantage of this..and like an overflowing cesspoll in nonwhite Atalanta..the sewage keeps flowing down the street stinking up the neighborhood.

    • Aurelius

      And let him take “multiracial individual” with him. Multiracial individuals is what we are trying to avoid becoming. Otherwise, what good is this website?

      • Hage

        There are multi-racial white people, Gabrielle reece is an example of a half-black half white, white trini individual.

    • StillModerated

      Second! But add brengunn and multiracial individual, too. Gay black man can stay — but only for comedic value.

      • wattylersrevolt

        You don’t want to overdue it with the banning…for now, ban all cardboard creation Troll cartoon characters such as the it-Troll Engleman.
        Hey look, I am all for debating the enemy..invite Noam Chomsky on…but for certain characters a statue of limitations must kick in…come on, four years of obvious trolling on AR? I wish more asians came on so I could debate them…and then dispose of them.

    • Tom_in_Miami

      I don’t see anything wrong with seeing differing viewpoints and even “trolling” on this site. To the extent that someone’s opinion is out of the mainstream here opposing opinions can correct the “trollers” publicly. Bring them on!

    • Dan Reardon

      I wholeheartedly agree! Engleman at best is a nuisance and at worst a SPLC troll. Either way he should be shown the door immediately.

    • Agreed. Ban anti White trolls. Also ban commenters who bash American women all the time.

  • W.A. Summers

    In the mid ’80’s when supplying materials for the Chinese standardization of The Raven
    Progressive Matrices, I established contact with the Chairperson of the Department of Psychology in a major Chinese university. This person was also an officer in the Chinese
    Psychological Society. I would presume such people tended to be, at least nominally,
    Marxist. None of this prevented Mr. Realism from informing the Chinese of the merits of
    Western mental testing. Along with testing materials, I started sending personally to this
    person some of the works of Eysenck and Jensen. The Chinese psychologist turned out to
    be personally acquainted with Eysenck and mentioned that “Eysenck’s work should prove of
    great value in the development of professional psychology in China”. When I sent a copy of
    Jensen’s STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT MENTAL TESTS , the response was effusive. “This book is exactly what we need.” As China at the time was unencumbered by international copyright observance, it is almost certain that many of the key works of Eysenck and Jensen were translated and widely circulated among psychologists in China at that time. Eysenck himself sent several copies of his major books (six copies of each book, one for each of the five satellite centers around China as well a copy at “Hdq”, as it were) If in the mid ’80’s a chairperson of a department of psychology in the U.S. and holding a position of leadership within the American Psychological Association had stated that Eysenck’s work was of basic
    importance to the shaping of the future of professional psychology in the U.S.–and had
    expressed that Jensen’s work debunking inherent bias in mental testing was “exactly what we need”—that person would have been headed for a position at some community college in West Texas or Montana (a variation of American internal exile.) No wonder the Chinese are
    eclipsing us!

    • David Ashton

      Yes, look up Frank Dikotter’s books on Chinese race bigotry, eugenics and barbarism.
      Engelman should read these, but thinks that suggesting informative books proves that he has won the argument while deliberately ignoring their contrary factual data.

      • JohnEngelman

        Anti Chinese bigots can always find some excuse for their bigotry. What matters about those splendid people are high average intelligence, and low rates of crime and illegitimacy.

        • David Ashton

          You do indeed quote the same bits selected from Taylor, Rushton and Jensen “again and again and again”. It is getting boring.

          Have a look at the colossal statistics and gruesome details of criminal massacre and torture committed by Chinese inside and outside China during the 20th century on Professor Rudy Rummel’s “Democide” website.
          Look up the wars and anti-social activities of the Tongs among Chinese immigrants from the mid-1850s in the West Coast right across to New York’s Chinatown in recent years.
          Look up Amy O’Neill Richard’s “International Trafficking in Women…” Center for the Study of Intelligence Report, April 2000, on Asian crime in the USA, especially pp.13-4 [“Vietnamese and Chinese gangs are known to be the most organized and vicious”].
          “China is a source, transit and destination country for men, women and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor” &c (“CIA – The World Factbook” [2008]).
          According Professor Ko-lin Chin, perhaps the leading authority on Asian and ethnic crime in the USA, “US law enforcement authorities now consider Chinese crime groups to be the second most organized crime problem in America”.
          So who’s the bigot?

          • JohnEngelman

            If you want to talk about Chinese violence during war think of all the people killed in wars the United States has fought, including the American Indians who really were the victims of genocide and race displacement.

          • David Ashton

            The massive Chinese violence documented by Rummel was mostly internal during “peacetime” and many years after the settlement of America by whites whose leaders, according to you elsewhere, were multi-racialists dedicated to the belief that all men were equal.

            Which US wars do you find as unjustifiable as I do?

          • JohnEngelman

            What matters is that Chinese have a lower crime rate everywhere in the world that they live than whites. I could document that by quoting J. Philippe Rushton, but I do not want to increase your tedium by repeating the truth.

          • David Ashton

            And I could qualify Rushton by quoting Dr Ko-lin Chin, James Morton and many others, but you possess “the truth” already – infallible, impregnable and insufferably repeatable.

          • I request that JohnEngelman be banned from posting comments on Amren. He does not take the White side. He spouts typical, same old, same old Lefty Marxist nonsense about evil White Americans doing genocide against the noble Native American Indians and is a non stop propagandist for the Chinese. Sure, it’s OK to admire the Chinese as worthy adversaries, but it’s another to constantly slam Whites and take the Chinese side.

          • JohnEngelman

            “We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. “

  • W. A. Summers

    Prof. Rushton’s work was fairly successfully being misrepresented both within the PC circuits of the University of Western Ontario and in the Canadian media, all back in 1989-90., when he was under attack as “a pseudo-scientist” and “racist” etc etc. But the whole mudslinging show was collapsed upon itself–was given a most deserved boomerang–when letters in his defense were solicited and disseminated within U of Western Ontario, the the Ontario AG’s Office, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and so forth. Nearly four dozen outstanding authorities relevant to the science Rushton was pursuing, gave clear witness to the merits of Rushton’s work and the lack of basis for all the accusations loosened against him–among them E. O. Wilson, R.J. Herrnstein,, Arthur Jensen, J. Q. Wilson, and, BTW, Jim Flynn.

    Rushton’s successful solicitation of this support was remarkable in its impact. Yet, there was
    little cognizance in the muttering media about the vindication these letters amounted to.

  • W.A. Summers

    One of Jensen’s important points of emphasis was an endorsement of what might be termed
    “a majority of one” in that he cautioned against the reflexive tendency of contemporary
    undergraduates to assume that a poll of experts is pretty much definitive. In fact,
    in science, as in other domains, it is the outstanding argument buttressed by evidence that
    can amount to “a majority of one” among experts. Part of the cultural rot out of which PC
    flourishes is the campus tendency to neglect expository writing and the use of evidence and of rational disputation (it’s sooo “divisive” “an attenuated form of hatred” etc etc.). Jensen’s
    careful, evolved questioning of the shibboleth that mental speed had no connection to general mental ability is a brilliant demonstration of what is at stake in all this. He faced the
    nearly uniform consensus that the work of J. M. Cattell and Clark Wissler was the last word in this matter. Jensen demonstrated that it was not. British psychologist Ian Deary, (himself
    once a graduate student under Chris Brand,) published fascinating research on the facts of
    the matter, demonstrating that a scrutiny of writings in the 1890’s and early 20th century would have given no basis to enshrine the J. M. Cattell/Wissler “findings” as definitive. Jensen’s
    capacity carefully to perceive that the Emperor had no clothes and to patiently reveal the
    fact , was an all too rare personal strength, even among experts.