A Great Scientist Dies

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 29, 2012

Arthur Jensen was a giant in his field.

My first encounter with Arthur Robert Jensen (1924 – 2012) was in 1969, shortly after he became notorious for writing that genes account for a substantial part of the black/white difference in IQ. I was a student at Yale, where Jensen was invited to speak. Like virtually everyone on campus, I was an uncompromising egalitarian and was sure Jensen’s arguments were laughable.

When I got to the lecture hall, there was a crowd outside but no one was allowed in. There had been threats of violence and the talk was canceled. Most of my friends were happy: The “racist” had been defeated. Although 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 that I was acting shamefully. I knew nothing about genetics or IQ testing—nothing at all—and yet I was convinced I knew better than a scientist who had studied the subject thoroughly. How embarrassing to have been such an arrogant young lefty!

The goons who shut down Jensen’s talk may have had an influence on my life. It took me 15 years to realize that Jensen was right, and that I and the goons were wrong. Surely, my eyes would have been opened sooner if Jensen had been able to speak, and I had heard the calm, factual, talk he would surely have given.

The primacy of data

Until 1967, when he was 43 years old, Arthur Jensen believed that differences in IQ were almost entirely determined by environment. He had received a PhD in psychology from Columbia in 1950, had worked with Hans Eysenck in London from 1956 to 1958 and also in 1964, and had become a full professor at UC Berkeley in 1966. He had studied retarded children with IQs lower than 75 and had found racial differences in patterns of mental disability. Still, he held conventional views.

In 1967, Jensen received a Guggenheim fellowship to study at the Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California, where he planned to do research for a book about how cultural deprivation depresses the intelligence of minorities. At the center he met a geneticist who persuaded him to study the genetics of intelligence, and this completely changed his views. Instead of writing a book, he wrote his famous February 1969 article for the Harvard Educational Review, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”

In this 123-page article, he laid the foundation for a correct understanding of intelligence: IQ tests are valid and reliable, they are not biased against minorities, social mobility means that the genes for high IQ are concentrated in higher social strata, and there is a substantial genetic contribution to both individual and group differences in intelligence.

There was an immediate explosion (the best account is Roger Pearson, Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1991). The board of Harvard Educational Review came under so much pressure it stopped making reprints of the article—not even Jensen could get any. It explained this was because the article “presents a view of intelligence that we feel must be read in the context of expert discussion from other psychologists and geneticists.” In many libraries, vandals tore the article out of the magazine and destroyed it. Leftists on campus called for Jensen to be fired—and worse.

In July of the same year, Martin Deutsch (1926-2002), who was involved in setting up Head Start, made a speech at Michigan State University in which he claimed that Jensen’s article contained “53 major errors or misinterpretations.” This claim was gobbled up by the Left despite Deutsch’s refusal to say what the errors were. In 1973, he admitted that the “53 errors” was an off-the-cuff answer to a question from the audience, and that he had no idea the claim would be trumpeted by egalitarians.

Yale was not the only place where Jensen was silenced, and police protected him several times from howling mobs that rushed the podium. As psychologist Sandra Scarr has written, “I learned what it is 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 . . . .”

At home in Berkeley, Jensen received so many vicious telephone calls—many late at night—that for a time his family routed all calls through the police station. The police advised him to move out of his house, and he stayed with friends. There were threats against the Jensens’ 11-year-old daughter, and for almost a year the police warned her not to walk the two blocks to the school bus. For several years, Jensen filed his movements in advance with the campus police. If he needed to go somewhere, two officers showed up to accompany him. One year, two plain-clothes men attended his class to keep an eye out for thugs.

Jensen was always cheerful in the face of hatred, but he was bothered by its effect on others:

My greater concern is that I know that other faculty members are adversely influenced by these events and have often kept silent out of fear. They have told me so. . . . It compromises their intellectual position on controversial issues. . . .

Jensen’s persecution continued for years. In 1977 he went on what was to be a lecture tour of eight Australian universities, along with Hans Eysenck of the University of London Institute of Psychiatry. The men were not even going to speak about race—only about IQ, personality, and learning—but the Left found this intolerable. At his first stop, the University of Melbourne, demonstrators tried to keep people out of the lecture hall. When Jensen began to speak, they banged on metal bins and chanted: “What do we want? Jensen! How do we want him? Dead!” Jensen could not be heard over the din, and escaped to a basement room, where he continued his talk through a video link to the lecture hall. The lefties then broke into the basement room and ended the talk.

After this debacle, three of the other universities canceled Jensen’s talks outright, and several others allowed attendance by invitation only. Only at the University of Adelaide was he able to give a public lecture to a packed house.

Throughout this period, Jensen continued to write journal articles and books. He published Genetics and Education in 1972 and Educability and Group Differences in 1973. His massive, 800-page Bias in Mental Testing, published in 1980, demolished the then-fashionable view that IQ tests were biased against women, minorities, and poor people. It was so successful among scholars that his publishers urged him to write a popular version, Straight Talk About Mental Tests, which appeared in 1981.

I meet Arthur Jensen

By the time of my first meeting with Jensen in 1992, he was a giant in his field, with more publications and citations than virtually anyone else in psychology. He graciously agreed to give me an interview, which went on for several hours and ranged widely over forbidden subjects. Jensen told me that by then the hostility had waned and that he was living a normal life. He assured me that his students were surprised at nothing he taught them; that they could not understand what all the shouting had been about in the old days.

When we were not recording, we talked of many things, and 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. Also, he was not angry at his attackers; just baffled. Why couldn’t they just look at the data?

There is no doubt that Jensen, with help from such people as Hans Eysenck, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, Helmuth Nyborg, and Michael Levin, eventually convinced the experts that genes account for 50 to 80 percent of variation in individual IQ and contribute substantially to group variation—but they never managed to convince the media.

By the mid 1990s, Jensen was hard at work on what was to be his crowning achievement, The g Factor, but could not find a publisher. A deep chill had fallen over the book industry, and Methuen, Jensen’s usual publisher, and The Free Press, which had published Straight Talk About Mental Testing, would not touch The g Factor. Jensen had to settle for Praeger Publilshers, which had a reputation for accepting controversial titles but printing very few copies and selling them at very high prices.

At 648 pages, The g Factor was an extraordinary work of science, and Praeger priced it at a relatively affordable $39.95. It was a magisterial investigation of the nature of intelligence, the extent to which it is under genetic control, and its uneven distribution between individuals and groups. After I reviewed it, I was greatly flattered when Jensen told me it was the best summary of the book anyone had written, and that he was making copies to send to associates and friends.

However, he said the review contained an important error: I had written that when blacks and whites are matched for brain size they have the same IQ, but that was a mistake. He explained that when blacks and whites are matched for IQ they have the same brain size, but the relationship does not run the other way. There are other aspects of the brain besides size—neurofunction, brain metabolism, etc.—that influence intelligence, and the races appear to differ in these as well. Therefore, for blacks to match whites in IQ, equivalent brain size is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. I had always heard that Jensen prized accuracy.

Jensen won admiration for his research and analysis, but he was loved for his character. Always the gentleman, always the scientist, he never ran from controversy but he never sought it. In 2003, in cooperation with Phillipe Rushton and Linda Gottfredson, Jensen’s Danish colleague Helmuth Nyborg published The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. This was a 642-page collection of articles that were both tributes to a great scientist and major contributions to the field.

Many authors noted that Jensen’s true love was data. As Professor Nyborg wrote, “If Art is loyal to data he is entirely unfaithful to theory,” noting that Jensen would readily sacrifice his own theories if the data did not support them. “Give Art a proper analysis and good data,” he wrote, “and his mind will follow, entirely independently of his previous views,” adding, “that is far more than one can say for most of his critics!”

Thomas J. Bouchard, who directed the Minnesota Twin Study, has said Jensen’s scientific work is “intensive, detailed, exhaustive, fair-minded, temperate, and courageous.” Like all who knew him, Prof. Bouchard was deeply impressed by Jensen’s self possession: “For someone who has been attacked so vituperatively, both in public and in the published literature, I continue to be astounded at the lack of anger and hostility in his replies and the astuteness with which he dissects the arguments of his critics.”

Jensen’s former students added to the Nyborg collection with comments such as: “the finest examples of college teaching I have ever experienced,” “I cannot imagine a better mentor,” “he showed astonishing patience with his critics,” “the toughest reviewer around,” “his own thirst for knowledge is infectious.”

In 2005, together with Philippe Rushton, Jensen published what I think is the best short, academic summary of IQ research ever written: “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability.” By then, however, Jensen was suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. He continued to publish, but his output declined.

Arthur Jensen died on October 22. His family kept the event quiet, but the news has now leaked out. When a man of his stature dies, even an enemy establishment is compelled to take notice, and it will be edifying to read the flummery that is sure to appear. The major papers will certainly not admit it, but Arthur Jensen was a great scientist and a man of great dignity, even nobility. In a sane world, he would have been a serious contender for a Nobel Prize. That his death should follow so soon upon that of his eminent colleague and friend, Philippe Rushton, only compounds the terrible loss that science—and mankind—have suffered.

Topics: , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
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.
  • bluffcreek1967

    A fine article remembering Arthur Jensen. What an indictment against our modern universities that so many of our young people are close-minded and hostile toward those with differing opinions. They are taught to react rather than think. I know it may not be all students, but there is such an unwillingness to hear opposing views by far too many of them. Our universities, more or less, tolerate and look the other way when their students disrupt and violently confront guest speakers who are not politically-correct. Those who may want to hear another viewpoint are thereby prevented from hearing it and even intimidated if they become sympathetic to it.

    Folks, in spite of all our modern technology and access to information all around us, we live in an intellectual dark age. Our colleges and instiutuons of higher learning are more interested in indoctrinating their students rather than educating them and teaching how to think through various issues. They are taught WHAT to think instead of HOW to think.

    This is why it is often so difficult to talk to young people about race realism. There is such a wall, a massive entangled web that one must break through in order to get them to think. They have been pre-conditioned to react emotionally, angrily and with contempt. Our young people can’t always be reached via intellectual arguments, but they can sometimes come to their senses after experiencing ‘diversity’ in an up-close and personal manner. This tends to wake them up more than anything.   

    • Barrack Osama

       The horror stories will wake them up. They wake everyone up. Everyone but the most ancient and stubborn hippies who still think they’re singing kumbaya in front of the campus cafeteria in 1965.

  • charliek46

    I was wandering through the University of Chicago Law Library one night in 1974 when I found Jensen’s Harvard Educational Review article.  There in the library stacks on a cold winter night, the scales fell from my eyes.  I recommend this article as the most concise, compelling statement of the case for racial differences in intelligence.  RIP, Arthur Jensen.

  • JohnEngelman

    I doubt there are many progressives who genuinely disagree with Arthur Jensen. If they did they would calmly present their evidence, like they do when debating creationists or those who deny man made greenhouse warming. People only become angry when cherished beliefs they are unsure of are challenged. 

    • The__Bobster

      Bad analogy from a NY Slimes reader. Warmers have no evidence to support their scam, so they seek to silence or shout down those scientists who try to present the truth.


      • JohnEngelman

        The truth of man made global warming is as obvious as the truth that that racial difference exists, and that they are biological.   

  • Jensen was a true scientist, unencumbered by political correctness. 

  • What a great man. It’s a shame I never got to meet him. He was what the rest of us should aspire to be: Lovers of truth and models of civility. Thanks for this wonderful account of his life.

  • Well, we’ve lost another one.

    Please, someone tell me there are others to carry on this research.

    It didn’t occur to me to wonder if I hadn’t done something shameful. I knew nothing about genetics or IQ testing—nothing at all—and yet I was convinced I knew better than a scientist who had studied the subject thoroughly. How embarrassing to have been such an arrogant young lefty!

    This is something I hadn’t known about Mr. Taylor. I have wondered what moment was his ‘awakening’.

    I too was once so blind. I refer to my former self as a ‘passive liberal’. I wasn’t actively involved in liberal causes but I sided with liberals in the belief that ‘racism’ was what accounted for black dysfunction and pathologies. It was only when I went out into the real world and met a number of blacks that I saw a pattern of anti-social activity while blaming whites and ‘society’ for their problems that my eyes were opened. When I started asking questions such as, ‘don’t blacks have any sense of personal responsibility leading to their lot in life’ that I was officially excommunicated and branded with the scarlet R.  

  • Terry

    In about 1972 I bought a booklet ‘Race, Culture and Intelligence’ and it was here that I first heard about Arthur Jensen.  Now living in New Zealand I tried to get a copy of ‘The Bell Curve’ and found my local library did not have a copy. I tried further afield and still no luck, but was able to obtain a book rebutting ‘The Bell Curve’

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    Where is the next Jensen or Rushton? The flag wavers on the field of battle… Run to the standard boys, lift it high…PC makes for the best bullets…but Truth is a strong shield.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    During his professional life, Jensen was threatened, vilified and debased for pointing out truths and facts:  IQ is mostly hereditary, mostly fixed and that there are inherent difference between human races.

    Yet, for spreading specious, malicious lies that IQ is meaningless and that all people have equal potential to succeed equally, sophists such as Tim Wise and Stephen Jay Gould receive lucrative book deals, lecture tours, accolades, prestigious awards and sinecures.

    Only in a very sick world is the truth held to be lies.

    Jensen published, “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement?” which concluded that Head Start programs designed to boost black IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied.

    When the work was initially published, students and faculty staged large, loud protests outside his University of California, Berkeley office, and he received multiple death threats. He was even denied reprints of his work by his publisher and was not permitted to reply in response to letters of criticism – both extremely unusual and exceptional policies for their day.

     Jensen’s lectures were videotaped for his personal safety. 

    For a long time Jensen received death threats, needed body guards while on his campus or others, had his home and office phones routed through the police station, received his mail only after a bomb squad examined it, was physically threatened or assaulted dozens of times by protesters disrupting his talks in the United States and abroad, regularly found messages like ‘Jensen Must Perish’ and ‘Kill Jensen’ scrawled across his office door, and much more. 

    I look forward to the day when leftist maniacs like Gould and Wise are widely known as the sick charlatans they truly are.

    As for the courageous  M. Jensen who believed truth, not matter how unpleasant, was stronger than lies:  Your time will come and you will be honored, I only wish that you had lived long enough to see it.

    Eppur si muove

    Sic Transit Gloria Mundi 


  • anonymous_amren

    I hope Richard Lynn is getting his health checked regularly and looking after himself. All these deaths of great psychologists is a very sad thing, and it will be bad for science.

  • anonymous_amren

    I took a political poll today and it called me an Obama voter or possibly independent. Even though the poll included two questions on immigration and I chose the most hardline options each time.

    • The__Bobster

      Where is the site for this poll? My responses should cause it to melt down. If they don’t, the site is a fraud.

  • FourFooted_Messiah

    We are truly the Irish Monks of this PC Dark Age

    Speaking of that, there should be an organization out there somewhere storing away – in a safe, dry deep cave somwhere – all the works (whether original or copied) of Western Civilization.  In fact, there should be copies of these copies in caves all over the West.  This as a backup should a new dark age come (and I would not be surprised if one day, it did.)  The worst thing would be to lose our intellectual heritage, assuming we can keep our genetic heritage.

    I found the original Dragonriders of Pern series to be fascinating in that regard; it basically told stories of a people who had forgotten everything their ancestors had known after 2500 years with no contact with Earth or anywhere else.  They even forgot they weren’t even native to Pern, and that their precious dragons were genetically engineered from a species that only lived on a continent long under interdict who were also forgotten.  At the end of it all, they do eventually rediscover their heritage, but it causes a lot of social upheaval, because Pernese society had evolved to fit its environment quite well, and certain rediscovered things (beyond having proper paper, and silicate plastics) weren’t really welcome by then.

    Western Civilization will need a link to its past, and we need Records on various, long-lasting formats to be put where our descendants can make use of them to save themselves a lot of trouble rebuilding a technological society.

  • Some day, the confessions of former Leftists will fill volumes.  I even volunteered for the Democratic party.

    Every time leftists said that other people’s interests should be put before the interests of Whites, every time they said that Whites are inherently evil and deserve genocide, I felt  sad, I replied that insulting Whites isn’t going to get them to vote for you, but I felt isolated and stayed with the Democrats.

    Then one day I heard on the Internet that anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

  • The__Bobster

    Libtarded Whites can be more violent than their minority pets.

  • The__Bobster

    When I was a child, teachers expected the siblings of a smart child to be smart. They were usually correct.

  • Laura White

    This is fascinating: A quick search of the NYTs’ archives  reveals no record of this great scientist’s recent passing. 

    The first thing that pops up is from 1969, and is entitled : 

    “The old white superiority myth”[PDF]

    Wow, I really hate the verminous reality reversers at the New York Times. 


    – Arturo 


  • Laura White

    That is unbelievable. 

    I went to this aggrieved down-low negro’s site to place the following comment: 

    “The National Science Foundation pays you to go to Cuba on the down low? Reprehensible”. 

    Unfortunately I didn’t have the patience to post (you ned to be signed up through WordPress, you know how frustrating that can be, sometimes). 

    – Arturo 

  • JohnEngelman

    The message of people like Arthur Jensen is that a high percentage of humans, and a higher percentage of blacks, are economically useless. I cannot blame liberals for hating the message, but the message has legitimate policy implications. Consequently the messengers deserve to be protected from  legal, professional, economic, and social sanctions. It is not the fault of the messengers that their message is true. 

  • Sloppo
  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    I am familiar with Jensen’s work and at no time that I am aware of did he ever write or say that he believed that Blacks are inferior to Whites.

    However, as Mr. Engelman mentioned above, Jensen’s facts about IQ differences between human populations have huge, legitimate policy implications.

    The prevailing dogma in U.S. policy is that all races are equal in every way — temperament, personality, IQ and potential.  Any deviation is immediate cause for accusations of racism, hatred and bigotry.  

    IQ differences are biological facts whether the government likes it or not.

    For examples, the schools:  The intractable achievement gap between Blacks and Whites is never blamed on IQ differences, for the schools IQ differences (and any attendant solutions) are not possible.  Because IQ differences cannot be used, the achievement gap is blamed on (choose any or more of the following):  poverty, White oppression and/or racism, lack of money poured into black schools, single parent families, last of resources, White-centric textbooks, lazy teachers, even racist state tests that use White-code words such as “yacht.”  

    It is beyond silly.

    So, should we continue to believe the government-promoted myth that IQ doesn’t exist and that Blacks are perfectly capable of achieving at the same level as Whites?  And, should we White taxpayers continue to pretend that with enough money, time and effort the gap can be closed?

    A trillion dollars has been poured into closing the gap over the past 50 years with no result, the achievement gap remains as large and inctractable as ever. But, the government has NO intention of giving up on the “IQ is meaningless” myth and has doubled down– it is pushing for teachers’ salaries and evaluations to be based on students’ test scores.

    If you’ve read about massive cheating in the schools on achievement tests, you know the result of this policy

    That IQ is not a myth is precisely what Jensen was trying to point out — in the face of death threats, threats to his chid, physical assault and constant harassment.

    As the old Soviet Union imploded after trying in vain to maintain its mythology, so shall the myth that IQ is meaningless eventually implode.  Unfortunately, there will be a lot of wreckage before Jensen’s truths are accepted for what they are:  FACTS.


  • Hal K

    This is an interesting article, partly because of its description of the treatment of Jensen by a leftist mob 43 years ago.  Pro-white views were already suppressed by that time.  Here is what Lothrop Stoddard observed in 1940 at the historical moment when things were changing:

    “The relative emphasis which Hitler gave racialism and eugenics many years ago foreshadows the respective interest toward the two subjects in Germany today.  Outside Germany, the reverse is true, due chiefly to Nazi treatment of its Jewish minority.”

  • Charles Edward Lincoln III

    Jensen & Rushton, I think, both failed to take a critical step in the analysis of Race & IQ—they failed to show how and why lower IQ has worked as an adaptive strategy in Africa and other “less developed” parts of the world.   The evolutionist’s primary analytical strategy known as “adaptationism”—to which E.O. Wilson and most other mainstream organismic and evolutionary biologists subscribe, posits that no change takes place without adaptive advantage.  

    S.J. Gould’s idiosyncratic anti-evolutionary (technically just “anti-adaptationist”) platform at Harvard was just that—idiosyncratic, and none of the mainstream biologists I knew in my Harvard days subscribed to Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” or believed in anything like it.  If we accept for a moment the “preponderance of the evidence” (and that’s all we’ve got at the moment) that Subsaharan-Africa is the evolutionary home of the Genus Homo (and possibly the species “sapiens”) then we can posit a simply explanatory algorithm for why “higher expressive/analytical/symbolic intelligence” and  its corollary called “civilization” never developed in Tropical and/or Southern Africa: it was not necessary.  

    Chimpanzees (in particular “pygmy chimps” or “Bonobos”) are our closest relatives by all genetic and behavioral analyses, followed by the Gorillas (much scarcer and more isolated than the chimps, who are common enough to use in cancer research at MD Anderson and other major laboratories.  Chimps most closely resemble the most “robust” of the “gracile” Australopithecines while Gorillas resemble the “Robust” Australopithecines of early human evolution.  

    It would be the most natural thing to posit that the earliest humans, evolving in their original habitat or niche, would diverge the least from their closest non-human relatives because there was simply no need.  The tropic jungles and savannas team with life and, as the Colonial Powers found out, it is not a friendly environment for civilization, and even in modern times there are signs that it catches on only slowly in Africa north of the Limpopo and South of Timbuktu….  

    The failures of democracy and peaceful living in post-Colonial Africa are by now almost the stuff of legend, with even Obama’s half-brother in Kenya admitting that his Father’s country would have been better off with another 30+ years of White Rule, just like South Africa (as revealed in Dinesh D’Souza’s Movie “Obama 2016”).  

    Arnold Toynbee’s particular model of the impulse to civilization and cultural evolution is often called “Challenge and Response”—and this model fits as an explanatory device for why the Human Species evolved its most elaborate cultural, i.e. “extra-somatic” adaptations dependent upon symbolic behavior and abstract, analytical intelligence, OUTSIDE of the original heartland of the species.  “Challenge and Response” is much like the “labor theory” of economy—what are the rewards to working harder, when hardly working is the natural state of man?

    Quite simply put, in Africa—Urban civilization was not necessary until the population pressure of modern times.  Urban civilization, as a matter of fact, is now going through very painful “birth pangs” in Africa South of the Sahara and north of the Kruger National Park, and it wouldn’t be too surprising to see Urban Civilization fail all together in Africa.  And in fact, the people of Africa and the rest of the world might be happier if Urban Civilization did fail.  

    True “Diversity” in the world might require that fruitless experiments such as urban, literate, civilization in Africa be allowed to fail.  Why does all the world need to be civilized, literate, and urban in the European sense?  I submit to you that it is neither necessary nor desirable that all people need to live or evolve the same way.  

    So, according to the adaptationist paradigm, we would simply hypothesize that higher IQ was not necessary to maximize the human population of Africa prior to Africa’s forcible incorporation into the European “World System” in the 20th century, especially the higher pressure to “become equal” during the late (post-Colonial) 20th century.  

    It could even be argued that African slavery and the “diaspora” of the African population was in part a result of the greater success of UN-civilized life in Africa—African population was constantly evolving beyond the needs of African culture, and so selling the excess population into slavery for export or cannibalism was itself a completely adaptive strategy.

    The point is that proving genetic differences as causal elements of culture or civilization is ONLY sound evolutionary biology if we can explain, from an adaptationist standpoint, why it is that certain variations in genetically determined (or merely genetically influenced) behavior are adaptive.

  • anarchyst

    The marginalization of Arthur Jensen is no different than what happens to those who question any aspect of the jewish “holocaust ™” story.
    The many inconsistencies in the jewish “holocaust ™” story are off-limits.  The jewish “holocaust ™” has become a de facto “religion” with all the trappings of “thou shall not investigate the inconsistencies of the jewish “holocaust ™” story.  Accusations of heresy and blasphemy await those who dare question the “official” story.
    My reason for including the ™ symbol is that the jewish “holocaust ™” has become commercialized and exploited by those with a vested interested in perpetuating it for its monetary value, gain and its ability to be used to silence opposition to the “tribe’s” goals and aspirations.  It might as well be trademarked. . .

  • JohnEngelman

    Last year, Zhao Bowen was part of a team that cracked the genetic code of the cucumber. These days, he’s probing the genetic basis for human IQ.
    Zhao is 17…
    Inside the 11-story facility, the vibe is pure Silicon Valley start-up: shorts, flip-flops, ankle bracelets, designer eyewear and a random tattoo. Zhao came to BGI on a summer internship last year to work on cucumbers. Now a full-time employee while continuing his studies, Zhao is turning his attention to a topic Western researchers have shied away from because of ethical worries: Zhao plans to study the genes of 1,000 of his best-performing classmates at a top high school in Beijing and compare them, he said, “with 1,000 normal kids.”…

    In 2007, Chinese geneticists discovered vast differences in the genetic makeup of Africans, Asians and Caucasians.

  • Barrack Osama

     Things like this make it clear we live in a false reality. Maybe we’re all involved in some kind of virtual reality game we all experience from a higher plane of existence somewhere. Things like this simply couldn’t naturally occur in a sane reality. It has to be some kind of practical joke by a higher power.

  • NorthernWind

    The Asians are probably dying of laughter at us right now…

  • KD_Did

    History is full of people of science being shunned or even persecuted when the facts have proven to collide with the edicts of the powers that be. I hold scientists who stick to the facts, regardless where they lead in very high regard. That alone is  how white European society went from the dark ages into the enlightenment.   What are the powers that be afraid of most?   The truth.

  • robinbishop34

    …there is a feature of law school training that causes them to regard
    well- supported, well-reasoned, clearly presented argument…

    If you have some time would you go into a little more detail on this?

  • Tom_in_Miami

    “From reading this article, he apparently thought he had a point to prove
    with his mere data, when to be meaningful, more data was needed…”

    Mere data?  Data forms the soundest basis for forming an opion.  And I’m assuming that you read the book to conclude that “more data was (sic) needed.” 

  • JohnEngelman

    Small point: I was never in the Students for a Democratic Society. I thought, and think their harassment of Arthur Jensen and Richard Hernstein was hypocritical, and in the long run harmful to the left. 
    I was never in the American Communist Party either. I liked CPUSA members I knew, and do not believe the Party injected itself into this issue. Unlike SDS, CPUSA knew, having learned during the McCarthy Era, that in a power struggle over free speech rights the right would win.  
    I was in the Vietnam Moratorium Committee and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. Both of these organizations were committed to open political debate. 
    My political activist days are long over. All I do now is vote. 
    I agree with Arthur Jensen about the importance of the relationship between genes, intelligence, and race.  It infuriates me that his right to free speech was ever in question.