Editing Arthur Jensen (section)

==Assessment==
According to [[David Lubinski]] of Vanderbilt University, the "extent to which [Jensen's] work was either admired or reviled by many distinguished scientists is unparalleled."<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1037/a0032872|pmid = 23895609|title = Arthur R. Jensen (1923–2012)|journal = American Psychologist|volume = 68|issue = 5|pages = 396–397|year = 2013|last1 = Lubinski|first1 = David}}</ref>

After Jensen's death, [[James Flynn (academic)|James Flynn]] of the University of Otago, a prominent advocate of the environmental position, told ''[[The New York Times]]'' that Jensen was without racial bias and had not initially foreseen that his research would be used to argue for racial supremacy and that his career was "emblematic of the extent to which American scholarship is inhibited by political orthodoxy", though he noted that Jensen shifted towards genetic explanations later in life.<ref name="obit" />

===Support===

After psychologist [[Paul E. Meehl]] was honored by the APA in 1998, he wrote in the journal ''Psychological Reports'' that Jensen's "contributions, in both quality and quantity, certainly excelled mine" and that he was "embarrassed" that APA had not also honored Jensen, which Meehl claimed was due to [[political correctness]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Meehl|first1=Paul E.|title=Psychology of the Scientist: LXXVIII. Relevance of a Scientist's Ideology in communal Recognition of Scientific Merit |journal=Psychological Reports |year=1998 |volume=83 |issue=3 Suppl |pages=1123–44 |doi=10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3f.1123 |s2cid=144880914 |quote=There was one name conspicuously missing from the list, someone whose contributions, in both quality and quantity, certainly excelled mine, namely, Arthur Jensen. At least a third, and arguably the majority, of the recipients would have to say that about themselves in relation to Jensen. No informed rational mind can have the slightest doubt as to the explanation of this distressing social phenomenon: Arthur Jensen's facts are unpleasant to face, and his theoretical inferences from the facts are politically incorrect.}}</ref>

Psychologist [[Sandra Scarr]] wrote in the journal ''Intelligence'' in 1998 that Jensen possessed an "uncompromising personal integrity" and set the standard for "honest psychological science". She described his critics as "politically driven liars, who distort scientific facts in a misguided and condescending effort to protect an impossible myth about human equality".<ref name="scarr">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(99)80005-1 |title=On Arthur Jensen's integrity |journal=Intelligence |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=227–232 |year=1998 |last1=Scarr |first1=Sandra }}</ref>

Steven J. Haggbloom, writing for ''[[Review of General Psychology]]'' in 2002, rated Jensen as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, based on six different metrics chosen by Haggbloom.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Haggbloom | first1=Steven J. | last2=Warnick | first2=Renee | last3=Warnick | first3=Jason E. | last4=Jones | first4=Vinessa K. | last5=Yarbrough | first5=Gary L. | last6=Russell | first6=Tenea M. | last7=Borecky | first7=Chris M. | last8=McGahhey | first8=Reagan | last9=Powell | first9=John L. | last10=Beavers | first10=Jamie | last11=Monte | first11=Emmanuelle | title=The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century | journal=Review of General Psychology | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=6 | issue=2 | year=2002 | issn=1089-2680 | doi=10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139 | pages=139–152 | s2cid=145668721 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079436| citeseerx=10.1.1.586.1913 }}</ref>

In 1980 Jensen published a book in defense of the tests used to measure mental abilities, titled ''[[Bias in Mental Testing]]''. Reviewing this book, psychologist [[Kenneth Kaye]] endorsed Jensen's distinction between bias and discrimination, saying that he found many of Jensen's opponents to be more politically biased than Jensen was.<ref>K. Kaye, ''The Sciences'', January 1981, pp. 26-28.</ref>

===Criticism===

[[Melvin Konner]] of Emory University, wrote:
{{blockquote|
Statements made by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, and other investigators in the late 1960s and early 1970s about race and IQ or social class and IQ rapidly passed into currency in policy discussions. Many of these statements were proved wrong, but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant.
}}

Lisa Suzuki and [[Joshua Aronson]] of [[New York University]] wrote that Jensen had largely ignored evidence which failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent genetic racial differences.<ref>''The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy'' L Suzuki, J Aronson&nbsp;– Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005</ref>

Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] criticized Jensen's work in his 1981 book ''[[The Mismeasure of Man]]''. Gould writes that Jensen misapplies the concept of "[[heritability]]", which is defined as a measure of the [[Genetic diversity|variation]] of a trait due to inheritance ''within'' a population (Gould 1981: 127; 156–157). According to Gould, Jensen uses heritability to measure differences ''between'' populations.{{citation needed|date=January 2019}} Gould also disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable, ''g'', or "the [[general factor]] common to a large number of cognitive abilities" which can be measured along a unilinear scale. This is a claim most closely identified with [[Charles Spearman]]. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of [[L. L. Thurstone]] to ultimately support this claim; Gould, however, argues that Thurstone's [[factor analysis]] of intelligence revealed ''g'' to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314). Gould criticizes Jensen's sources including his use of [[Catharine Cox]]'s 1926 ''Genetic Studies of Genius'', which examines [[Historiometry|historiometrically]] the IQs of historic intellectuals after their deaths (Gould 1981: 153–154).