4 ms·

Gould is right that the people he discuss were racist. But you shouldn't use his book as an argument against modern psychometrics since it doesn't deal with tha

by ryan93 3y ago

Gould is right that the people he discuss were racist. But you shouldn't use his book as an argument against modern psychometrics since it doesn't deal with that much at al. In actuality Jensen's reputation has improved while Gould's has declined.

runarberg 3y ago
Despite having almost twice as long of a career Jensen has only a third of the citations Gould has. Goulds work continues to be influential in the field of psychology, while Jensen remains a controversial figure at best. Jensen spent his entire career trying to prove the existence of the g-factor which to this date remains unconvincing among the rest of psychology. Jensen’s work includes collaborations with other controversial and disgraced pseudo-scientists and eugenicists like Richard Lynn, while Goulds collaborator includes other influential figures like Howard Zinn and Richard Lewontin. The Wikipedia article for Jensen cites three separate authors criticizing Jensen’s findings, while the one for Gould doesn’t even have this section. These are some of my reasons for believing that Jensen’s reputation isn’t that great, at least compared to Gould. Now why do you believe the opposite?
- ryan93 3y ago
  I mean LOL at comparing citations. http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Arthur+R.+Jensen&column=author http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Arthur+R.+Jensen&column=auth... This is a good start. These books engage directly with the great bulk of modern IQ research.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Sorry, I said n citations, but I meant to say, has been cited n times. But honestly it raises no red flags that Jensen is the face of “modern IQ research”? His most influential work was from the 80s and the 90s, and was heavily criticized at the time (including by Gould). Since than there has been a revolution in non-linear statistics, are you satisfied that “modern IQ research” is basically the same stuff they were doing in the 70s? I mean even General relativity has evolved significantly with since the 70s as new technology becomes available to measure old predictions. Do you honestly think it is a sign of a healthy scientific theory that after a revolution in machine learning, they are still using same old factor analysis to back up their constructs?

by ryan93 3y ago

runarberg 3y ago

Despite having almost twice as long of a career Jensen has only a third of the citations Gould has. Goulds work continues to be influential in the field of psychology, while Jensen remains a controversial figure at best. Jensen spent his entire career trying to prove the existence of the g-factor which to this date remains unconvincing among the rest of psychology. Jensen’s work includes collaborations with other controversial and disgraced pseudo-scientists and eugenicists like Richard Lynn, while Goulds collaborator includes other influential figures like Howard Zinn and Richard Lewontin. The Wikipedia article for Jensen cites three separate authors criticizing Jensen’s findings, while the one for Gould doesn’t even have this section. These are some of my reasons for believing that Jensen’s reputation isn’t that great, at least compared to Gould. Now why do you believe the opposite?

ryan93 3y ago
I mean LOL at comparing citations. http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Arthur+R.+Jensen&column=author http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=Arthur+R.+Jensen&column=auth... This is a good start. These books engage directly with the great bulk of modern IQ research.
- runarberg 3y ago
  Sorry, I said n citations, but I meant to say, has been cited n times. But honestly it raises no red flags that Jensen is the face of “modern IQ research”? His most influential work was from the 80s and the 90s, and was heavily criticized at the time (including by Gould). Since than there has been a revolution in non-linear statistics, are you satisfied that “modern IQ research” is basically the same stuff they were doing in the 70s? I mean even General relativity has evolved significantly with since the 70s as new technology becomes available to measure old predictions. Do you honestly think it is a sign of a healthy scientific theory that after a revolution in machine learning, they are still using same old factor analysis to back up their constructs?