Myths in Psychology: Intelligence, Ideology, and Scientific Inquiry
In our country, the development of psychology has been plagued by a series of “myths”. In the process of training psychologists, these myths have often been used, and practitioners of psychology, partly as a result of the training they have received, have acted on their assumptions. This effect is detrimental to the training of psychologists and their subsequent work as professionals. On the one hand, it promotes the impression that the science is really a “pseudoscience” affected by margins of error and intolerable bias. On the other hand, it contributes to society’s vision of psychology as a science, which is very far from reality. It may therefore be relevant to discuss some of the “myths” currently present in the psychology of our country.
The “myth” that psychology is not a science has led to the idea that investigation and psychological practice will always be influenced by ideology. The assumption that the psychologist cannot do their work separate from ideology is considered in light of both historical cases, as well as two influential works of authors who have defended the thesis that psychology is necessarily ideologically constructed: Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould. It also describes three “myths” that are quite widespread and significantly damaging: “jensenism”, the effect of teacher expectations on the intellectual development of their students, and the fraudulent study of Sir Cyril Burt. Evidence offered here will call into question the assumptions that have fueled these myths.
Perhaps a critical review of the “myths” mentioned will help ensure that from now on, i.e., the time when the arrival of the third millennium is awaited, scientific psychology can develop its work as it really is, namely, as a scientific discipline.
The “Myth” That Psychology Is Not a Science: The Paradigm Case of Intelligence
Scientific theories are not true or false but probable or improbable, and must meet four criteria: 1) be replicable, 2) be parsimonious, 3) allow measurements, and 4) stimulate further research. Scientists must offer a clear theory and collect valid data for contrast.
There are psychological theories that are really worldviews looking for theories. Some examples are, according to Professor E. B. Hunt (1997), the developmental theory of Jean Piaget and Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. These visions of the world fuel theories that suggest, in fact, that psychology is not a science.
However, there are excellent scientific theories in psychology. For example, in the development of scientific theories about intelligence, a distinction is often made between conceptual variables and operational definitions. Intelligence is a conceptual variable, and psychological tests are a way to operationalize it. Criticisms of psychological tests have been based on their alleged bias both externally and internally (see the excellent analysis of Fidalgo, 1996 on the problem of bias). External bias refers to the predictability of tests, while internal bias refers to the cultural content of the tests, the influence of motivation on performance measured by them, and the intervention of differences in socioeconomic status (SES) on this performance. These criticisms have been rejected in numerous scientific publications (Anastasi, 1996; Braden, 1994; Brody, 1992; Carroll, 1993; Cronbach, 1990; Detterman, 1994, 1996; Detterman & Sternberg, 1982; Dunn & Plomin, 1990; Eysenck, 1995; Gottfredson, 1986; Hetherington et al., 1994; Jensen, 1980, 1981; Kaufman, 1990; Locurto, 1991; Loehlin et al., 1975; Mogdil & Mogdil, 1987; Plomin, 1994; Plomin & McClearn, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997; Reynolds & Brown, 1984; Rowe, 1994; Salkofske & Zeidner, 1995; Snyderman & Rothman, 1988; Seligman, 1992; Spitz, 1986; Sternberg, 1988; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Vernon, 1993; Wigdor & Gardner, 1982; Wolman, 1985).
In this regard, on December 13, 1994, the Wall Street Journal published a statement of 25 basic points on the scientific study of intelligence, signed by 52 scientists from different countries (Gottfredson et al., 1994). Its aim was to correct the misconceptions presented in the media following the controversy surrounding the publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Critics suggested that the book was based on an old-fashioned and pseudoscientific notion of intelligence. However, the knowledge that was caricatured in the media is actually sound scientific knowledge. This 25-point declaration was expanded two years later in a report by the American Psychological Association (Neisser et al., 1996).
The statement by the Wall Street Journal and the report of the APA are now available in Castilian to enable anyone interested to learn properly (see Andrew & Colom, 1998). Also in this magazine, an update of the knowledge accumulated by scientific psychology of intelligence was recently published (Colom & Andrew, 1999). Therefore, evidence showing the scientific soundness of the concept of intelligence will not be described here again.
The “Myth” of Jensenism
In the late 1960s, Professor Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley was harassed by some radical groups and associations following the publication of an extensive paper entitled “How Can We Raise IQ and School Performance?” in the Harvard Educational Review. In our country, 30 years after those events, there are still psychologists (not psychologists) who keep repeating the same accusations.
One of the best descriptions of the well-known case of Arthur Jensen can be found in the article by Lee J. Cronbach entitled Five Decades of Public Controversy Over Mental Testing, published in the journal American Psychologist in 1975. The contents listed here are drawn mostly from that article – see also Mogdil and Mogdil (1987), a volume where interesting discussions about the prospect of Professor Arthur R. Jensen can be found.
In 1967, Jensen published a little-known article about compensatory education, categorically denying what later became known as “jensenism”1. On comparative education, he wrote, “so obviously needed immediate action programs” (p. 4). On race (a single paragraph of the article), he wrote: “the fact that blacks and Mexicans are disproportionately represented among the lower classes… not be interpreted as evidence of a poor genetic potential… It seems a reasonable hypothesis that the lowest average IQ is due to environmental factors rather than genetic factors” (p. 10).
In the controversial case study from the Harvard Review, published in 1969, the issue of race accounted for less than 10% of the space, but it did look more for the relevance of these group differences in the field of remedial education. In fact, the main reason why psychologists decided to examine differences in intelligence between Euro- and African-Americans was the educational distance that separated the two social groups. Even in schools where equal educational treatment was guaranteed, remarkable differences in educational achievement between Euro- and African-American students were observed. It was reasoned that since intelligence was the best predictor of academic performance, intelligence could have an influence, at least in part, on the observed differences in educational attainment between social groups.
When asked the title of the monograph (“How Can We Raise IQ and School Performance?”), Jensen seemed to respond, “Nothing.” However, before the publication of this monograph, Jensen had urged to focus on improvement in performance, rather than IQ. Jensen’s own research had led him to the optimistic view that an alternative form of education would benefit children of low IQ and low-income families – it must be remembered that Jensen was a professor of educational psychology at the School of Education, UC Berkeley. Only the two last pages of the 120-page article in the Harvard Review offered this positive approach to compensatory education. The final message was, however, hidden behind the words of the introduction of the article: “Why has there been a uniform failure as compensatory education programs have been implemented anywhere?” (p. 3).
As soon as the article was available, its advertising began. The Harvard Review made the article available to the general press, with the main comments of his critics. Substantial extracts appeared in U.S. News and the New York Times, and to a lesser extent in other media. Two weeks later, members of the association “Students for a Democratic Society” led a virulent protest against Jensen.
Jensen argued in his monograph the familiar conclusion that a considerable part of the differences within the Euro-American population could be attributed to heredity and acknowledged differences between groups had some environmental sources, “but the potential importance of genetic factors in the ethnic-racial differences in behavior has been ignored, almost to the point of being a taboo subject, as were the venereal diseases and birth control more or less a generation” (Jensen, 1969, p. 80).
According to Cronbach (1975), the statement that comes closest to suggesting a genetic character of racial disadvantage is the following: “the discrepancy in… Average yield (of the disadvantaged, compared with the standard) can not be completely or directly attributed to discrimination or inequalities in education. It does not seem unreasonable… hypothesize that genetic factors may have a role… The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment…” (Jensen, 1969, p. 82).
According to Cronbach (1975), the language used by Jensen is also moderate throughout the article, but the massive and unilateral presentation developed in the monograph was interpreted as a conclusive statement. The news media were not able to weigh the matter as delicately as Jensen did. The space available to journalists did a remarkably good job playing various themes, although, unfortunately for Jensen, statements by the critics were quoted, not his original words.
The first wave of aftershocks occupied the same space as the original paper by Jensen. More answers in the summer issue of the Harvard Review took another 150 pages. The tone ranged from condemnation to applause from the controversy to technical analysis. Jensen took the opportunity given to him to reply to his critics.
A rally was also held in the academic community in Berkeley. In a spring where the radicals beat the “Establishment” with any kind of cane, nobody took seriously the request of Jensen’s hair. There was an attempt to invade their classrooms, but most of the unrest was centered in the campus newspaper. Some faculty members, as opposed to Jensen’s vision, decided it was necessary to hold a public debate to calm tempers. The Administration took control and set the rules, preparing a debate before a limited audience with an equal number of observers selected by each party. The event, which lasted three hours, was videotaped. Later it became a public screening before an audience of several hundred people, an unusually high number for academic events held in Berkeley.
In this debate, Jensen made a brief, considered, and articulated statement. He spoke of the possible genetic character of racial/ethnic differences, at least partially, as a simple working hypothesis that might merit some investigation, saying nothing that could be construed even as a tentative assessment that the “pool of African-American genetics” is lower. Two geneticists, two sociologists, and an educational psychologist responded. All materials that could be expressed in disciplined and intellectual terms were discussed for Berkeley students. While board members strongly attacked on several points, at no point did they invoke ideology or passion.
The board of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) was formed by 18 relevant psychologists characterized by liberal social trends. Several of them were very involved with civil rights and the activities of compensatory education. Six weeks after the outbreak of the news, they issued a statement (SPSSI, 1969) denying that there are some techniques to investigate ethnic/racial differences in innate character in the current conditions, saying the failure of compensatory education was in the planning and scope, not the idea, and denying the claims against environmental heritage as an inadequate simplification. In contrast, the American Anthropological Association launched a less restrained attack by adopting an anti-Jensen resolution that even its drafters considered ad hominem (see Jensen, 1972, p. 38).
As stated by Cronbach (1975), Jensen was right to declare the failure of compensatory education programs. However, Jensen’s article suggests that efforts to compensatory education should be abandoned, which had the effect of dramatizing the failure. However, the paper is a recognition that small-scale intensive programs are often successful, and Jensen’s position is a call to designing effective educational programs.
The controversy reached a wide audience, and Jensen’s name will be remembered by many scholars, not only of America but also in other countries. However, outside of the professional literature, the dispute had little space. The typical magazine publisher covered the controversy at one time; the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature lists 12 articles in 1969 and only 2 in 1970. However, as expressed by Cronbach (1975), debaters continued to search for, and often find, press space, some of them to declare to pay attention to human differences is inhumane and others to accuse egalitarians of Lysenkoism2.
In 1998, a monographic issue of the journal Intelligence was published, dedicated to Professor Arthur Robert Jensen. In presenting the issue, Douglas K. Detterman, editor of the magazine, makes the following amazing statement: “For several years I knew that Arthur Jensen would never receive the kind of recognition that institutions like the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Science, or the National Association for the Advancement of Science, would yield other scientists of much less intellectual stature. The reasons are obvious: Jensen has made controversial statements on politically unpopular issues that are important for the study of intelligence” (p. 175). One of the anecdotes described by Detterman in his presentation of the monograph is particularly appropriate here: “I heard all the rumors about Jensen. One of the most interesting is that he conspired with the Nixon cabinet to complete the project Headstart (…) how ridiculous this rumor is that during the Nixon administration, the budget devoted to Headstart increased dramatically” (p. 178). Detterman (1998) concludes his presentation with a word to which nothing can be added: “I think that reading this issue they will see that, whatever may be the views of each other, Arthur Jensen is a man to respect, not only for what he has done but for who he is. Thank you, Professor Jensen” (p. 178).
The “Myth” of the Influence of Teacher Expectations on Student Intelligence: Pygmalion in the Classroom
After Jensen’s monograph, the work on tests that got more attention in the press was “Pygmalion in the Classroom” by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). In the same episode as Professor Arthur Jensen, even today in our country there are psychologists who allegedly brandish the facts demonstrated in the study of Rosenthal. While “Pygmalion” has been translated into Spanish, much of the criticism from the scientific community that was released shortly afterward has never been translated. That may be one reason that they continue to resort to a result that was rejected long ago.
Rosenthal’s work was the subject of hot controversy within the scientific community. However, the controversy was not available to the public. According to Cronbach (1975), one might wonder why.
Originally, Rosenthal noted that psychologists tend to experiment with animals, so they “unconsciously” favor the results consistent with their hypothesis. This favoritism could materialize in non-randomized observational mistakes or preparing individuals to respond as expected in the hypothesis.
Rosenthal undertook a study to demonstrate similar effects were in school when teachers “knew what to expect.” They were given a number of teachers in California a list of students who were supposed to have been exceptionally promising on an intelligence test but in fact had been randomly selected. We are told that months after, these children had progressed more than a control group of students. It was assumed that teachers had created talents on their own to fit the prophecy.
However, according to the technical reviewers of Rosenthal’s work, “Pygmalion in the Classroom” does not merit any consideration as a thorough investigation. The “experimental manipulation” of the teacher’s beliefs was incredibly casual – a piece of paper added to the agenda of the professor, who apparently went to the trash a few seconds later. The technical review indicated that the earnings of the “magic” children were an artifact of poor experimental design and inadequate statistical analysis.
The Pygmalion study was conducted between 1964 and 1966, and a preliminary report of a few pages was published in a book on the effects of the experimenter, followed by more numerous reports including new stories. In 1968, Rosenthal had written “Pygmalion in the Classroom” (with Jacobson), along with some articles in Psychology Today and Scientific American. The editor sent the manuscript to some reviewers, and the opinions ranged from huge praise to harsh criticism. No one could say that the decision to publish the book was unreasonable, but one could have expected that the final edition of the book would have recognized that the methodology was questionable.
While several pages were devoted to the “results” in favor of California, less than 500 words were spent to inform about Rosenthal’s study in Massachusetts, where the “significant” differences were favorable to the control group!.
Much of the professional debate prompted by “Pygmalion in the Classroom” is reflected in the volume edited by Elsahoff and Snow (1971), a project of the National Society of the Study of Education. The vehemence of the criticism directed at Rosenthal’s work can be summarized in the following quote from the review by R. L. Thorndike, “Pygmalion is so technically deficient that you can only regret that it has gone beyond the personal files of researchers” (Elsahoff & Snow, 1971, p. 65).
What was told to the lay public? Nothing was said about the scientific controversy raised, but the public could read many things about the study as irrefutable evidence that mental testing causes damage. Significantly, the media ignored the battle within the scientific community about the quality of the evidence they presented as conclusive.
The New York Times devoted a warm front-page story to Rosenthal on August 8, 1967, when the book appeared. A tiny fraction located in the back mentioned in passing that the studies in Massachusetts and Ohio “had not clearly confirmed” the results of California. They did not say anything about the conflicting evidence; in fact, the next paragraph would repeat that teacher expectations are a powerful determinant of student performance.
In the New York Review of Books, Herbert Kohl (1968) was unsure of the accuracy of the findings but believed that Rosenthal had been working ethically flawed because the experimenters assumed the role of “gods” and acquired knowledge “by lying and bad faith” (p. 31).
Such digressions about “experts” as secular gods of the twentieth century, the effect they can have a couple of experts armed with tons of paper, and the dense language of theorists, are characteristics of an anti-intellectual tone present in almost all attacks on tests and research into human differences (Cronbach, 1975).
The “Myth” of the Malice of the Pioneers of Psychological Assessment
Even today, ancient references to actions that are attributed to the pioneers of psychological evaluation remain popular in our country. People often hear that the first reviewers tried to demonstrate the inferiority of certain social groups from supposedly scientific results derived from assessment instruments such as intelligence tests. Let us consider two cases: the Act of Immigration Restriction in the United States approved in 1924 and the well-known Kallikak family study.
The Minutes of Immigration Restriction, 1924
One of the most incendiary accusations directed against the first psychological assessment, and in general against psychology as practiced by the pioneers in this discipline, refers to the alleged connection between those who fell in the Nazi Holocaust and the actions of the reviewers of intelligence.
Both Leon Kamin (1974) and Stephen Jay Gould (1981, 1996) have accused psychology of having a role in the Act Immigration Restriction adopted by the United States Congress in 1924. Supposedly, psychological outcomes have been used by some members of Congress to prevent the entry into the country of millions who were then exterminated by the Nazis: “immigration from southern and eastern Europe were reduced to a minimum. Throughout the 1930s, Jewish refugees, anticipating the Holocaust, sought to emigrate to the United States but were rejected (…) Chase (1977) has calculated that these quotas prevented the entry of six million European Southern, central and east between 1924 and the outbreak of the Second World War (…) We know what happened to many who wanted to leave his country but had nowhere to go” (Gould, 1981, p. 244).
However, the facts do not seem consistent with the story told by Gould or Kamin. A major piece of historical evidence on which this charge is based has to do with the assessment of immigrants into Ellis Island in New York, using the metric scale of intelligence developed in France by Alfred Binet. This metric scale was being adapted for use with the U.S. population by Henry Goddard.
Goddard thought he could benefit from the availability of subjects who came to Cuba to contrast some data on the sensitivity of the metric scale to identify people with intellectual retardation. Specifically, it sought views on whether the scale was sensitive to developmental delay, both among immigrants and among Native Americans.
Goddard worked at Ellis Island with only 178 highly pre-selected subjects, i.e., subjects who, at first glance, could be retarded persons. In no event did Goddard (1917) argue that 80% of Russians, Jews, or any other immigrant group, were mentally retarded, or that the data analyzed were representative of the immigrants who landed on the island. Nor did he say the delay in development measured by the Binet scale could be attributed to heredity (Snyderman & Herrnstein, 1983; Rushton, 1997).
Therefore, almost all immigrants who passed through Ellis Island in New York were never evaluated by psychological tests. The only study by Goddard (1917) on the evaluation of immigrants begins with the following sentence: “This is not a study on immigrants in general, but about six very small numbers and selected” (p. 243, quoted in Rushton, 1997).
Probably the most convincing refutation of the incendiary argument of Gould and Kamin on the pioneers of the assessment of intelligence is in the article published in the journal American Psychologist by Mark Snyderman and Richard Herrnstein in 1983. The article shows that the first intelligence evaluators never considered that their results could support any policy of restricting immigration. Moreover, the United States Congress never had notice of the data analyzed by the evaluators of Ellis Island, none of the relevant authors in the field were called to testify before Congress, and none of the studies were officially registered as support for the Minutes of the Immigration Restriction, 1924 referred to by Gould in his influential book “The Mismeasure of Man.”
The Kallikak Family
Another serious charge against the first reviewers of intelligence by Gould in “The Mismeasure of Man” was linked to the intelligence of certain social strata families considered “depressed”. The best known in this regard is the Kallikak family (in our country, Professor John Delval – 1988 – has described the accusations of Gould in his popular book on intelligence).
It is assumed that Henry Goddard had detected in a region of New Jersey a race of paupers and idlers. It is suggested that this strain had resulted from the union of a man considered “decent” and a servant allegedly feebleminded tavern. The man was later married to a woman considered “respectable”, leading to a race of honest citizens. The man had founded, therefore, a “good” race and a “bad” one. Therefore, Goddard decided to give the man the name Martin Kallikak (kallos = beautiful, kakos = bad).
Among other things, Gould accuses Goddard of having manipulated photographs of family members Kallikak. He said that “all photographs of kakos not at the institution were fabricated by adding lines that gave very dark eyes and mouths that sinister appearance” (p. 174).
However, two papers published in the journal American Psychologist (Glenn & Ellis, 1988; Fancher, 1987) show that this kind of photo retouching was common at that time. But in addition, these reports demonstrate that these alterations were responsible for improving the appearance of the photographed people!
The “Myth” of Fraud by Cyril Burt
Cyril Burt is often used as an example in some areas of psychology. It is argued that this author invented and falsified his data to support the notion that intelligence is inherited. More specifically, it indicates that the correlation of more than 0.7 that he suggested to express the degree of similarity between different samples of twins reared apart allowed him to conclude, backed by enough scientific guarantees, that intelligence was “completely” hereditary.
Such statements have three strong implications. On the one hand, the extensive work of a notable psychologist is reduced to one of the many lines of research to which he devoted his professional life, with most of them useful to help improve the quality of life of the socially disadvantaged. On the other hand, it capitalizes on the case for attacking a field of work, such as the genetics of behavior, in which there are major research groups worldwide that are adding daily evidence relevant to understanding the causes of variability of human behavior. And finally, it helps students to acquire a misunderstanding of the evidence that psychology brings to the scientific community. For example, the correlation values supposedly invented by Burt in no case may support the conclusion that intelligence is “completely” hereditary, because for that to be so, the correlation value should be 1.0 and not slightly more than 0.7!
In 1994, J. P. Rushton published an article about Burt in Society magazine entitled “Victim of Scientific Trap.” Some of the data considered in this article may be relevant to the case of authors such as Burt, Kamin, and Gould, who have extensively analyzed it.
Burt was a professor of educational psychology since 1924. In fact, he was the first educational psychologist hired by a council (of London) to work professionally in the field of public education in a systematic way. His belief that access to advanced school systems should be based on tests and not on class privilege led him to be considered an intellectual liberal. In 1946 he was knighted (Sir) by the Labor government, in consideration of his work on psychological testing and for helping to increase educational opportunities available to socially disadvantaged people.
Burt pioneered the implementation of medical checks and dental school to ensure that the development of children followed a normal course and was partly responsible for the daily distribution of milk to ensure that vitamin D levels were appropriate and that rickets could be gradually eliminated. In addition to malnutrition, Burt identified other physical causes of the low concentration of pupils, such as hearing impairment, vision, speech, and curvature of the spine.
He was also one of the first authors to consider sociological factors associated with poor school performance, finding a relationship between residential indicators, high infant mortality, saturation of households, poverty, unemployment, and the long series of variables that are now well known. He also worried openly about the difficulties in identifying bright children from more deprived social classes.
The so-called “Burt Affair” began in 1973 when Leon Kamin called attention to the irregularity of Burt’s data. The scandal became public following a Sunday Times article published in 1976. Three years later, Burt’s biographer, Leslie Hearnshaw, returned verdicts of guilt. In 1980, without opening an inquiry, the British Psychological Society supported the guilty verdict.
However, in 1989, Robert Joynson published a book in which he reopened the case of Burt. His conclusions were that the case opened against Burt was too “murky”. In a separate study published in 1991, Ronald Fletcher concluded with the verdict of “not proven” fraud.
Some of the variables surrounding the “Burt Affair” are surprising. For example, most documents were destroyed by Burt’s housekeeper immediately after his death, on the advice of Liam Hudson, professor of educational psychology at the University of Edinburgh, and one of Burt’s most ardent opponents.
While some authors are clear that Burt committed fraud in his reports on the correlation of twins reared apart, others consider that the fraudulent nature of these data can not be proved, without involving denying that their data are unreliable (see McKinstosh, 1995). Therefore, perhaps a more focused conclusion could be that the evidence of fraud by Burt is not strongly demonstrated. It is almost certain that there are irregularities in Burt’s data, but it is not surprising that the correlational data published by Burt are as consistent with those derived from the numerous investigations that have been performed after (0.75 versus the ratio of 0.77 published by Burt, see Bouchard et al., 1990).
Currently, there are psychologists in our country that continue to use the “myth” of Cyril Burt’s fraud to discredit the research on the genetics of intelligence. However, it should be borne in mind two things: 1) the fraudulent character of Burt’s data remains an open question, and 2) whether or not Burt’s data is considered, the results of genetic studies of intelligence are clear and thorough (Andrés Pueyo, 1997; Colom, 1997 b, 1998; Hunt, 1997; Juan-Espinosa, 1997; Neisser et al., 1996; Plomin & DeFries, 1998; Plomin & Petrill, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997).
The “Myth” of the Indissoluble Union Between Science and Ideology in Psychological Research (Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould)
Some argue that, in psychology, it is impossible to separate the scientific from the ideological. Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould have been among the most ardent defenders of this view. We will devote the following pages to analyze their two most emblematic works, as they are well known in our country and have exerted a considerable influence on students and professionals, although the international scientific community has discredited most of their contents.
Science and Politics of IQ (Leon Kamin)
In the introduction to his book, published in 1974, Kamin writes that attempt to answer a basic question: “inherit the scores on tests of intelligence (the IQ, CI)?” (P. 5). According to him, his study comes to two conclusions. On one hand, that “there are no data that lead to a prudent person to accept the hypothesis that scores on IQ tests are heritable in any degree” (p. 5). And, secondly, that “in America, IQ tests, as well as our opinions about them have been promoted by people committed to a particular vision of society. This vision includes the belief that the bottom ones are genetically inferior victims of their own shortcomings immutable. The result is that IQ tests have served as an instrument of oppression against the poor, magazine with the mantle of science and not the policy (…) They proved that the poor, foreigners and racial minorities were stupid. It showed that they were born that way “(p. 6).
Kamin performs very harsh statements about the object of his work: “patriotism, it is said, is the last refuge of scoundrels. Psychologists and biologists should consider that the thesis is the first hereditary (…) the views of teachers Jensen and Herrnstein have influenced considerably wider circles than academics. His interpretation of CI data has been submitted to the congressional committees responsible for policy formulation within welfare. The hope that moved me to write this book is not only to make a contribution to scientific knowledge, but also to influence planners and perhaps on some scientists who do not realize that their science and policy are not clearly separable. (p. 8-9).
Kamin critical work includes two parts. First, he accuses the pioneers of mental testing movement in the U.S., have used tests of a more or less deliberately to keep their inferior status to the underprivileged classes. Kamin search the psychological literature from 1910 to 1920 and, of course, find some absurd statements about ethnic minorities and low income groups. However, according Loehlin, Lindzey and Spuhler (1975), this author “does not mention the statements can also be found in the same literature, often performed by the same authors, who suggest that one of the main objectives of the movement tests was overcome traditional social barriers by identifying and supporting talented young people located in any social stratum “(p. 293) 3. That is, it is relatively easy to find good things and bad things in the history of mental testing movement. “For some reason, Kamin decides to inform his readers of things only evil” (Loehlin et al., 1975, p. 293).
Second, Kamin attacks the data suggesting a substantial heritability of performance on intelligence tests. We will review a series of classic studies on the subject. Surprisingly, however, Kamin “does not dispute the oldest and most widely used to estimate the heritability of intelligence, ie, the comparison of twins and twins raised in the same family” (Loehlin et al., 1975, p. 294).
Kamin falls again and again in the dilemma “heredity or environment. Thus, it seems that if he can prove an environmental influence, then genes can not play any role. Instead, the authors have used the behavioral genetics designs considered that environmental factors are relevant and based on their own studies to demonstrate empirically. The genetics of behavior that divide the variance of IQ genetic components and non-genetic, have no doubt about the influence of non-genetic (environmental) performance on intelligence tests.
Loehlin et al. (1975) review the uncertainties in the work of Kamin, concluding that “although his critics consider some significant methodological points to make and evaluate studies in this area of work [in behavioral genetics], in our opinion not an impartial probe data, and you have enough logical and methodological problems that your reader should think twice about what it means what you read before accepting the findings of Kamin “(p. 299).
In the preface to the Spanish edition of the book – translated by Pilar Soto and Carlos Solis – launched in 1983, ie nine years after the original English edition, Kamin echoes the critical comment Loehlin et al. (1975). Kamin writes that “the institutional response of American psychology chapter 3 – on Burt’s data – was typically embodied in a book commissioned by the Social Science Research Council, from the pen of Loehlin, Lindzey and Spuhler (1975) ‘( p. 1). For some reason, Kamin makes no allusion to the large number of comments directed at his book by Loehlin et al. (1975) for focusing problems, conceptual and methodological their reanalysis. Furthermore, the statement seems to leave the impression that the scientific community is deeply flawed, while he is in possession of the truth.
It is striking that, in the same preface, Kamin type, since the publication of his work in 1974, new studies have been performed on topics included in it “makes the claim that IQ is highly heritable even less plausible than before “(p.2). However, his statement contrasts with the following statement extracted from the Report of the APA on intelligence (Neisser et al., 1996): ‘like any trait, intelligence is the joint product of genetic and environmental variables. The gene action always involves an environment (biochemical or social) environments always act via structures to which genes have contributed. Given a feature in which individuals vary, however, may wonder how much of the variation is associated with differences in their genotypes (ie the heritability of the trait) and what part is associated with differences in environmental experience . Thus defined, heritability (h 2) can and do vary from one population to another. In the case of IQ, h 2 is significantly lower in children (.45) than adults (.75). This means that as children get older, the differences in test scores tend to reflect growing differences in the genotype and individual life experience rather than differences between families in which reared (…) the genetic differences in equipment contribute substantially to individual differences in psychometric intelligence as measured by intelligence tests.
The character ‘distinctiveness’ of the storyline of Kamin, can be stated in its concluding words of his work: “assert that there is no genetic determination of IQ would make a dramatic statement and meaningless scientifically. We can not prove the null hypothesis and we should ask what we did. The problem is whether there are valid points of interest and requiring us to reject the null hypothesis. There should be no confusion here. The burden of proof must lie with those who defend the implausible thesis that the way a child answers the questions designed by an examiner of intelligence is determined by an invisible (…) genotype may be genetically determined differences among people with regard to their cognitive and intellectual abilities. To demonstrate this, the psychologists were to develop test instruments that serve to perform an adequate measure of such capabilities. Although they have not done such a thing just developed IQ tests “(p. 242).
The conclusion to his work, as in the presentation and the rest of the book is full of statements that might well be taken as the payment, by Kamin, a sort of conspiracy theory to which he later criticized. Here are some examples as illustration:
– “We are asked to conclude that a low IQ score indicates a genetic defect (Kamin, 1974, p. 244).
Kamin, somehow overlooked that no scientist has argued that intelligence thing. An IQ score of observable performance is subject to a number of problems (Carroll, 1995).
– “The assumption that anyone who has not learned these things – the defendants in IQ tests – has been unable to do so due to poor blood is not only free but also concerned ‘(Kamin, 1974, p. 244).
Kamin “forgets”, incomprehensibly, that intelligence researchers have argued that performance on tests to measure phenotypes, genotypes never.
– “The worst blood today, considering the IC as a mirror of the genotype, is the black blood (…) racial differences attributable to genetic factors, given the overwhelming cultural and environmental differences between races, is to mix insanity with malice “(Kamin, 1974, p. 244).
Also, Kamin turns its back on any scientific fact that intelligence has never mixed individual differences within a group with the differences between groups, much less been implemented without more is known about the heritability of individual differences within a group average differences between groups. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that it is the Kamin who believed that what IQ tests say about the IC can support anything on (in his own words) “the blood of those who responded to these tests,” or that it is the Kamin also those who believe that IQ tests may say something about the genetic character of racial / ethnic differences, or maybe it’s him that scientists would like to forget the wisdom that oblige the data.
– “The psychology of intelligence examiners ruled against compensatory education, and killed at egalitarianism. This is bad news for the dispossessed, teachers, and behaviorists egalitarians’ (Kamin, 1974, p. 245).
Again, Kamin mixture ad libitum for science and ideology, may thus be able to argue with a margin intolerable. You can not play chess if one of the contestants occasionally applies the rules of chess, checkers, or Parcheesi? To argue that available data support the conclusion that compensatory education programs seem to have fulfilled its objectives, in any case mean that we should ‘condemn’ ostracism programs of this nature. It means that maybe you should try to understand why not seem to have worked out plans and alternatives which might be more efficient for the benefit of the socially disadvantaged. Let’s see what he says E. Hunt (1995): “Psychologists have been frustrated in finding ways to increase cognitive function. Research has shown how you can reduce the intelligence of the person through physical intervention, but how it can improve. Unlike the strategy employed by Kamin, consisting of both destroy such conclusions as to who made it, Hunt for alternative ways to overcome this situation: “Even though we do not know how to improve intelligence, as the estimated scores tests, the key is what skills people have, not what their IQ scores. We may be unable to destroy the connection between IQ scores and the relative possession of cognitive skills (and it is unclear why we should even try), but improved education and training, can increase the average level of achievement of all students ‘.
In summary, Leon Kamin’s work has exerted a considerable influence on the training of psychologists and educators of our country. His remarks have penetrated the beliefs of a field of study in psychology well-defined and rigorous. Here we have tried to show the possibly biased nature of their statements, how to build their own critique (his particular “man of straw”) and how it chooses to present only the negative side of the issues it addresses. Yet surely conclusive behind language used by Kamin, there are arguments and statements relevant to scientific research. Just be surprised by the fact that Kamin opts for the destructive side of criticism, when it could have guided his undoubted talent and ability to critique constructively toward a vision that would contribute to understand the issues in his own opinion, are relevant to the explanation of human behavior and society as a whole. The reasons for opting for the more destructive version is something that escapes this writer and intelligence scientists who have analyzed his work4.
The Mismeasure of Man (Stephen Jay Gould)
In the words of Gould (1981) “The Mismeasure of Man” examines “the abstraction of intelligence as a singular entity, its location in the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and use those numbers to classify people in a single scale of merit, and discover in all cases the groups – race, class or gender – oppressed and disadvantaged are innately inferior and deserve to occupy that position (…) the arguments made by the deterministic to classify people under a single scale of intelligence are virtually confined to social prejudice (…) play a biological determinism is essentially a theory that sets limits. He said that each group’s position actually occupies in society is a measure of what the group could and should be (…) live in a world of distinctions and preferences among men, but extrapolation of these facts for transform them into theories that set rigid limits is an ideological product.
Shortly after the publication of this influential work of Gould, appeared several critical fixes for that, for some reason, the media did not echo. Some of the criticisms of that work appeared in journals such as Science, Nature, or Science ’82. In the Contemporary Education Review was published critical comment from Jensen (1982), Contemporary Psychology’s comment Spuhler (1982), and Applied Psychological Measurement in the comments of Jones (1983) and Humphreys (1983). In 1995, John B. Carroll published a review of Gould’s work in the prestigious journal Intelligence. Despite these critical comments on Gould’s work, this is being cited frequently in the social science literature as if its contents include some rigorous and relevant.
As illustration will then review the critical comments of Arthur R. Jensen and John B. Carroll.
Critical commentary by Arthur R. Jensen
This comment has the significant title “The destruction of scientific fossils and straw persons’ .. In a quick summary of the work of art, says Jensen, says Gould, quantification and reification of intelligence facilitates and justifies the distinctions and divisions of people based social and political dictates. This trend was embodied in turn in the craniometry and in more recent times the witness has been taken by the psychometrics. According to Gould, the psychometricians were the descendants of craniometric as its mission the same: to demonstrate that people’s innate construction is reflected in its economic and social situation. Both craniometry as psychometrics, would be based on the false belief that intelligence is something located in the head and that his measure allows direct people, social classes and races, as his “mental value ‘ . According to Jensen, Gould ceaselessly invoke the term “value” as a substitute for “intelligence” or “CI”.
With regard to the subjectivity of scientific research, which relies so insistent Gould, Jensen takes the example of Mendel and Lysenko. Mendel’s theory was accepted, while Lysenko’s position has been rejected (even by Russian ideologues at the time the promotion), not because either of these two scientists were a man “better” than the other, but because , after all, there is a reality out there, a reality that scientists must use to criticize and contrasting theories, although each of these scientists have their own unconscious biases that may be affecting their work somehow.One advantage of science is that its practitioners do not have to be “saints, because science is a self-correcting process, not a religion. Gould acknowledges that science works this way, but for some reason, excluded from that recognition to the science of behavior. According to Jensen, Gould’s work destroyed, but adds nothing. Yet, even destroy it may be relevant in science, but when what is destroyed has no authority, then we are left with empty hands. The peculiar choice Gould conducting scientific relics attacked again and again, makes his work a kind of “boxing” with its own shadow “instead of considering the issues of contemporary research, paleontologist Gould rages with a collection of fossils and museum scientists from a number of people with straw of his own creation.
Most of the references in the book are distressingly old: 27% of the quotes are from before 1900, 44% are between 1900 and 1950 (60% of which predate 1925), and only 29% are past the 50s. Basically, Gould, according to Jensen, contains few “bad apples” that has been found to serve their purposes. In Jensen’s words “the first steps of any science often have a strange look on some issues. Why should we expect science of behavior and the brain constitute the great exception? Should we ridicule the first astronomers to declare that the earth was the center of the universe, or the early anatomists for declaring that the heart was the seat of emotion? Why you should be asked to psychology since its inception offered a look of maturity and perfection? “.
Gould said that Jensen says quote his own words on nine occasions. However, in eight of these nine cases, Gould lies or caricatures her words. Making a mistake in quoting another author’s something that can happen, but doing so consistently so it is quite shocking. Gould transforms reality into straw persons can easily be destroyed. Some examples:
– According to Gould, Jensen confused individual differences with group differences.
However, Jensen has never held that differences in IQ among certain social groups are a matter of heredity, or that the partially hereditary nature of individual differences within each group demonstrated the heritability of differences between them: ethnic and racial differences and class differences are primarily individual (ie, are the statistical averages of individual measures), but the causes of group differences may not be the same as the causes of individual differences (Jensen, 1970, p. 154). According to Jensen (1982) this has always been his position. The reason that Gould has chosen to misrepresent his position is unknown to him.
– According to Gould, “Jensen admits that his theory of IQ inheritance depends on the validity of g 5 (…) Jensen has demonstrated by example that a reified g remains the only promising justification theories hereditarians average differences CI between human groups.
Jensen (1983) says these words without pointing out its meaning: “neither I nor any behavioral genetic declared or believed anything like that (…) the heritability is entirely independent of the factor structure of the variables in question.
– Gould maintains that Jensen has referred to g reified as a measurable object.
But in the same job they are supposed to draw this conclusion Gould, Jensen writes that “intelligence is not an entity but a theoretical construct … the g factor is also a theoretical construct, which in theory could help explain an observable phenomenon, namely the positive correlation between number of mental tests, regardless of their apparent differences (Jensen, 1980 b, p. 249). As for Gould’s interpretation of some of the data considered by Jensen in his book Bias in Mental Testing (Jensen, 1980 b) shows that this does not include, for example, that a varimax rotation of factors derived from a factor analysis to extract prevents g – Carroll’s comment that described below, delves into this kind of serious mistakes in falling Gould.
– According to Gould, “it is surprising that Jensen has served as Burt’s data as the source of important information in his monograph of 1969 on inherited differences in intelligence and allegedly incorrigible between the euro and African Americans.
However, Jensen said that in fact he has never used the evidence arising from the differences between twins in discussing any aspect of ethno-racial differences.
– Gould points out in his work that “Jensen believes that all God’s creatures can be ordered on the scale of g, from amoebas to extraterrestrial intelligence.
However, according to Jensen, this statement comes from a section of his transvestite Bias in mental testing work on the results of research in the field of animal intelligence. Jensen referred to extraterrestrial intelligence after 75 pages of that section and related to another issue entirely. The organization to which Gould refers is simply a product of his own mind.
– Gould also refers to the data considered by Jensen on the correlation between IQ and brain size. Gould writes “Jensen has no doubt that the correlation is significant and that there is a direct causal effect, through natural selection during human evolution, between intelligence and brain size.
According to Jensen, to start this hypothesis is not his, but Leigh Van Valen (1974) biologist at the University of Chicago. Why Gould cites this important work of Van Valen? The answer is that Gould is interested in possibly attributed to Van Valen’s hypothesis of an alleged radical statement of Jensen. Contrary to what Gould says, the chapter under attack is a summary of studies on the relationship between measures of variables such as intelligence and brain size, evoked potentials, metabolic consumption, obesity or myopia. Nowhere in that chapter Jensen tries to offer an explanation for these correlations in relation to what Gould called “innateness of IQ.
– In the words of Gould “Jensen also use g to support its statement that the average IQ difference between Euro and African Americans is symptomatic of an innate deficiency of intelligence of African Americans.
Nowhere in the reference to the supposedly refers Gould, and in any other publications of Jensen, has been inferred genetic causation of racial / ethnic differences from the g factor. And, of course, nowhere has declared an “innate deficiency” of the intelligence of African Americans, or any other social group.Their position can be summarized in the following sentence: “The fact is that there is currently no satisfactory scientific explanation of the differences between the distributions of IQ euro and African American populations. The only genuine agreement among scientists on the subject well documented that the cause of the difference remains an open question “(Jensen, 1981, p. 213). As said Jensen (1982) “ap to ably Gould Decl a ration tolerates ie ab Depart ment as an agnostic on scientific questions with important social implications.
One of the major themes of Gould’s work is the aforementioned relationship between brain size and intelligence. Virtually all the data considered by Gould have a length of at least 100 years. Gould ignores the recent literature on the subject in which there is a moderate interest in whether brain size has anything to do with intelligence, in the sense that evolution has favored the selection of large brains process information better prepared for each more complex – in our country, recently two authors involved in the famous “Project Atapuerca” have published a book that explores huge commercial success, including this important evolutionary issue (Arsuaga and Martínez, 1998) 6. The important and well-known work of Van Valen, 1974 simply does not exist in the pages of Gould’s book of 1981. While the importance of scientific speculation comes only from its relationship with some theory and the possibility of contrasting or susceptibility to the empirical, the rejection of the nineteenth century to craniometry Gould is simply the prelude to his assault on intelligence tests (Jensen , 1982).
Gould’s extensive chapter devoted to “the theory hereditarians IQ” does not, according to Jensen (1982) no valuable knowledge about the true nature of the current popular controversy over the inheritance of mental fitness. Most of this chapter is designed to ridicule some of the pioneers of mental testing. Jensen says that the excesses committed by Gould in this chapter the reader will surely have been conscientious to wonder if these authors really were as stupid as he states. Surprisingly, further extension of Gould’s free to researchers today.
When referring to the g factor, Gould uses a cryptic language, of course, is self-created, not the authors who are supposed to date. Some of the terms he uses Gould are ‘innate general intelligence, ineluctable, “” innate essence of intelligence, “” a hard thing to quantify, “” a quantifiable fundamental particle, “” a material thing in the most direct sense ” . Gould knows that the g factor has nothing to do with the heritability. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the original works of Spearman, who also says Gould resort, you can see that in no case to reify g: this is, again, of a “straw man” created by himself . To which Gould called reification is nothing more nor less than the usual practice in science to suggest explanatory models that try to account for the observed relationships in a particular field of knowledge. Examples are the heliocentric theory of planetary motion, the Bohr atom, electromagnetic fields, kinetic theory of gases, gravity, quarks, Mendelian genes, mass, or speed. None of these constructs exists as a palpable entity occupying a space ‘Is that Gould is denying the right psychology of science to employ all hypothetical constructs or theoretical speculation relating to causal explanations of their observable phenomena? “. (Jensen, 1982).
In the final part of his critique, Jensen briefly reviewed the current developments that have taken place in the scientific study of g, but will not be reviewed here (see Andrés Pueyo, 1997; Colom, 1998; Colom and Andrew, 1999 ; Gottfredson, 1997; Jensen, 1998, Juan-Espinosa, 1997). According to Jensen (1982) all these advances are virtually ignored in the work of Gould, which if it does not swell the list of absurdities that, according to Jensen (1982) run through “The Mismeasure of Man” 7.
Jensen’s comment ends with the following paragraph: “Gould’s book is so repetitive and doctrinaire contempt finally says absolutely nothing about the extent relevant mental. Although Gould’s book will be warmly welcomed (along with Kamin’s book “Science and Politics of IQ), it is difficult to know in what sense this book is a scientific contribution or help to inform the general public in a responsible manner on the issues truly important mental testing today.
Critical Review of John B. Carroll
Carroll (1995) agrees with Jensen (1982) to maintain the historical review that does Gould on mental testing movement is clearly biased with the intention of prejudicing the public negatively on the investigation of human capabilities.
Gould devotes considerable space to criticizing the factor analysis, statistical technique commonly used to operationalize one of the core concepts of the scientific study of intelligence: the g factor. According to Carroll (1995) Gould does not understand the logic of factor analysis.
There are two basic premises that Gould used, but are questionable. On the one hand that the urge to classify and rank the population is as intense as wrong, and, secondly, that scientists can not be objective, given that their results reflect their culture and unconscious prejudices.
However, Gould does not indicate the reason why it is wrong to classify and rank individuals. The classification is usually a basic technique in any science, including in the field in which Gould is an expert (the paleobiology). It is difficult to progress in science without inquiring what are the attributes of the object being studied. Often the very act of assigning attributes to the sorts of things. In psychology can assign attributes to individuals with regard to age, social status or aggression. And, as mentioned, the measure is one of the basic techniques of science.
Secondly, Gould may have been right about that scientists are not objective when choosing their subjects for study. However, there is no reason for not being objective in what they study and how. In particular, the trend was particularly critical of Gould to attribute the failures (which was) of researchers from the 20s to researchers today. If anything ancient authors as Goddard or Brigham assumed that there are some “races” human “higher” or “inferior” in terms of intellectual performance, this should not lead to think that contemporary writers like Jensen and Rushton represent something. Carroll (1995), in open defense who can testify that says “Jensen does not believe that African Americans are in no way less worthy than any other so-called races. Indeed, Jensen has been concerned more and more active than other scientists trying to understand the problem of how to interpret and what to do with the lesser known African Americans’ average score on standardized measures of intelligence. This has been totally ignored by most critics of Jensen “(p. 124).
With regard to scientific objectivity, Carroll expressed his own personal experience of the reasons why they began using the technique of factor analysis to study the language: “My motivation to study and use factor analysis has always been related with scientific research cognitive processes. I can not believe that motivation is associated with some kind of pernicious social attitude “(p. 125) 8.
Carroll notes that some have considered the statement of Gould on the factor analysis as something masterful. However, “I consider master only when used that word to describe the performance of a magician who manages to convince his audience of illusory phenomena” (p. 125). Here are some points raised by Carroll (1995):
– According to Gould, the different factor analysis methods have emerged to justify certain theories of intelligence.
This is not true. Factor analysis procedures are devices that “attend” the development of various theories of intelligence and choice between them.
– Gould repeatedly used the term “physical structure of the intelligence.”
However, this term is odd and is misdirected. Factor analysis studies the structure of intelligence, but this structure is not considered physical in any sense. This structure is so physical (or as little physical) and the structures used by biologists to represent evolutionary relationships of species.
– Gould argues that factor analysis involves a thorough conceptual error of reification.
But the simple fact that it is appropriate to refer to a factor (like g) using a name does not mean that it becomes a physical object. The factors to be interpreted as sources of variance, dimensions, intervening variables, or latent traits, which are useful to explain certain phenomena in a manner equivalent to abstractions such as gravity, mass, distance, or force in the description of the physical events. The sentence makes Gould of factor analysis as a device to produce reification “is one of its most profound conceptual errors, represents the factor analysis as we have in your head. Unfortunately, his (mistaken) description has influenced some readers, and even some social scientists “(p. 126).
– According to Gould, intelligence is seen as a unitary dimension.
However, although the concept of intelligence is nebulous for Gould, the goal of factor analysis (and associated techniques such as psychological tests and other means of observation of behavior) is to make the concept more tangible, manageable and scientifically respectable. Moreover, the idea that intelligence is a unitary dimension is false if anything is factor analysis revealed that the concept of intelligence includes a large number of dimensions more or less general and more or less important (Colom, 1998; Colom Andrew, 1999, Juan-Espinosa, 1997).
– Gould also argues against the tendency to interpret correlations as causal relationships.
However, the correlations considered in the factor analysis in any case are interpreted as causal relationships. The usual explanation is that a statistically significant correlation suggests that two variables seem to be measuring something they have in common the problem is knowing what they have in common or if there is a causal relationship between them, or whether other variables not considered that may explain the correlation between variables considered. Whether a factor analysis-derived factor has a causal nature or do not, a hypothesis to be confirmed or discarded later.
– Gould considers that factor analysis is a technique for reducing a system of correlations to a smaller number of dimensions.
True, although this reduction (factor extraction) only the first step in the process of determining what are the small size and what is their psychological meaning.
– Gould links the results of factor analysis to studies of behavioral genetics.
This shows that both the logic known from studies of behavioral genetics as the logic of factor analysis. “Actually, factor analysis says absolutely nothing about the extent or dimension factor identified in a data set is more influenced by heredity or the environment” (p. 128).
– According to Gould, was Thurstone “the exterminating angel ‘of Spearman’s thesis on the g factor.
However, Thurstone finally found their primary factors that could derive a general or g factor. In any case, Gould’s understanding is there, seems to completely ignore the factor analysis techniques developed since the time of Thurstone and Spearman. “If Gould had been properly documented in writing his book, he would have realized that their criticisms were misguided factor analysis” (p. 129).
– Finally, according to Gould, if it extrajese a general factor explains very little variance, that is, they would check their little or no practical relevance.
However, this is a serious error, since in fact, “the g factor explains a large proportion of the information contained in a matrix of correlations of cognitive tests (…) no one can argue that the g factor is weak. According to my estimates, generally the g factor accounts for about half the common variance of a cognitive test (p. 130).
In short, Carroll (1995) shows in his review of “The Mismeasure of Man” that the statements and accusations directed Gould factor analysis are incorrect and unjustifiable, so no longer be regarded as a solid: ‘above all, it must be emphasized that the development of mental testing did not end with the work of Spearman, Burt, Thurstone, or some other of the authors mentioned by Gould. Current research on the tests is strongly influenced by cognitive psychology and the study of mental development of children. It is hoped that in the imminent future we can have more knowledge about the status of g and other factors of cognitive ability, resulting in a socially beneficial use of tests “(p. 132).
One final comment: is it possible to destroy the “myths”?
After the critical comments of the influential works of Kamin and Gould, may be the feeling that apart from being poorly documented, are biased, written in bad faith, are obsessed with the destruction of psychometricians and evaluators of intelligence, and believe in a conspiracy theory of history in which scientists would be at the service of some kind of oppressive establishment. But surely Kamin and Gould both act and write with the best intentions. The debates that have fueled much of the “myths” that have been reviewed here, really serve little, as the contestants tend to extreme positions, to fall at one time or another in the caricature and, thus, lose the essence of scientific research: the details and nuances. The sparkling cross-references and interpretationssui generis, one of the other authors, only further muddy the picture and help create a destructive environment, rather than try to build something positive.
They have often been the psychologists themselves who are discussing the weakness of its main methodological and technological achievements. One of the clearest examples is that of psychological tests. While it has proved their usefulness, some have taken pains to declare, within and outside the scientific community that the tests are irrelevant to science, devoid of practical utility, and even socially harmful. These and other common practices within the scientific community itself have given rise to the impression that, indeed, psychology is not a science. Over time, this impression has become a myth.
That “myth” has moved quickly to another closely related. While the evidence currently available suggests that intelligence is one of the most studied concepts, more robust and better understood in psychology, some have endeavored to demonstrate that, really, nothing is known of the intelligence and who, no matter what may be said, intelligence tests do not have any confidence. Gradually, such statements have led to the “myth” that intelligence and its measurement is an old-fashioned company. However, this “myth” is totally contradictory to what scientific activity has allowed to know about intelligence and its practical implications.
This article has reviewed a number of “myths” important. No attempt was made that the review would be comprehensive, but the chosen are perhaps a sufficiently graphic. Thus, both the “myth” of “jensenismo” such as teachers’ expectations about the intelligence of their pupils or fraud Burt, have had a major impact on psychology has been taught in our country. Here we have seen that the available knowledge contradict their main premises. But perhaps one of the “myths” most damaging is the inseparable relationship attributed between science and ideology in the heart of psychological research. Here we have collected some cases, specifically in the malice of the pioneers of the assessment of intelligence or the serious allegations made by authors such as Kamin and Gould. We have tried to provide evidence that contradicts that malice and those allegations. It is important to note that such evidence in any attempt to deny that the pioneers made some mistakes in the first attempts to assess psychological characteristics such as intelligence. There were, but this should not lead to denying the company undertaken by these pioneers, much less to use these mistakes of the past to attack scientists currently hindering thus the development of scientific psychology.
The intention of this article is, in short, to contribute to bury the ghosts of the past, so you can start working in a coordinated way to address the significant problems that psychology is often seized in a dispersed and even antagonistic. The performance of the “myths” has favored reviewed the division of scientific psychology as the confusion between scientific theories of psychology and world views-like theories. One can only hope that the destruction of these “myths” that contribute to the various scientific perspectives may be considered as complementary companies pursuing a common goal really.
Acknowledgments
I appreciate the comments on a draft of this article to Antonio Andrés Pueyo, Jose Muniz, Julio Olea, Juan Botella, Liberto Ortega, José Manuel Hernández, Félix García Moriyón, Francisco Abad, Manuel Juan-Espinosa, Oscar Garcia and Gerardo Prieto. The inaccuracies that can be observed are the sole responsibility of the author.
Notes
1 The ‘jensenismo “could be defined as that thesis that the differences between certain social groups have a genetic basis, and therefore immutable. As shown in this section is not justified at all the attribution of this thesis studies or proposals made by Professor Arthur Jensen in any of his works.
2 The “Lysenkoism” has been defined by the thesis that all human beings are biologically and psychologically identical. Of course, modern science has proved their falsity.
3 In his book “Straight talk about mental tests,” Jensen (1981) writes: “the use of IQ tests in school grades rather than doubles the percentage of winners academics from the homes of working-class’ (p. 51). For that reason, the use of tests is usually fought by parents of high social class!
4 In addition to critical comments by Loehlin et al. (1975) are also available revisions Fulker (1975) on Kamin’s work written for the American Journal of Psychology, or that of Herrnstein (1975) for the journal Contemporary Psychology.
5 The g factor is a concept that is a scientific representation of general intelligence (Juan-Espinosa, 1997; Colom, 1998, Andrew, 1997; Colom and Andrew, 1999).
6 In his critical commentary to the second edition of “The Mismeasure of Man” (Gould, 1996), Rushton (1997) argues that Gould makes major mistakes in reanalyze old data on cranial capacity SG Morton (Michael, 1988). In fact, the calculation errors attributed to Morton Gould, actually commits himself Gould (Rushton and Ankey, 1996). Moreover, Gould fails to mention the new findings conducted with magnetic resonance techniques indicate that the correlation between IQ and brain size is 0.40 (Rushton wonders where Gould has been the decade of the brain). Regarding this point, writes Rushton (1997): “I know Gould is aware of these studies, since both I personally and my colleagues we have sent copies of this work by asking their opinion about them. To be known publicly, Gould has never responded to letters concerning published scientific data that destroyed the central thesis of the first edition of his work “(p. 170). Moreover, according to Hunter and Schmidt (1990) a low correlation may have important effects. For example, although the correlations between IQ and brain size derived from the analysis with magnetic resonance techniques have an average value of 0.4, when you square it appears that explained 16% of the variance, and also notes that, in the face of predictions, for every increase in brain size equivalent to 1 standard deviation, the CI increased, on average, 0.40 standard deviations. A difference in brain size of 16 cm 3 is not trivial, since it involves millions of neurons and hundreds of millions of synapses. Differences in brain size may be due to evolutionary pressures and / or nutrition, experience, disease or physical trauma. Consider that the correlation can not prove cause and effect relationship, but just as correlations with value 0 do not support causal hypotheses, correlations with different values of 0 if the can support (and Ankey Rushton, 1996).
7 In 1996, Gould published the second edition of “The Mismeasure of Man.” The work is exactly the same as published in 1981, with some additional chapter review of The Bell Curve (see Rushton, 1997).
8 As a historical note, commenting that the directors of the doctoral thesis of Carroll, on the verbal skills were BF Skinner and LL Thurstone (Andrés Pueyo, 1996