On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Doug Henwood posted:
two great articles finishing off the Saletan IQ debate: one long article by Stephen Metcalf, and one brusque comment by Adolph Reed, combining to put a stake through its heart and cut of its head both. If watching this undead monster arise for the upteenth time was very depressing, watching it get definatively killed once again was very satisfying. I guess that's why they have sequels.
One minor footnote:
> Here is what you would never know about the Minnesota study from reading
> Jensen and Rushton, or, for that matter, Saletan. It held neither race
> nor expected IQ constant; the black children were adopted at a later age
> than the other children, which the study's own authors note is
> associated with depressed IQ; the black children's mothers had lower
> educational levels than those of the white children; the "quality of
> placement" for the white children was higher than for the other
> children; and as the study's own authors have noted, the black and
> mixed-race children experienced severe adjustment problems as they grew
> up. (Would you also want to know that the Minnesota study was subsidized
> by the Pioneer Fund?)
All of that is devastatingly true -- except the last sentence, it turns out. There has just been a correction posted:
<quote>
Correction, Dec. 5, 2007: The Minnesota twin study referred to
throughout this paragraph was originally identified as having been
subsidized by the Pioneer Fund. In fact, this study, led by Sandra
Scarr, has no connection to the Pioneer Fund. It was another,
contemporaneous Minnesota twin study, led by Thomas J. Bouchard, that
received funding from the organization. (Return to the corrected
sentence.)
<unquote>
Michael