I'm sure the usual commenters will post the usual talking points about the liberal media's conspiracy of silence. But Jensen and IQ are old news. If he had died in the 1990s there would have been heavy media coverage. Today, the reaction would be, "Jensen who?" The latest really big news in IQ was the Flynn effect.
Liberal bias doesn't explain it either. The liberals could have easily exploited it as the death of some kind of monster, a teachable moment about cognitive gifts bestowed equally on all races, colors, and creeds. But they didn't.
Also, didn't Jensen's family try to keep it as low-profile as possible? Granted, that wasn't the case with Rushton, whose death was also unreported. Presumably, Rushton mass-mailed copies of his obituary to social-science departments and the press shortly before he died. But the simple reason for the silence is that IQ hasn't been news for a long time.
I think it's cute that even in today's saturated environment of 500-channel 1000 points o' light infotainment hypermedia cornucopia/surfeit Steve is still bummed about his niche not being better served.
Rushton's death was noticed by a couple of Canadian papers and the local news station. Jensen is a considerably more eminent psychologist, though I think he at least tried to keep a lower public profile. For instance he never went on trashy day-time talk shows like Geraldo & Donahue.
Maybe relatively old in the sense of breaking, hot off the press news, but salient and contentious; conspicuous by their absence in mainstream discussions.
"If diversity of mental abilities, as of most other human characteristics, is a basic fact of nature, as the evidence indicates, and if the ideal of universal education is to be successfully pursued, it seems a reasonable conclusion that schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs, and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities. Accordingly, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity should not be interpreted as uniformity of facilities, instructional techniques, and educational aims for all children. Diversity rather than uniformity of approaches and aims would seem to be the key to making education rewarding for children of different patterns of ability. The reality of individual differences thus need not mean educational rewards for some children and frustration and defeat for others."
Jensen's approach makes sense even if you believe that intellectual abilities are the same across racial groups.
I'm sure the usual commenters will post the usual talking points about the liberal media's conspiracy of silence. But Jensen and IQ are old news. If he had died in the 1990s there would have been heavy media coverage.
Not buying that at all, when B.F. Skinner died in 1990, his theories, his academic work was regarded as being as dead as a door nail, yet I'm pretty sure all the establishment organs of the MSM waxed nostalgic nonetheless. No, it's the fact that Jensen was never proven wrong, and his empirical support grew stronger by the decades, but clearly his conclusions were considered beyond the pale of acceptable discussion in our PC-driven, post-Bell Curve intellectual culture. If you brought him up you would have discuss what he said, the predictions that he made, the criticisms and predictions of his opponents, and I think it would be pretty clear who won that debate as tested by reality in the last 40 odd years. Best to treat him like an Unperson whose existence as been shot down the Memory hole. After all a paleontologist from Harvard proved he was wrong in 1981, no need to do any followup. I'm guessing that if Gardner or Sternberg or even James Flynn had died the NYT would cover that despite the fact that their research paradigms have lead nowhere. The reason is they have the CORRECT BELIEFS therefore they are worthy of respect. Jensen wasn't refuted, therefore bringing up his work even in an obit opens up Pandora's box and might jeopardize AA, so best to pretend he never existed.
I predict the New York Times will run an obituary within a week after the election. There are some good people at the NYT, but they've got a lot on their plate right now (i.e., no electricity).
In the death of Phil Rushton, at least the Psychology Department at the University of Western Ontario put a very brief "commemorative" statement on their portion of the University homepage. It was oddly terse. Anther faculty member had passed on also, and the "commemorative" for him was rather more detailed. I have not sought (yet) to see if the U of California homepage (School of Education/ Psychology Department ) portions have anything yet regarding Professor Jensen's death.
Whoa, stop the presses!
ReplyDeleteNo one cares about a crazy Sailer theory!
Crazy talk! I thought we all knew you were the sage of this nation.
I'm sure the usual commenters will post the usual talking points about the liberal media's conspiracy of silence. But Jensen and IQ are old news. If he had died in the 1990s there would have been heavy media coverage. Today, the reaction would be, "Jensen who?" The latest really big news in IQ was the Flynn effect.
ReplyDeleteLiberal bias doesn't explain it either. The liberals could have easily exploited it as the death of some kind of monster, a teachable moment about cognitive gifts bestowed equally on all races, colors, and creeds. But they didn't.
Also, didn't Jensen's family try to keep it as low-profile as possible? Granted, that wasn't the case with Rushton, whose death was also unreported. Presumably, Rushton mass-mailed copies of his obituary to social-science departments and the press shortly before he died. But the simple reason for the silence is that IQ hasn't been news for a long time.
"But Jensen and IQ are old news"
ReplyDeleteObituaries are for old news.
Jon Fitch hadn't done much that was newsworthy in 25 years, but he was pretty awesome in the 1950s, so he gets a nice obituary.
I think it's cute that even in today's saturated environment of 500-channel 1000 points o' light infotainment hypermedia cornucopia/surfeit Steve is still bummed about his niche not being better served.
ReplyDeleteRushton's death was noticed by a couple of Canadian papers and the local news station. Jensen is a considerably more eminent psychologist, though I think he at least tried to keep a lower public profile. For instance he never went on trashy day-time talk shows like Geraldo & Donahue.
ReplyDeleteB.B.
But Jensen and IQ are old news.
ReplyDeleteMaybe relatively old in the sense of breaking, hot off the press news, but salient and contentious; conspicuous by their absence in mainstream discussions.
Any updates on Franco's condition?
ReplyDeleteDown the memory hole.
ReplyDeleteI thought Jensen did go on Donahue.
ReplyDelete***But Jensen and IQ are old news. ***
ReplyDelete@ Aaron Gross,
As Sailer notes, that is what obituaries are for. And you'd expect the NY Times to report on such an influential figure.
'The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century' Review of General Psychology, 2002, 6, 139-152.
Jensen comes in 47th place.
http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000064/00/eminence.pdf
"If diversity of mental abilities, as of most other human characteristics, is a basic fact of nature, as the evidence indicates, and if the ideal of universal education is to be successfully pursued, it seems a reasonable conclusion that schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs, and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities. Accordingly, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity should not be interpreted as uniformity of facilities, instructional techniques, and educational aims for all children. Diversity rather than uniformity of approaches and aims would seem to be the key to making education rewarding for children of different patterns of ability. The reality of individual differences thus need not mean educational rewards for some children and frustration and defeat for others."
ReplyDeleteJensen's approach makes sense even if you believe that intellectual abilities are the same across racial groups.
x said...
ReplyDeleteI thought Jensen did go on Donahue.
I stand corrected:
http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=203758&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=736821
B.B.
I'm sure the usual commenters will post the usual talking points about the liberal media's conspiracy of silence. But Jensen and IQ are old news. If he had died in the 1990s there would have been heavy media coverage.
ReplyDeleteNot buying that at all, when B.F. Skinner died in 1990, his theories, his academic work was regarded as being as dead as a door nail, yet I'm pretty sure all the establishment organs of the MSM waxed nostalgic nonetheless. No, it's the fact that Jensen was never proven wrong, and his empirical support grew stronger by the decades, but clearly his conclusions were considered beyond the pale of acceptable discussion in our PC-driven, post-Bell Curve intellectual culture. If you brought him up you would have discuss what he said, the predictions that he made, the criticisms and predictions of his opponents, and I think it would be pretty clear who won that debate as tested by reality in the last 40 odd years. Best to treat him like an Unperson whose existence as been shot down the Memory hole. After all a paleontologist from Harvard proved he was wrong in 1981, no need to do any followup. I'm guessing that if Gardner or Sternberg or even James Flynn had died the NYT would cover that despite the fact that their research paradigms have lead nowhere. The reason is they have the CORRECT BELIEFS therefore they are worthy of respect. Jensen wasn't refuted, therefore bringing up his work even in an obit opens up Pandora's box and might jeopardize AA, so best to pretend he never existed.
Deliberate evasion is a sure sign the media and establishment are terrified of him, even in the grave.
ReplyDeletePeople like Jensen never die, and cannot be killed.
Anon.
I predict the New York Times will run an obituary within a week after the election. There are some good people at the NYT, but they've got a lot on their plate right now (i.e., no electricity).
ReplyDeleteIn the death of Phil Rushton, at least the Psychology Department at the University of Western Ontario put a very brief "commemorative"
ReplyDeletestatement on their portion of the
University homepage. It was oddly
terse. Anther faculty member had passed on also, and the "commemorative" for him was rather more detailed. I have not sought (yet) to see if the U of California homepage (School of Education/ Psychology Department ) portions have anything yet regarding Professor Jensen's death.
9 minutes ago in the NYTimes
ReplyDeleteArthur R. Jensen Dies at 89; Set Off Debate About I.Q.
By MARGALIT FOX
Published: November 1, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html?pagewanted=all