"Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship." - Harry S Truman
***
Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography
"1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “ making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.
2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.
7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.
9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance... There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.
14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to l), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.
18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenylketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.
19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.
22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups... Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.
23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.
25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.
The following professors-all experts in intelligence and allied fields-have signed this statement:
*52 names*...
The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme...
The experts represented a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, behavior genetics, mental retardation, neuropsychology, sociology, and various specialties in psychology such as psychometrics, child development, educational psychology, and personnel selection...
Fourteen individuals declined to sign the statement despite seeming to agree, sometimes strongly, that its content is “mainstream.”... Four nonsigners were specific about the possible political repercussions to them of signing it (such as loss of funding or other support). Another four expressed discomfort with the possibility of being caught up in controversy (“getting in a no-win fight”) or seeming to associate with certain unnamed individuals (“about whom I have serious reservations”). Two other individuals, by stating that they “did not want to sign at this time,” also seemed to signal that they agreed with the statement but thought it prudent not to endorse it.
“Mainstream Science on Intelligence” is a collective statement that was first issued in order to inject some scientific rigor into an increasingly vitriolic and wrongheaded controversy concerning intelligence. That it garnered such immediate support from so many highly regarded scholars testifies to their confidence both that it represents the mainstream and that their joint testimony to that effect was needed in the public realm.
No individual or group has systematically rebutted the statement... the lesson here is that what have often been caricatured in the public press as discredited, fringe ideas actually represent the solid scientific center in the serious study of intelligence. As Snyderman and Rothman’s (1988) survey of IQ experts and journalists revealed, the media, among others, have been turning the truth on its head...
Social and political pressure, both internal and external to the field of intelligence, continues to make scholars reluctant to share their conclusions freely. Over one third of the individuals who declined to sign the “Mainstream” statement expressed reasons that signal such reluctance."