Talk:Richard Herrnstein

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Richard Herrnstein, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Birdland

i seem to recall PETA or similar protestors outside of Herrnstein's bldg well before the Bell Curve dust-up.

is there any record of this anywhere? 216.50.220.28 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The matching law has been modified to deal with more cases where it is not a good fit.

130.17.62.242 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)florkle 4-24-2007[reply]

Two problems

Two problems:

1. "While the very idea of innate racial differences in intellectual abilities cannot be dismissed out of hand..." At some level this is true, but it's worth noting that a.) the subspecies concept has been largely abandoned and b.) many anthropologists see "race" as a social construct, and find it more appropriate to talk about populations or clines.

2. "..some of the attempted refutations of The Bell Curve were politically motivated..." This sentence doesn't need to be there. One could just as justifiably say that the writing of The Bell Curve was itself politically motivated. This sentence also implies that a refutation cannot be both correct and politically motivated, which isn't true, or that some opponents of The Bell Curve were motivated *entirely* by politics, which can't be proven.

If the some version of the sentence must stay, it would be better to revise it to read, "...some of the attempted refutations of The Bell Curve were *arguably* politically motivated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.134.51 (talk • contribs)

At some level this is true, but it's worth noting that a.) the subspecies concept has been largely abandoned and

Perhaps in PC circles...

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that race can be determined by blood or hair samples, or even through anthropometric means by the analysis of a skeleton.

many anthropologists see "race" as a social construct, and find it more appropriate to talk about populations or clines.

Indeed, often times it is more appropriate to use such neutral and ambiguous terms (see "political oversensitivity").

This sentence doesn't need to be there. One could just as justifiably say that the writing of The Bell Curve was itself politically motivated.

LOL

Although Stephen J. Gould's "refutation" of The Bell Curve (i.e. "The Mismeasure of Man") received acclaimed reviews in the popular media, the Scientific community did not embrace Gould's work, faulting it for being inherently political in its premise, and rarely scientifically credible.

All this, however, is in striking contrast to the evaluation of his work by fellow-scientists, most of whom regarded him as a lightweight and even a charlatan. Professor Maynard Smith, a leading evolutionary biologist, has written that others in the field “tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as hardly to be worth bothering with.” Speaking for psychologists, Chris Brand has written that Gould’s Mismeasure of Man is “a masterpiece of deception;” and Professor Philippe Rushton has written of Gould’s “career of relentless special pleading.” Even anthropologists Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, who uncritically accept many of Gould’s distortions, have written that his writings “invariably have a not-so-hidden political agenda.” Professor Steve Jones, an evolutionary biologist who largely agrees with Gould on intelligence and race, has said that “scientifically, he was a failure.”

http://www.amren.com/0207issue/0207issue.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.112.228 (talk • contribs)

Which is an ultra-right wing site and doesn't give a reference for this. What Steve Jones did actually say - and it wasn't about the Bell Curve or race, was ""He gave a salutary kick to the slumbering giant of evolution," says evolutionary biologist Steve Jones, of University College London. "He turned out to be wrong, but he was magnificently wrong."

Jones compares him to the explorer Christopher Columbus: "Columbus set out to find India, but found the New World. If that is failure then give me failure any day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougWeller (talk • contribs)

By contrast, "The Bell Curve" was laregely considered scientifically valid by adademia, yet was ostricized by society at large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.112.228 (talk • contribs)

Before taking the bit below too seriously, read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:The_Bell_Curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougWeller (talk • contribs)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

This public statement, signed by 52 internationally known scholars, was active on the information highway early in 1995 following several rather heated and negative responses to Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve. It was first published in The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, December 13, 1994. An alphabetical listing of the scholars and their home institutions are given at the end of the statement...

The following professors -- all experts in intelligence and allied fields -- have signed this statement:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota

Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii

David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin

Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota

Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.

Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota

Hans Eysenck, University of London

Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology

Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University

Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University

Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University

Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware

Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University

Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine

Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley

Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa

Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin

Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

John E. Hunter, Michigan State University

Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College

Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario

James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida

Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley

Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama

Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego

Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University

Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley

John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin

David Lubinski, Iowa State University

David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota

Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine

Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota

R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia

Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh

Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London

Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University

David C. Rowe, University of Arizona

J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario

Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley

Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia

Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa

Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University

James C. Sharf, George Washington University

Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.

Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin

Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University

Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.

Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario

Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.112.228 (talk • contribs)

1. this: R. J. Harrnstein (1972). "Nature as Nurture: Behaviorism and the Instinct Doctrine". seems to be missing from listed biography, though it is mentioned as "classic" in the article: Instinct ("History/ In biology" section).

2. previous comment saying "Perhaps in PC circles" seems to not realize, that Race is being abandoned/questioned as a useful term in regard of all biologiocal species (see Richard Dawkins: selfish gene) and not or not just in social/politically correct contex. Template:Unsigned --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.36.185 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth/death

Birth here, death in Murray's obit in National Review, Vol. 46, 10-10-1994, pp 22. Jokestress 08:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birdland

i seem to recall PETA or similar protestors outside of Herrnstein's bldg well before the Bell Curve dust-up.

is there any record of this anywhere? 216.50.220.28 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Research

The Bell Curve was the product of sound thinking and exhaustive research. The fact that many "intellectuals" couldn't understand it or lacked the courage to accept it does nothing to diminish it's contribution. Furthermore, the majority of genuine, able scholars has long since acknowledged the accuracy of its conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manxtime (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to update this article and many other articles on related topics, so let's discuss new sources for articles about scholars on IQ testing and related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. this: R. J. Harrnstein (1972). "Nature as Nurture: Behaviorism and the Instinct Doctrine". seems to be missing from biography, though it is mentioned as "classic" in the article: Instinct ("History/ In biology" section). 2. previous comment "Perhaps in PC circles" seems to not realize, that Race is being abandoned/questioned as a useful term in regard of all biologiocal species (see Richard Dawkins: selfish gene) and not or not just in social/politically correct contex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.36.185 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]