From: Frank Furter
Establishment Science of Intelligence

Wow! Look what appeared in the Wall Street Journal!

Fifty professors at Universities throughout the U.S., Canada,
and Britain have signed the following statement concerning
the generally accepted science of intelligence and inter-race
differences in intelligence.

You will be surprised at many of the conclusions and at the
number and identity of the signers, all of whom are listed at
the end of the article.



Dec. 13, 1994 Wall Street Journal p A18
Mainstream Science on Intelligence
Since the publication of The Bell Curve, many commentators
have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate
current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the
media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream
among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature,
origins, and practical consequences of individual and group
differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned
discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed
in recent decades.

The following conclusions are fully described in the major
textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among
other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems,
think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and
learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow
academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, 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.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all
measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers
and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary).
Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require
knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few,
open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to
high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical
jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the
average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull:
About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered
the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage
below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for
mental retardation).

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.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little
understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of
neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical
activity of the brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

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) ale centered
somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100;
the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those
for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between
those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for
exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians
are centered.

Practical Importance

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.

10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all
activities require some reasoning and decision-making.
Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in
disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more
guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life.
There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our
society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase
as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous,
changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a
high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly
complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management): it is
a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts,
clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in
settings that require only routine decision making or simple
problem solving (unskilled work).

12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor
affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex
jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most
important. When individuals have already been selected for high
(or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in
graduate school (or special education), other influences on
performance loom larger in comparison.

13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical
capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes
essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they
have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability"
across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence.
Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as
other "intelligences."

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

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 1), most
thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does
environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.
(Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with
genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for
everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all
remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic
in origin.

15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially
in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both
genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically
because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their
genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each
other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different
environments within the same family.

16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is
not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with
fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they
are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and
generally change little thereafter.

17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ
differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise
low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise
is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable
(consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal keton uria), nor are
environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider
injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may
be preventable to some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

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.

20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially
the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter
first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster
than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing
disparities in amount learned as youngsters progress from
grades one to 12. As large national surveys continue to show,
black 17- year-olds perform, on the average, more like white
13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in

21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence
appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians
or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and
genetic heredity are involved.

22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ
across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences
between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for
why individuals differ among themselves within any particular
group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume,
as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population
have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason
why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ
individuals than others. 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

24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black
have white ancestors-the white admixture is about 20%, on
average--and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and
others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on
intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial
categories, as does most other social-science research, its
findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social
and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims

Implications for Social Policy

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

* * * * * * *

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

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
John B. Carroll, U.N.C. at Chapel Hill
Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
David B. Cohen, U.T. at Austin
Rene W. Dawis, University of Minnesota
Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve U.
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 U.
Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
Linda S. Gottfredsen, University of Delaware
Richard J. Haier, U.C. Irvine
Garrett Hardin, U.C. Berkeley
Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
Joseph M. Horn, U.T. at Austin
Lloyd G. Humphreys, U.Ill. at Champaign-Urbana
John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
Douglas N. Jackson, U. of Western Ontario
James J. Jenkins, U. of South Florida
Arthur R. Jensen, U.C. Berkeley
Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Prof. Pshch., S.D.
Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
Nadine Lambert, U.C. Berkeley
John C. Loehlin, U.T. 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 Pittsburg
Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A&M University
David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
J. Philippe, Rushton U. of Western Ontario
Vincent Sarich, U.C. 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
Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
Del Theissen, U.T. at Austin
Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve U.
Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington University
Philip Anthony Vernon, U. of Western Ontario
Lee Willerman, U.T. at Austin

--- End forwarded message ---

U Parve kosher tax 5c pd. Spent on non-American interests
Everyday the jews show the world a new reason to hate and despise them.
"The worst thing about shooting kids is they are faster and smaller than the old women. It takes more bullets to hit them."  Israeli soldiers reply when asked why they shoot children.

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links