In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

FEATURE REVIEW OF "THE IQ ARGUMENT: RACE, INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION"* RALPH MASON DREGERf Published in Great Britain under its subtitle, "Race, Intelligence and Education," The IQ Argument presents the results of research primarily on the comparative IQ intelligence of Negroes and whites in the United States. In his preface, Eysenck iterates a theme: The fact is that Negro IQ in the United States is hereditarily low compared with white IQ. Just as bluntly he states that whatever conclusion one draws about the comparative IQs of blacks and whites, it does not justify argument for segregation. "Segregation on racial grounds," he states, "is morally wrong and ethically unacceptable." A minor theme also sounded in the preface is that refusal to engage in research on the question of comparative (IQ) intelligence is unwarranted, unscientific, and immoral . Acknowledging great debt to Jensen [1] and Shuey [2], Eysenck first attempts to clarify what Jensen actually said about comparative IQs and compensatory education: that Jensen did not unqualifiedly assert that Negro and white IQs differ genetically but only that the evidence is less consistent with an environmental than a genetic hypothesis , that compensatory programs have failed to bring disadvantaged children up to the "average IQ" level, and that education must take account of individual differences in IQ (primarily conceptual ability as opposed to associative ability). Eysenck answers the question, "What is race?" by pointing out that, although there is little doubt about the existence of races, any taxonomy is difficult. He accepts both Dobzhansky's morphologically based thirty-four divisions and Gottesman's three "levels," geographical , local, and microrace divisions. American Negroes, coming from * By H. H. Eysenck. New York: Library Press, 1971. Pp. iv_|_155. $5.95. t Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. 520 I Ralph Mason Dreger ยท The IQ Argument several subraces in Africa, now are hybrid, with 25-30 percent admixture of white genes. According to Eysenck, U.S. slavery possibly tended to select for less rather than more intelligence, even though the further possibility exists that unselected Negroes and whites would not be genetically different in ability. The further question, "What is intelligence?" yields the information that the IQ is relatively normally distributed; that aside from operational definitions, Spearman's "ability to educe relations and correlates" suggests that intelligence (g) has to do with the processes of abstraction and conceptualization, and that even if g is an average of "primary" abilities, it "determines to a considerable extent our success or failure in the educational field." Culture-fair tests of intelligence (though none "culture free") are possible, including Raven's Progressive Matrices; even more "culture fair" are evoked potentials from visual stimulation which appear to distinguish among intelligence levels. Eysenck asserts that IQ intelligence is important in that social status correlates highly with it and officer selection improves with the knowledge of it. Various kinds of evidence lead to the 80 percent genetic : 20 percent environment determination of IQ. This ratio applies only to specific populations at specified periods, but may well apply more widely. Genotype and phenotype must be distinguished when considering the interaction of heredity and environment . A qualitative difference in white and black intelligence is rejected by Eysenck; and he claims that Negroes value the same type of intellectual qualities which make for success in our civilization as whites do. The "self-fulfilling prophecy" alleged by environmentalists as an explanation for the low-IQ child's lack of educational achievement is likewise rejected as unproven and/or not admissible because "correlation does not prove causation," a dictum Eysenck believes environmentalists often violate. After passing reference to the possible precocity of very young African and American Negro infants in sensorimotor tasks, and to the inferiority of Oriental infants to white infants (and later superiority to white adults on tests of abstract reasoning), Eysenck admittedly paraphrases Shuey [2] in respect to Negro IQ in the United States, ending with what he calls her "splendid 'concluding statement' " of thirty-five lines of print. He adds a bit of later evidence against environmental determination of IQ. Then he proposes that both the "overlap" concept and prediction of racial-class membership from IQ-class membership be dropped as misleading...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 520-528
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.