Talk:Hans Eysenck/Archive 2

Schiori-Lang
This is fully scholarly (Ashgate) and a good source for his writing in the National-Zeitung. Please do not remove again. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

English far-right groups
Eyseck also wrote an article for an far-right group in england. In the magazin called beacon. This magazin was the journal of the "National Party". Again there are multiple sources. This should added too. -- WSC ® 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be mentioned, but the information has to be taken mainly from Buchanan, who thinks that Billig made a mistake in not realising that the interview was given some years earlier. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, p. 321 or so. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are much more sources than Billig and Buchanan. In case of doubt we can mention both publication dates. -- WSC ® 10:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Belief in the paranormal
@WSC, in your edit of of 11:59, 3 October 2012, why did you (apparently) delete the reference I added to Explaining the Unexplained to support the statement that "he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal abilities"? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Knebel and Marquardt
The response on WP:RSN was that this is a reliable source, and I agree. Nevertheless, I am OK about it staying out until we have a page number for the assertion. It may be that we want to take more from this source and perhaps we could summarise it in a different way. I would remind everyone that you should not be writing material up from sources that you have not read in their entirety. I am currently reading Stefan Kuhl's The Nazi Connection. By the way, a reliable secondary source takes priority over a primary source, unless it can be shown that the secondary source is mistaken. Even the best sources make errors. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To whom do we have to show that the secondary source is mistaken?
 * I have read Race, Education and Intelligence in its entirety. I'm willing to make bet with WSC: I will send you, Itsmejudith, my copy, with a return envelope.  If Eysenck actually says (N.B. not, is construed by someone else to imply) "negroes are less gifted than whites" in it, I will pay the postage both ways; if not, WSC pays it.
 * I have noted what the book does say on your Talk page. Do I need to repeat it here? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul Magnussen, you liar! The sentence is not Eysenck wrote "negroes are less gifted than whites" the sentence was: "he argued that "amerikanische Neger" (american negros) are genetically less gifted than whites." You just set the quotes wrong to have another argument against the reliable sources. My AGF is depleted. Stop telling lies here! This is not your kindergarden. This is a serious discussion. -- WSC ® 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see (I think): you're saying that Eysenck argues for a conclusion that doesn't actually appear in the book. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to pass copies of books around. I'm sure I could obtain it quite easily if and when it comes to that. What we all need to do is to take several steps back from this. We have two biographies of Eysenck that should be principal sources for us. They can then be supplemented with more recent scholarship. I'm sure that Eysenck never made such a bold categorical statement. But if a scholar thinks that his arguments amounted to such a view, that is worth including. Alongside any opposing views, of course. Hope that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No! We need to go back to all relevant and reliabel sources. The biographys dosn't mention the far-right activitys of Eysenck in germany. So what german scientiffic authors have to say about eysenck is relevant, too. Especially in Marquardt and Knebels chapter about the roots of modern eugenics. I don't accept these making of compromises by ignor relevant sources. Thats not encyclopedic, thats POV. Thats why we include the opinion of this authors! -- WSC ® 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Itsmejudith As you wish.  But if we're going to document everyone who couldn't distinguish what Prof. Eysenck actually said from what they thought he meant, it's going to be a long article. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Itsmejudith, aren't there some sort of rules about insulting other contributors? Are they enforced? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are rules. You can take out a Wikiquette alert, which rarely results in anything. Since this article is under ArbCom restrictions, the best thing is probably to make a report at WP:ANI. Or just ignore it. Also remember, there is no deadline. Knebel and Marquardt is a scholarly source. I want to read it but it is third on my list after Kuhl and Buchanan. If no-one here has read it then the whole point is moot. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I this discussion about ? Well, it seems to be. The "juicy" part seems to be all one page, which you can preview in GB as well. It's a good secondary source for citing things like the preface to Krebs's book. What exactly is this dispute about? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It must be repeated here and elsewhere --- this is what Eysenck's work was about: He did not write that ALL Black people are less gifted than ALL Whites --- what he wrote is that given two sets of IQ Scores (two overlapping bell-curves) the statistical mean of the Black population is slightly lower than that of the Whites; only by a few points, however statistically significant. Assuming that difference were, say three points, then it could be written that 47% of all Whites have lower IQ’s than the average Black person (which certainly could not be considered racist). Sirswindon (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish heritage
The discussion in this article appears one-sided. See Buchanan p. 304. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that Eysenck deny his jewish roots to publish in the german far-right newspapers. They won't let him publish as jew. But I'm not sure if this is relevant? -- WSC ® 12:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing we need to be careful about. Eysenck was unaware of his own Jewish heritage until after WWII, when the facts about his grandmother came out.  As far as I can tell, Eysenck did not profess the Jewish faith, nor was he of Jewish descent in the female line, which I seem to remember are the usual criteria.
 * Of course there are those who consider anyone with a drop of Jewish blood to be a Jew, just as someone with a drop of black blood is considered to be you-know-what. Personally, I don't think we should be using their definitions. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * During all the years I personally knew Hans, he never considered being part of any religion. He and I were, so-to-speak, somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. Sirswindon (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to Chris Brand's opinions
This is something I wrote at ANI: I find it disconcerting that out of all the reviews for Eysencks' 2010 OUP biography (written by R. Buchanan) only the one by Chris Brand is linked in the Wikipedia article! Steven Rose might not be the most neutral commentator on R&I, but his review of that book was published in The Lancet. Andrew Winston also reviewed that book and said "But Buchanan has succeeded beautifully and Playing with Fire is an outstanding scholarly achievement" in. William H. Tucker also reviewed it in Isis (journal) and said "Buchanan's treatment of his subject is commendably evenhanded." Yet, another review is. Nassir Ghaemi also reviewed it and wrote "this biography does justice to him." Why does the article on Eysencks need to be written from Chris Brand's POV? Because transforming this biography into an article about the book would be silly, I'm going to remove Brand's opinions about the book as wp:undue. You're welcome to create a balanced article about Buchanan's biography, not WP:COATRACK this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, we should never disparage our sources. It's unencyclopedic. If a source is good enough to use it is good enough to use. We can of course balance with alternative sources.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an interesting one from Michael Eysenck:. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Eysenck
Michael Eysenck is an interesting case, certainly: although he co-authored books with his father, after the latter's death he seems almost to have disowned him; to the extent that in Psychology for A2 Level (Psychology Press (2001), ISBN 1-84169-251-4) he completely represents his father's work by quoting out of context, and ignoring other quotations that would have rebutted his case — or so it seems to me.

For example:

On p.393 he (and his co-author) say that 'Jensen (1969) and H.J. Eysenck (1981) argued that genetic differences might be involved' in the issue of differences in intelligence (on average) between between races.

But H.J.E. first argued it, and more fully, in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), which was entirely devoted to the topic. There is no mention of this, and no reference to it in the back, although that book caused more fuss in Britain than any other work on the subject.

Then on the next page, we find:

'Herrnstein & Murray (1994) published the controversial book "The Bell Curve", in which they argued that there are genetic differences in IQ. Since these differences are inevitable, why are we wasting money in trying to educate individuals who will never progress beyond a fixed potential?'

The first sentence is certainly true. However, I cannot recall, nor can I now find, anything remotely likely the second, and I notice that there are no quotation marks nor page reference.

And on p.394 again:

'Indeed, the whole notion of "race" has been questioned, and seems to have no scientific definition.'

Well, now. There is one in RI&E (p.36): '[Races] are populations that differ genetically and may be distinguished phenotypically (i.e. by appearance). Races are not species; they are able to interbreed, and are fertile when they do.' (etc.)

It seems strange that MWE, at least, should be unaware of this. Maybe Ms. Black wrote this part of the book.

Or how about this?

'Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The genetic distances between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates...',

from Jensen, and published two years before Psychology for A2 Level.

The authors again:

'Even H.J. Eysenck (1981, p.79) admitted that the issue cannot be resolved by experimental evidence: "Can we... argue that genetic studies... give direct support to the hereditarian position? The answer must, I think, be in the negative.  the two populations (black and white) are separate populations, and none of the studies carried out on white people alone, such as twin studies, are feasible." '

But this quotation from Eysenck & Kamin's "The Intelligence Controversy" is itself a quotation from RI&E (p.117), which continues:

'...critics are perfectly right in saying that the genetic evidence existing at the moment is not conclusive.

However, it constitutes presumptive evidence which is quite strong, and cannot be disregarded. Any argument aimed at disavowing the genetic evidence runs into difficulties which may be more disturbing to the environmentalist hypothesis than anything postulated in this book.' (etc.)

The authors kindly inform us:

'This illustrates the extremely political nature of the debate.'

It does indeed, but perhaps not quite in the way intended.

So MWE certainly has the academic qualifications of a Reliable Source; but his comments seem biassed to me. I have no conjecture as to the reason (well actually, I have got a conjecture: maybe he didn't want his own children getting death threats, as HJE's did).

At first glance, even this review seems to me, at first glance, to be misleading: for instance, as I recall, HJE said neither that "smoking is a very minor risk factor for disease" nor that "psychoanalysis reduces the chances of recovery from neurosis." He did say that available data "fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder"; but that's not at all the same thing. I'll spare you the rest. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's biography
In this section I'm gathering reviews of the 1980's biography of Eysenck by Tony Gibson. Insofar, I found: -- Tijfo098 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * : "Gibson has succeeded in producing a well-rounded and informative biography. Using his personal knowledge of his subject [...] Gibson paints a sympathetic, but not uncritical portrait. [...] Few, however, would agree with Gibson's elevation of Eysenck to a position of Freudian proportions, although his comparison of Eysenck and Freud is illuminating." The author of that review, WF Bynum, has a bio blurb at.

Effects of smoking
At the moment, although it's in the section on Eysenck's views, this subsection only contains criticism of his funding. It seems to me that this is relevant and should remain; but first the piece should say in brief what his views were.

I have Smoking, Personality and Stress, I will fill this in when I get time.

Does anyone know the relationship (if any) of this book to Smoking, Health and Personality? Paul Magnussen


 * I saw a couple of points in :

What were the limitations of my father’s research? The most obvious one is that he frequently espoused controversial viewpoints (typically supported by in-house research) that have totally failed to stand the test of time. Here are a few examples: criminality is associated with extraversion; personality strongly determines longevity; smoking is a very minor risk factor for disease; extrasensory perception exists; certain star signs are associated with sporting achievement; EEG measures correlate very highly with IQ; psychoanalysis reduces the chances of recovery from neurosis. No other prominent psychologist has been so wrong so often. Surprisingly, there was sometimes compelling evidence that his views were wrong at the time he expressed them. For example, I doubt whether sufferers from Buerger’s disease would agree with his view, expressed in a 1991 book, that smoking isn’t addictive – these patients have partial limb operations because of gangrene caused by smoking. In many cases, this doesn’t deter them from continuing to smoke and having more and more of their limbs amputated.
 * There's probably more in Buchanan on smoking. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw that from MWE. Some of it, at least, appears to me to be misrepresentation (see my comments on him above). Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the source is weak because it lacks the rigor of footnoted page numbers or even a list of references, etc. So I'm only suggesting it here as a starting point for further investigation; I'm not proposing to use it directly in the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing versus far/extreme right
Bizarre though it may seem, I have to agree with Widescreen on this one. Maggie Thatcher was on the right wing of the political spectrum, Michael Foot on the left wing; and no one would have thought it remarkable, had HJE supported either of their positions. It's only the supposed association with overtly racist groups that's caused all the hysteria; and those are called far (or extreme) right. I think Maggie Thatcher would agree. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * it is Bizarre using extreme anything. Can't we have something that is more NEUTRAL? Sirswindon (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe something you can find in sources? -- WSC ® 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading the present content of this section it is NOT about Eysenck’s “Relationship with right-wing or extreme right groups. Eysenck never had any relationships with these groups.  It is about “Alleged positions Eysenck took which might have fostered extreme right-wing agendas.”  Can someone re-title this section --- it is not about Relationships he did not have any. Sirswindon (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even this may be an over-simplification. As far as I make out, there are at least three types of HJE's critics:


 * • Those, simply ignorant, who think that HJE advocated racial discrimination;.


 * • Those who maintain that his assertions were factually incorrect (insulting, etc. etc.), and therefore he should not have made them.


 * • Those who maintain that, regardless, his assertions give aid and comfort to the Enemy, and therefore he should not have made them.


 * Or of course a combination of the above.


 * At bottom, as I have said before, I consider "far/extreme right" a POV term, in that very few people admit to belonging to it — it's always a term used by their opponents. If someone can come up with a different term that embraces all these groups (and no one else), that's fine with me. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But Marquardt, Knebel and Jäger done that. Eysenck was part of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quaterly too. A magazin claims racial segregation. A attitude Eysenck itself called racistic in his book Vererbung, Intelligenz und Erziehung. Jäger called him a wholeheartedly supporter of the Thule-seminar. I'm not sure, what you have done here for the last days? -- WSC ® 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At least partly, I've tried to show you that name-calling is not an indication of a Reliable Source — clearly without effect. Back to the drawing-board.
 * How about if "far-right" were put in quotation marks? WSC, would you accept that?  Sirswindon? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would accept that. Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WSC, I personally knew Eysenck for over 40 years, that is more than the past few days. I understood his motivation in writing  articles and books as he did. But no one can provide valid evidence of where he “supported” or “expoused” the values of the "far-right." You can write “he was part of the advisory council of Mankind Quarterly.” or that someone asserted he “wholeheartedly supported the Thule-seminar.” None of those accusations would provide proof in a court of law that he was a "racist" or a supporter of the "far-right." Hearsay, hearsay and more hearsay. I do understand that for some reason or other, you wish to place a label on Eysenck. Being NEUTRAL, I have gone along with your (and a few others) desire to include this section in the Eysenck Article. But it must be NEUTRAL and include only FACTS. Being on an advisory council of an organization IS a fact. Attending a seminar IS a fact. But neither provides proof that Hans Eysenck was a supporter of the agenda, or values of the "far-right." Eysenck would ask you to judge him on his whole life and not that he was on a certain advisory council or that he attended this seminar or some other seminar. So everyone, yes include the section in the article, be factual, and try to do it in a NEUTRAL way. `Sirswindon (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You said you know Eysenck well. But you were pretty surprised when you hear he published in far-right magazines and books. However, it's not interesting what anybody of us thinks about the issue. It's a question of what is written in the reliable sources. The fact, you still didn't realize the sources are listed abouve are all reliabele sources shows the way this discussion goes well. 1. the fact is being doubted, 2. the statement in the sources being doubted, 3. The author or the sources is being doubted, 4. Some user say the world is relatively/sources are relatively/truth is relatively.


 * When everybody of the Eysenck-fans realize this is all useless, than the word "neutrality" is mentioned to relativize the statmant in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean you cannot make any statments or have to make weak-statements, it means you have to make statements which are well sourced and do not overstate any meanings above others are also importend and well sourced. The sources represent the meaning of social-scientists such as political-scientists who are specialists in far-right political goups and opinions. Not as the author of the biography who is more interested in Eysencks research-profile.


 * You cannot deny the statements in these sources. So please stopp trying this over and over again. -- WSC ® 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not deny that the statements were made: what we doubt is whether they a) are reliable, and b) represent fact, not opinion. Since distortions and Straw Man arguments abound in this topic, reliability cannot simply be assumed.


 * Do you not have access to an English-language spelling-checker? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tijo098, please explain to Widescreen that SCHLORSHIP is what we are about. We are not, as Widescreen writes, DENYING statements in his sources.  We are attempting to differentiate between facts and what is opinion, hearsay or accusations.  We accept that someone wrote this or that. But is what they wrote: Fact, Opinion, Hearsay, etc.   We do not have an Agenda; we have not deleted any the statements in the article, but neutrality requires what has been written be clarified as to being facts or opinion, hearsay or accusations.  Widescreen's political-scientist specialists in far-right political groups and opinions would agree with what I have just written. Sirswindon (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You talk about facts? Thats really amusing. What facts? To write a preface on someones book is no support? Or what's your point now? Stop that fucking POV-sophistry. I'm not as dump as other useres you try to fool! I've had a lot of controversys like that. It's always the same blah blah. "No.. No.. you can't take the source verbatim. That's not correct and think at the NPOV!" Why don't you give up? Let the sources speak for itself. Than you come neare the NPOV.
 * @Paul Magnussen: I'll use a English-language spelling-checker when you stop that sophistry. Deal? -- WSC ® 23:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As you will; if you wish to appear sloppy and careless, it's no concern of mine. Talking of which: the error message at the bottom of this page "Referenzfehler: Es sind […] -Tag gefunden." seems to have have been produced by something you did, since no one else has invoked the German version of Wikipedia; so please fix it.


 * The fact of the Preface is in the article, as you wished. So what are you complaining about now? Paul Magnussen (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very sad to see this come to an end with Widescreen not able to be civil: "Stop that fucking POV-sophistry." is not what we expect from a Wikipedia editor. Very sad. Sirswindon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

However. We use the term far/extrem right now. Which one would you prefer? -- WSC ® 05:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already says "Eysenck was accused of being a supporter of the extreme right"; this seems to be factually correct, and so I'm happy with it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see. I think thats less than ideal. But I still don't understand why this cannot be mentioned in the heading? Thats what it goes about in the chapter. -- WSC ® 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Widescreen, please could you translate for us the last line in the German Section "Bezug zum Rassismus und Rechtsextremismus" Er stellte Eysenck als einen neben Arthur Jensen maßgeblichen Akteur in der Wiederaufnahme akademischer Rassenforschung nach dem Zweiter Weltkrieg|Zweiten Weltkrieg dar. Is this from Billig, if so why isn't the page number given?   Sirswindon (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course (but it's a really complicate sentence): "He constitutes Eysenck, among Jensen, as a significant agent for resumption of scholarly racial-research after 2WW" but I'm not sure if this is a good translation. I don't know why theres no page number given? But the sentence was not added by me. -- WSC ® 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "He placed Eysenck with Jensen as"?


 * So does he consider scholarly racial-research to be a Bad Thing? Does he think that it would be better to ignore the reasons for the racial IQ gap than to understand them?


 * Is that the basis of his criticism? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "So does he consider scholarly racial-research to be a Bad Thing?" I think this edit is itself racistic. Sorry to say that so. I AGF because it could be also a lack of understanding. The different coulor of the skin and other marker doesn't constitute mankind is divided in different races. In modern biology different races are declined because population genetics found that the genetic differences in man are negligible. Futher the datas Eysenck used for his research were forged, see Cyril_Burt. But I don't want a discussion about typical far-right themes. I want to talk about reliable sources about Eysenck. -- WSC ® 19:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Widescreen, you are at it again --- That see "Cyril Burt" was not about Eysenck, it was about Burt forging his work --- stick to the facts! Sirswindon (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, befor you claim any knowledge here, make sure you really know of what you talking about.  -- WSC ® 20:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're right Widescreen: the only relevant topic here is reliable sources on Eysenck. Sorry.  I withdraw my question. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may make an on-topic comment, I prefer "far right", which seems to be the direct translation of the Germaan "extremrechts". This came up before on far left, which we use as the equivalent of French "extreme-gauche". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased with "far right" (in the heading). But "extremrechts" or "rechts-extrem" means right "extremism" better: "right-wing extremism". -- WSC ® 20:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has defined far-right and right-wing politics: politics:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=far-right+politics%3A&redirs=1&profile=default, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics --- It is written: “also known as the extreme right” “Refers to the highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics.”  Now to carry this discussion to the highest level of extremism (absurdity) I have changed the Section in the Article to:  “far-right/right-wing/extremist" politics. Sirswindon (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be a decision of anglophone user. But just right wing is to unspecific. -- WSC ® 04:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't rely on our own definitions, because that would be circular. I don't like the use of slashes. A simple "far right" expresses the meaning clearly enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the terms should be included as that shows how ludicrous the accusations appear. If Itsmejudith doesn’t like slashes then accept: Alleged relationships with “far-right” --- “right-wing” --- “extremist” --- “racist” --- groups and politics.  As the man said: "All or None" Sirswindon (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree that the accusations are ludicrous; but none the less, we don't need them all in the heading. "Far right" seems fine to me, since we already have "alleged". Paul Magnussen (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since all of us here on TALK (with the exception of Widescreen) now agree on a Section heading, I hope we are ready to put the entire section to bed --- finito, fertig, terminado, fini, voltooid, dokonçeno. faerdig, acabat, valmis, gotowy, kész. ARE WE FINISHED? Sirswindon (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, for my part. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I would like to see if there are more further reliable sources.. I am also searching for an alternative heading - "alleged" is not great - within NPOV of course. Also, it could probably be shortened. Even better would be not to have it as a section on its own at all, but the facts dispersed into the article. I will refer to some other biographies of academics whose work has been confidential, and maybe others would like to as well, so we have the same reference points. There is not need to be in a hurry about any of this unless someone feels that the current text is grossly unsatisfactory. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree.


 * a) The hoohah over research into race and intelligence is only a small part of Prof. Eysenck's career, and the article is already quite long, with that section taking up a disproportionate amount of space.


 * b) The hoohah as a phenomenon certainly does deserve more space. But it embraces far more people than just Eysenck alone; and since the criticisms levelled at him were the same as those levelled at Jensen (for instance) and others, there's no point in repeating them on the c.v. of every individual: a pointer to History of the race and intelligence controversy should be sufficient. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it should be much longer, and agree with linking to relevant articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost all the references are about the Jenson/Eysenck controversy. I doubt if you will find others.  As for me all of this is part of the Genetics and Intelligence heading, but Widescreen wanted it highlighted.  I have no problem with that so long as it is headed “Alleged” because 99.9% of the reference are about alleged stuff and the few facts which are not on point.  Widescreen will disagree, but he would not if he were an academic (which I doubt he is).  The article will never be perfect, but nothing ever approaches perfection, so what is new?   Fifty years from now, Hans Jürgen Eysenck will be known and remembered as having been a brilliant British psychologist.  All the accusations as to his having supported the extreme right will have proved to be nothing more than --- “a tempest in a teapot.” Sirswindon (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jensen & Eysenck only? Not at all: merely from memory, other involved in the controversy include Chris Brand (fired), Linda Gottfredson (tenure almost lost), Raymond Cattell (award contested) & J. Phillipe Rushton (investigated), not to mention everyone's favourite target Herrnstein and Murray… need I go on?  And those are just the tip of the iceberg — I'm sure Widescreen could come up with lots more.


 * Enough. I hope we've all got better things to do, even Widescreen. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sin of Naming rather than Explaining
Widescreen you are too much. So Eysenck was a member of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quarterly. Thank you for letting us know that fact, which tells us absolutely nothing about actions he might have taken in trying to advise the publication as to its choice of articles to be published. Having served in the academic community for a number of years, I have always found it interesting to see individuals such as yourself, launching witch-hunts attacking faculty members with this or that accusation, without offering FACTs to support their attacks. It is the sin of NAMING rather than EXPLAINING. If you cannot give us evidence of where he supported racist articles in the Mankind Quarterly, or where he wrote such articles, just offering that he was on their academic advisory council is just another one of your wild accusations that serving on the academic council of a Journal (accused of publishing right-wing articles) makes him right-wing. Can you provide evidence of what was his motivation in serving on the publication’s advisory council, and when and what he did as a member of the council? All you have provided is the FACT that he was on the advisory council, now please provide the dates he was on the council, what meetings he attended, and any minutes showing what he might have contributed. Since it is possible he was on the council for only a short time and never attended any meeting, unless you can provide more than just the one fact that he was on the council, the line you inserted must be removed from the article. “Eysenck was a member of the academic advisory council of Mankind Quarterly. ”  Sirswindon (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my god! -- WSC ® 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that Prof. Eysenck was an advisory council means nothing, unless you can show what advice he was giving (if any). Otherwise, for all you know, he might have been advising them that their previous policy was completely wrong. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I found when and apparently, one reason, why he joined the advisory council. Sirswindon (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is well sourced and relevant. We are also following one group of scholarly sources that mention this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it appears that that Buchanon gives the date and suggests a reason for Eysenck becoming a member of the Council. "In 1974 Eysenck became a member of the academic advisory council of the Mankind Quarterly, joining those associated with the journal in attempting to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle. Buchanon pp.322-23" Sirswindon (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Verification requested
This edit added that Eysenck's joined MQ "attempting to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle". The citations given are rather confusing. Please provide a brief quotation from the source(s) supporting the part of the statement I quoted herein. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly Buchanan, p.349 : "In the post-Jensen era, the [Pioneer] Fund attempted to reinvent itself as a benevolent provider for mainstream behavioural science. Nevertheless, it appeared to place a priority on funding research into bio-genetically grounded psychological differences, including racial differences.  Affiliate journal Mankind Quarterly' was a favoured destination for man Fund recipients. (etc.)"


 * And of course: "Whatever the agenda of the Pioneer Fund, one should not assume it was shared by all researchers it supported. " (ibid.) Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That says nothing of Eysenck's motives for joining the board. See WP:SYNT. From that passage we might as well speculate that he did it just to get money from PF because they liked to dish out funds to MQ regulars. But such speculation does not belong in Wikipedia articles. We need sources directly supporting the statements per WP:V. Insofar I don't see statements discussing Eysenck's motivation, so it should be removed from the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Buchanan Pages 322-323 – “Eysenck had joined the advisory board of one such journal, Mankind Quarterly, in 1974 on the invitation of Richard Lynn. […] those associated with the Mankind Quarterly attempted to reinvent it as a more mainstream academic vehicle in the late 1970s.” A motivating reason for Eysenck joining the board. He later started his own Journals. Sirswindon (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A Serious Discussion
As this is a serious discussion, then it is important that the participants comprehend some basic statistics, which explain what Eysenck and Jenson wrote. They did not write that ALL Black people are less gifted than ALL Whites --- what they wrote is that given two sets of IQ Scores (two overlapping bell-curves) the statistical mean of the Black population is slightly lower than that of the Whites; only by a few points, however statistically significant. Assuming that difference were, say three points, then it could be written that 47% of all Whites have lower IQ’s than the average Black person (which certainly could not be considered racist). When Eysenck called the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ he was referring to biological equality. He makes this quite clear on page 221 of his Autobiography. Examining the reference: (http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter2.htm) ‘untenable ideological doctrine’ cannot be found. Therefore it is crucial for someone to provide the actual context in which Eysenck is reported to have written: “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” in order to ascertain if he were describing biological equality or if he were being racist. If no one is able to do this, then that alleged connection must be deleted. Last, since this is a serious discussion, after reading all the what has been written in the revised Section 3.1, including all the references, it appears it must be titled Alleged Relations, as no proof has been offered that Eysenck actually had relations with or supported right-wing groups as defined by Wikipedia. Sirswindon (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your mileage may vary. Source do speak unambiguously of "relationship". See the quotes. But relationship is a pretty broad concept, which includes relationships like writer-publisher, celebrity-fan or even enmity. So I don't see any problem using "relationship", but I don't think this is something worth debating at length, so I'm fine with "alleged" in front as well; see WP:ALLEGED though. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have a duty not mislead, as well as to be logically accurate. To speak of Eysenck's 'relationship' with the  far right appears to put him in the same camp as Colin Jordan and Lincoln Rockwell.  And although there may be some who are quite happy with this portrayal, I don't think it's been established that it's justified.  IMHO 'alleged' is better. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that using "relationship with the right-wing" for the founder of the American Nazi Party would be superfluous (to say the least). Tijfo098 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please will the person who posted that Eysenck called “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” copy the exact text and page number from where it is written; then inform us as to the context in which it appeared, i.e. was it regarding biological equality as Eysenck reported in his Autobiography? I have searched through the references and cannot find the text anywhere.  Sirswindon (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have a serious discussion here? I think we have a debatte here which is try to deny reliable sources with sophistic argumentations and WP:SPAs. I don't think thats a serious discussion. -- WSC ® 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Widescreen, if you can produce a copy of the exact text with the words that Eysenck called “the equality of humans is an untenable ideological doctrine” than do so. I have looked through your references and it is not there.  You continue attempting to defend your "agenda" with name-calling but do not produce evidence.  Please give us the exact text from your references with page numbers and the context to which it applied.  If your references are reliable you should be able to quote them line by line.  If not, your sources are not reliable. And please --- keep this a serious discussion.  Sirswindon (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in german, but of course taken from a secondary source! The Book is this: and you can find it even online:  search for “unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin”. -- WSC ® 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So the original passage is apparently in the preface to Krebs, Page 12. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

According to WorldCat, Krebs' book is only available at 6 libraries, 2 in Germany and the rest in Switzerland, but someone could verify the primary source if they really doubt the secondary. Given that it involved no translation, I don't see much reason to doubt it. An apparently different printing seems much more widely held: Tijfo098 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The following snippet from Krebs, pp. 11-12 can be gleaned from Google Books (it's a full paragraph): "Es scheint, daß die einzigen Menschen, die immer noch an eine als Identität gedeutete Gleichheit zu glauben scheinen, schlecht informierte militante Linke in den kapitalistischen Ländern sind, die unter dem irrigen Eindruck stehen, sie repräsentierten eine Form des Marxismus, während sie in Wirklichkeit nur die traurigen Überreste der stalinistischen Verirrungen der dreißiger und vierziger Jahre darstellen. Nicht einmal Rousseau, der Vater des modernen Egalitarismus, ist so weit gegangen, und die schlimmen Folgen des Glaubens an etwas, das in Wirklichkeit eine unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin ist, haben nunmehr viele Menschen von der Absurdität dieser Grundsätze überzeugt."

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Widescreen’s references (above) are nothing more than a repeat of the Jenson-Eysenck controversy. Included In the references is "unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin" without citing where, when and in what context Eysenck is supposed to have called “the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine.’ "

Zu dem von dessen Leiter herausgegebenen Buch mit dem Titel "Das unvergangliche Erbe" verfaBte er das Vorwort, in dem  er gegen die Gleichheit der Menschen wettert, indem er sie als "unhaltbare ideologische Doktrin"abtut. (in Krebs 1981, S. 12)

What this says is that Eysenck rails against the [concept] of the equality of people which he dismisses as “untenable ideological doctrine.” It does not say he called “the equality of humans an ‘untenable ideological doctrine.’  Should Widescreen quote original text by Eysenck, we might be able to understand the context in which this might have been written. Until then we must rely on what Eysenck wrote concerning this subject. All that I have been able to find is where he wrote that humans are not biologically equal. The following is from page 220 of his Autobiography:

“The major argument in-modern times is between those who define equality in terms of social status, and those who define it in terms of  equality of biological inheritance. Equality of social status has always been a socialist idea, and it is certainly possible to argue about its  desirability, or the possibility of achieving it. Equality of biological abilities and traits is a chimera which no thinking person should  entertain for one moment. This statement has nothing to do with any political or social preconceptions. As Lenin pointed out: 'When one's experience and reason testify that men are not equal, then one  understands under equality the equality of abilities or the equivalence of  bodily strength and mental capacities of men. It is quite obvious in this sense that men are not equal. No single reasonable man and no single Socialist ever forgets this.' Lenin goes on to characterize as an 'absurdity'  the idea of extending equality into these spheres, and concludes by  saying: 'When Socialists speak of equality, they understand by that social  equality, the equality of social position, but not at all the equality of  physical and mental abilities of individual persons.”

At this point in our Serious Discussion, it is clear that taking out of context something Eysenck may have said or written, and not referencing where and when this might have occurred does not meet Wikipedia standards for being referenced material,  Sirswindon (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a serious discussion. And now I will add somthing serious: I've never heard such a nonsens bevor! Eysenck worte the preface of a book of a far-right writer and called the equality of people as he actually did. A secondary source summarize the preface and cited one sentens as quintessence of Eysencks opinion. Some of our Eysenck-fans think it's possibele to reason this away. What "context" do you mean? The context of civil rights? Or of biological racism or social Darwinism? The authors of the secondary source set the context. In the same book a author plead for a genetically selection of people. So what context is meant in your view? -- WSC ® 05:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IThe point in the reliable secondary source is borne out by the snippet from the original, so it can go in. Not hedged with "alleged". We need to move away fron generalisations to specifics, like this point. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I take you at your word! I also think we should clear the oppinion of Eysenck. The Authors call Jensen and Eysenck crown witness of all modern racists. I thik this phrase point out their meaning much better. -- WSC ® 07:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "crown witness" mean? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -- WSC ® 09:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From that dictionary definition, it's a word that is used figuratively in German, which doesn't mean it can be used figuratively in English. It seems to have two meanings in English: Queen's evidence (state evidence in the US), or chief witness. Those meanings are separate in English. So, no, we cannot use that term, as there is no translation that will pick up all the nuances. If you want a further opinion on that, you could ask on the reference desk for language. And you perhaps misunderstand what I mean by specifics. One example often quoted in Wikipedia is how we write about Hitler. We do not say "Hitler was a very bad man". We say "x number of people died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz". Then the reader can deduce what they like about Hitler, and if they are a normal person the scale of the evil will be apparent. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! And there's no critic or reception chapter in the article Adolf Hitler. But wherefrom do we know Hitler was antisemitic or "racially motivated"? These are all things mentioned in this article? Please stopp this sophistry. It's boring! -- WSC ® 10:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not sophistry to use language so that people can understand what you mean. You can put in "crown witness" if you like, but I guarantee that no English speakers who don't also know the German original term will have a clue what you're on about. It will just sound stilted and annoying. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Google translates that as star witness which is idiomatic and preserves sense well enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of points: some people tune their discourse to their audience. Others change their views over time. So we should not use the auto-biographical passage to dismiss what he wrote in Krebs' unless the passage from the auto-biography invoked by Sirswindon above is explicitly claimed by Eysenck to be a clarification or amendment of what he wrote earlier. Second, the logic of the passage in Krebs' seems to be that "Identität gedeutete Gleichheit" is untenable and that it's a view only held by ill-informed "stalinists" living in the West, and that not even Rousseau&mdash;the father of egalitarianism&mdash;went that far. Does anyone here have a good suggestion for translating "Identität gedeutete Gleichheit"? This is the thesis that Eysenck dismisses in Krebs' (not Rousseau's). Tijfo098 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats what Eysenck wrote. But the interpretation of what he wrote is a job for a secondary source. What they wrote in what coherence is signifficant for us. -- WSC ® 10:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage/chapter in the secondary source (which is written by de:Siegfried Jäger, who seems to be a linguist focused on pragmatics and discourse analysis) deals with the philosophy of Peter Singer. Eysenck and Jensen are identified there as the central source of inspiration for Singer's ideas (see Peter Singer for what those are). Jäger then says that in Krebs' book Eysenck 'railed against the equality of people, presenting it as an "untenable ideological doctrine"'). I'm fine with citing Jäger's interpreation with attribution because the original text by Eysenck is rather murky. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Eysenck barks against left-wing and the equality of people in a far-right book which supports racial hygiene. That needs a third party interpretation. -- WSC ® 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Left" is not a monolithic entity; it's quite possible to criticise what the British call "the Loony Left", without criticising the Left in general. In fact Eysenck said he considered himself a socialist (see above). Paul Magnussen (talk)
 * Thank you Tijfo098 for your being a scholar. We need more like you!!!! What the so-called secondary sources wrote is misleading and NOT significant. That others tried using Jenson and Eysenck to spread their racist agendas did not mean Jenson and Eysenck were racist.  Sirswindon (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with both your suggestions, Tijfo, both the "star witness", and the use of Jager, attributed. I take it that we are sure that Eysenck's preface was not published anywhere in English? I did see a reference to Krebs' book being translated from French to German, but can't find any holdings of any such book in French. Just that we are struggling with the languages, and it is always a good idea to look back at the language in which a text was originally written. I know Eysenck wouldn't have written his preface in French, but he might have written it in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He might have written it in French; he spent the spring and summer of 1934 in Dijon, "a busy time which I used to learn the language, become acquainted with the history of the country, and to read as much literature as I could. (autobiography, p.42). Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. That book 1981 was only partially written and edited by Krebs. (Hg.) in "Pierre Krebs:(Hg.): Das unvergängliche Erbe, Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit. Mit einem Vorwort von Hans-Jürgen Eysenck, Tübingen 1981" stands for (ed.) aka editor. And the contributions were all in German. Jäger goes on to discuss/flame another chapter in that book by "Jörg Rieck" (an alleged pseudonym for a neo-Nazi). This is the table of contents from Worldcat : Wolrdcat also says: "Responsibility: 	hrsg. von Pierre Krebs ; mit einem Vorwort von Hans Ju¨rgen Eysenck". And the paragraph in the preface/Vorwort right after the one I quoted specifically addresses Eysenck's hopes for the book. It starts with "Hoffen wir, daß das Erscheinen dieses Buchs die Rückkehr zur Vernunft bei allen jenen fördern wird, die für das Erziehungswesen, für Sozialdienste und andere Institutionen verantwortlich sind, wo sich irrige intellektuelle Voraussetzungen [...]" So it's highly unlikely it was text previously published anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gedanken zu einer kulturellen Wiedergeburt / Pierre Krebs --
 * Wiedergewinnung der Identität / Peter Binding --
 * Die nominalistische Wende / Armin Mohler --
 * Gleichheitslehre, Weltanschauung und Moral / Alain de Benoist --
 * Der organische Staat als Alternative in Evolas Vorstellung, Nietzsches Projekt und Saint-Exupérys Botschaft / Pierre Krebs --
 * Der Konflikt der antiken Kultur mit dem Urchristentum / Alain de Benoist --
 * Über den Sinn der Geschichte / Giorgio Locchi --
 * Der Mensch, das soziale Wesen / Jacques de Mahieu --
 * Von der Konsumgesellschaft zur organischen Wirtschaft / Guillaume Faye --
 * Empirische Wissenschaften zur Gleichheitslehre / Rudolf Künast --
 * Zur Debatte der Vererblichkeit der Intelligenz / Jörg Rieck --
 * Die bildende Kunst von heute im Fadenkreuz der Kulturrevolutionäre / Richard W. Eichler.
 * Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the names in that TOC, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Jacques de Mahieu and fr:Giorgio Locchi probably had their contributions translated into German by someone else. But there's little reason to assume that those of German-speaking authors like Armin Mohler or de:Rolf Kosiek (Rudolf Künast) or "Jörg Rieck" (alleged to be Jürgen Rieger by Siegfried Jäger) had to be translated. I doubt that Eysenck's German was so poor as to require translation. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The rulings of woolly-minded judges may require "interpretation" by subsequent courts; but Prof. Eysenck, in general, said exactly what he meant, and no more, as clearly as he could.


 * There seem to be only two possible "interpretations" of what he was referring to as an "untenable ideological doctrine": biological equality, or equality of rights.


 * We already know that he thought the evidence was against biological equality; and there is no evidence except "interpretation" that he meant the equality of rights. Therefore the presumption should be that he meant the former.


 * In case there should remain any doubt, I quote the following from the Introduction to Race, Education and Intelligence (pp. 9–10), in full:


 * "[…] the reader is consequently entitled to ask in which direction the writer's own political and social beliefs and attitudes go. This is an unusual position, but the logic of the facts suggest that such a 'declaration of interest', as it is called in Parliament, is not out of place.


 * My recognition of the importance of the racial problem, and my own attitudes of opposition to any kind of racial segregation, and hatred for those who suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion) were determined in part by the fact that I grew up in Germany, at a time when Hitlerism was becoming the very widely held doctrine which finally prevailed and led to the deaths of several million Jews whose only crime was that they belonged to an imaginary 'race' which had been dreamed up by a group of men in whom insanity was mixed in equal parts with craftiness, paranoia with guile, and villainy with sadism. No one who ever heard Hitler in full spate, as I did when all of us Berlin school children were herded into the Tempelhofer Feld to listen to one of his tirades, is ever likely to underrate the strength of the emotions involved in racial hatred; my own reaction was one of hatred for these purveyors of hatred, intolerance for these apostles of intolerance, but not unreasoning opposition for these protagonists of unreason.  It seemed to me then, as now, that human problems, like all other problems, have to be settled on a factual basis; […]"


 * Note that this is in his most supposedly "racist" publication. That should settle it — although I doubt it will. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Magnussen, please add this to the Article as part of what Eysenck wrote in defense of the attacks on him. Sirswindon (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Please refer to the arbitration committee sanctions at the top of this page. We can definitely include that Eysenck denied being a racist, but it should be referenced to secondary sources I suggest the biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Primary sources are permitted if used carefully"? Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What other ultimate source for his views can there be, but his own words? How can a second-hand report of what he said be more reliable?
 * If extracts from secondary sources are not direct quotations, are they not paraphrases, with the associated risks of distortion? Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If one single source (Buchanan) is allowed to be quoted extensively --- Eysenck must also be allowed to be quoted in his own defense. Referring to the sanctions at the top of the page --- being neutral is a requirement and hearing from bothe Buchanan and Eysenck is being NEUTRAL. If Magnussen doesn't replace his edit, I shall. Sirswindon (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting also that at this point Eysenck was not actually "denying" anything: when he wrote the above, the book had not yet appeared, and so the furore had not yet erupted. It was merely an "on the record" statement of his views.
 * This is not to say, of course, that he hadn't already trodden on the corns of the Far Left: he did that in the '50s when he demonstrated the the personalities of Communists and Fascists were similar. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Some confusion, I fear
I don't mind this material being added to the article. But it definitely looks like it was added to the wrong section. It says little about his links (or lack thereof) with the right-wing groups discussed in that section. Yes, it's apparent Eysenck disliked Hitler aplenty, but the Nouvelle Droite (of Krebs & co.) and generally the New Right has a broader spectrum. The section on "Genetics and Intelligence" seems more appropriate for that long quotation. If you find something that Eysenck said in defense of the various concrete allegations that he is connected to this or that group, then that would be on topic in the last section. But nobody accused him of being connected to Hitler (or the NSDAP) directly, so that's a bit of a straw man to use such a large quote to rebut.


 * May I suggest you Google "Dr. Hans J. Eysenck - Nazi Brain Scientist"? But perhaps you only meant "nobody on Wikipedia (yet)"?Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Really weird!!! http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/Bevilaqua/Bevilaqua_bio.html Sirswindon (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A shorter note/paraphrase that he disapproved of Hitler's "racial hatred" would be okay though. Actually, Buchanan has a few more examples of places where Eysenck and his right-wing "fans" were in disagreement. You can expand on that from p. 325 if you wish. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eysenck's distances himself, not only from Hitler, but from those who"suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion)". So yes, I suppose the stuff after that about Hitler could go.  But if he'd distanced himself separately from every different group of right-wing loonies, how much time would he have had for anything else? Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I believe it belongs in this Section as it is part of what Eysenck wrote in 1973, regarding his not being a racist.  It has been shortened, and belongs in the Article in order to maintain the Section being NEUTRAL. Sirswindon (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Eysenck stated his own views in the Introduction to Race, Education and Intelligence: "[…] the reader is consequently entitled to ask in which direction the writer's own political and social beliefs and attitudes go.   My recognition of the importance of the racial problem, and my own attitudes of opposition to any kind of racial segregation, and hatred for those who suppress any sector of the community on grounds of race (or sex or religion) were determined in part by the fact that I grew up in Germany, at a time when Hitlerism was becoming the very widely held doctrine which finally prevailed and led to the deaths of several million Jews whose only crime was that they belonged to an imaginary 'race' which had been dreamed up by a group of men in whom insanity was mixed in equal parts with craftiness, paranoia with guile, and villainy with sadism.   […]"


 * Tijfo098, you suggested: “ A shorter note/paraphrase ….would be okay.”  Taking your suggestion I cut out more than half of it.  Don’t you feel that over 400 words on behalf of Buchanan is somewhat excessive and hardly Neutral? Sirswindon (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As concluding remarks on these connections, Buchanan writes: "For those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, his links with far right groups revealed his true political sympathies. Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist, they were being promulgated by a scientist willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda." Buchanan footnotes this observation with a quote from William H. Tucker| who described Eysenck as "Jensen's dark doppelganger". Buchanan however disagrees with this stark interpretation: "Yet the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor implicit in this accusation appears to be seriously misleading in Eysenck's case. More than most, what you saw was what you got." Buchanan goes on to argue that Eysenck's research was thinly spread across numerous domains to conclude that "There appeared to be no hidden agenda to Hans Eysenck. He was too self-absorbed, too preoccupied with his own aspirations as a great scientist to harbor specific political aims. Buchanan then addresses Eysenck's handling of his public image in this matter: "Harder to brush off was the impression that Eysenck  was insensitive, even willfully blind to the way his work played out in a wider political context. He did not want to believe, almost to the point of utter refusal, that his work gave succor to right-wing racialist groups. But there is little doubt that Jensen and Eysenck  helped revive the confidence of these groups. [...] It was unexpected vindication from a respectable scientific quarter. The cautionary language of Eysenck's interpretation of the evidence made little difference. To the racialist right, a genetic basis for groups differences in intelligence bore out racialist claims of inherent, immutable hierarchy." Buchanan exemplifies Eysenck's cautionary approach with a number of concrete examples from Eysenck's writings, and concludes that "If the appropriation of his work by right-wing groups brought him baggage that would be hard to shake off, how then did he construe his relationship with them? Curiously enough, he saw himself as a kind of enlightened scientific shepherd, guiding the blinkered and ignorant toward more sensible positions. Good research would eventually help temper all social wrongs and excesses. The trouble for Eysenck was that empirical science was clearly taken to be part of the problem as well as the solution. Its very impartiality was itself held up to question. The lack of consensus on the technical issues fed open-ended arguments about truth, social justice, and how we should live. Thus the controversy ran on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs)
 * You're welcome to abbreviate/paraphrase that if it bothers you so much. I had a hard time deciding what to leave out. And for better or worse, Buchanan is the only independent source that has written a book-length biography of Eysenck. (Buchanan's book was pretty well received by most academic reviewers, look a few sections above for links.) What other independent sources do you have to offer? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do apologize; it is that the way it is presented, seems to ramble, and not make points crisply. Maybe Magnussen will want to take a hand at editing your take of what Buchanan wrote.  I will also go over my copy of Buchanan to see where he concluded; “Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist….”  The problem I keep having is that knowing Hans personally for over forty years, and having read just about everything he wrote, I cannot find anywhere where he was ‘racist.’  Maybe I am unable to define  ‘racist’.  Am I being racist when I conclude that based on IQ testing, it appears that, on average, the native inhabitants living in Japan appear to have a slightly higher IQ than white people living in the United States?  I do appreciate what you have contributed to this discussion, I am only trying to walk the NEUTRAL path.  Sirswindon (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no agreed definition of racist that isn't hopelessly vague; that what makes it such a useful term of abuse. The best attempt I've seen comes from Thomas Sowell:


 * ' "Racism" is a term not only used very loosely by many, but also a term for which a more precise definition is not easy to achieve. In various usages, the term applies to the ideas of (1) those who have an animosity to those of another race, (2) those who believe that people of another race are genetically inferior, (3) those who believe in discriminating against people of another race, out of sheer self-interest, and (4) those who believe that people of another race or ethnic group are less capable, or have other undesirable traits, as of a given time, even if for non-genetic reasons. Those who believe all these things at the same time provide the clearest examples of racism. But all four notions need not go together and often do not.' (Conquests and Cultures, p.364).


 * Does this help?


 * Note also that Buchanan cites the view of Eysenck as racist as appurtaining to those "looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck", not his own. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Magnussenn, you have pinpointed the problem. Buchanan, and all the rest, commit the sin of naming rather than explaining.  When I have a moment I want to see if Buchanan ever presented a definition of racist or if he offered any evidence of “willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda."  After writing this what did he mean by: "Yet the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor implicit in this accusation appears to be seriously misleading in Eysenck's case. More than most, what you saw was what you got."  As you pointed out,  Buchanan cites the view of Eysenck as racist as appertaining to those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, not his own --- this is not clearly presented in what Tijfo098 wrote.  Tijfo098, do you understand why I am confused as to how this has been presented, and would it be possible for you to rewrite it in a way as to be understood by the average (100-IQ) reader? Sirswindon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a verbatim quote from Buchanan that I put in the article, in quotes: "For those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, his links with far right groups revealed his true political sympathies. Not only were Eysenck's writings overtly racist, they were being promulgated by a scientist willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda." Yes, the 2nd sentence contains anaphora. Except you, nobody else was confused by it insofar. But feel to paraphrase it in a way that you find easier to comprehend. Tijfo098 (talk)
 * Is this better? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Better Sirswindon (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO Buchanan would have done better to put a colon after "sympathies", rather than a full stop. Paul Magnussen (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Die Zeit published a book review of Krebs' in 1982. And surprisingly it's online. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable material and talk-page disruption
Sirswindon removed this passage claiming it fails WP:V. This is not so. Quote from Buchanan p. 320:

In 1978, social psychologist Michael Billig published a study of British fascism that would help focus attention on Eysenck's alleged links with right-wing groups. [...] More to the point, Billig helped make it widely known that Eysenck's work (e.g. Race, intelligence and education, The inequality of man) was on the National Front's list of recommended reading. In addition, interviews with Eysenck had been published in the National Party's Beacon, and were subsequently republished in other forums like the US-based neo-fascist journal Steppingstones. [fn 180]

Footnote 180 in Buchanan says:

Beacon (1977), Interview with Hans Eysenck. A similar interview with Eysenck had been published the year before: Neue Anthropologie (1976), Interview mith Hans-Jurgen Eysenck, Neue Anthropologie, January/March, 1976, 16-17. Neue Anthropologie was a kind of sister publication to Mankind Quartely, having similar contributors and sometimes sharing the same articles.

And p. 321 discusses the 1978 row between Eysenck and Rose (in Nature and elsewhere) over the Eysenck interview which appeared in Beacon. In fact, the entire p. 321 is about the interview in Beacon; I'm not pasting it all here. I suggest Sirswindon self-reverts or I'll have to file a WP:AE report, not just for this removal but for all the tendentious disruption in the threads above. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What tendentious disruptions? Granted he has stated his viewpoint rather energetically, but certainly no more so than Widescreen; and if I can put up with Widescreen calling me a liar and a sophist without calling the cops, surely we can settle this the same way?


 * I personally have no objection to any verifiable statement being included, although of course I have my own ideas about over-emphasis. In which connection, I note that Buchanan continues: "Nonetheless, being approvingly cited by the National Front demonstrated very little about Eysenck's political motives."


 * And as to the Beacon interview, he also says (top of p.322): "However, the charge that he knowingly gave an interview (and tacit endorsement) to a far-right group seemed unfair." Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how Other incidents that fueled Eysenck's critics like Michael Billig and Steven Rose include the appearance of Eysenck's books on UK National Front's list of recommended readings and an interview with Eysenck published by National Party's Beacon (1977) and later republished in the US neo-fascist Steppingstones, with a similar one having been published a year before by Neue Anthropologie, described by Eysenck's biographer Roderick Buchanan as a "sister publication to Mankind Quarterly, having similar contributors and sometimes sharing the same articles." is over-emphasis given that it summarized two pages from the book. We do devote far more space to Buchanan's evaluation of these accusations, but completely removing the summary of the accusations (and names of the main accusers) makes the whole section uninformative, doesn't it? Or maybe that is the goal here? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly.


 * I'm told that the bases of Wikipedia are facts and Reliable Sources; POV material is anathema.


 * Accordingly, what are the facts here?


 * Prof. Eysenck has written a book about race and intelligence. Its findings are lauded by various right-wing groups.  The question therefore arises as to what his own political opinions are, since it is not unknown for supposedly scientific work actually to be coloured by the writer's politics.

Eysenck's politics

 * So:


 * What are Eysenck's politics? Socialist, he says.  It was in the article, but has now gone.  I still have the reference.


 * His views on racial (or sexual or religious) discrimination? He's stated them: they're in the article.


 * On segregation? Ditto.


 * On Nazism? Ditto.


 * On the National Front? There is his letter to the Times (not — yet — in the article, but quoted by Buchanan, p. 322) saying that he and Jensen were both 'strongly opposed to any form of racialism including that advocated by the National Front.'


 * If anyone has produced an any statement of his contradicting the above positions, I'm unaware of it.

Criticisms of his politics

 * But it is certainly a fact that criticisms have been made.


 * What is the basis of these criticisms? Apparently not his stated political opinions.


 * Is it his behaviour? Has he bashed immigrant children, broken the shop windows of Jewish businesses or looted Indian ones?


 * No. He has written for periodicals, some of whose other contributors are considered by the critics — possibly correctly -- to be right-wing.  And this is the best anyone can come up with in the 40 years since R, I & E was published.  And that too is already in the article.


 * Does it mean anything? To take a journal already mentioned, the Times has right-wing contributors (I remember an editorial a while ago about how wonderful the British Empire was for everyone under it rule).  And note that even Buchanan — who is quite critical of Eysenck on several counts — acquits him of anything worse than naïvety on this one.


 * So the whole thing consists of insinuation and opinion — it is, in a word, POV.

Fascist behaviour?

 * What are the characteristics of Fascism that everyone considers so objectionable? Beating up opponents?  Denying them the chance to speak?  Terrorising their families?


 * These were the tactics of Eysenck's critics, as documented. His children's lives were made so miserable that he felt obliged obliged to change their names by deed poll.  So whose behaviour was Fascist?


 * This is, in part, was I meant by over-emphasis: concentrating on the mouse and ignoring the elephant in the room.

Eysenck's writings

 * There is also, of course, criticism of the content of his writings, in particular, R, I & E; which brings me back to Reliable Sources.


 * Eysenck stated his conclusions precisely, with great care, the proper scientific reservations and at some length, in R, I & E; I have quoted them verbatim on Itsmejudith's talk page.


 * I have been at some pains to stop prejudicially distorted second-hand accounts of these conclusions from being inserted into the article. The distortion itself shows that the sources are not Reliable.


 * So thank you for the reference to that is the goal; it describes the tactics of the critics exactly: "keep the enemy's positions as vague as possible"; "As a propagandist, whatever you do, don't let [Eysenck]'s statements into the article"; "A lead that describes [Eysenck] as "far-right" is much better than something like "someone who considers that the causes of measured differences in IQ may be, in part, genetic".


 * "When you read in the paper that 'experts' have disagreed, it is always wise to find out first whether they were in fact expert in the subject under discussion… that is, people who have specialised in the relevant fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics and intelligence testing, have contributed significantly to these areas, and are familiar with the enormous amount of research which is relevant to a discussion of the field."


 * and also:


 * "[There appears to be] an almost universal belief to the effect that anyone is competent to discuss psychological problems, whether he has taken the trouble to study the subject or not, and that while everybody’s opinion is of equal value, that of the professional psychologist must be excluded at all costs because he might spoil the the fun by producing some facts which would completely upset the speculation and the wonderful dream-castles so laboriously constructed by the layman."


 * Has R, I & E been faulted on statements of fact, here, by experts?


 * Apparently not by Billig, who seems to be a sociologist; the gravamen of his charges appears to be that of giving aid and comfort to the Enemy, and thus not based on the accuracy of the science at all. Nor by Barnett (a zoologist or ethologist?): his reference to R, I & E as 'inflammatory' and 'insulting' is mere name-calling, hence POV.

Over-emphasis

 * Now back to over-emphasis. I certainly don't deny that the attacks on Eysenck are of encyclopædic interest, if only as a psychological and political phenomenon.  Nor do I assert that they're confined to the Left.  Ad hominem attacks on figures whose writings the critics are unable to rebut factually — those of Chomsky, for example — are just as common from the Right.  Eysenck himself said:


 * "Politicians of all creeds tend to regard psychology with suspicion, not because it is in league with any particular brand of politics, but because it attempts to substitute factual evidence and scientific reasoning for stereotyped thinking and undeviating adhesion to dogma. The politician is used to seeing dogma opposed to counter-dogma; to find a case argued on its factual merits deprives him of his favourite weapon."


 * But these attacks are only dribble in the ocean of criticism that any scientific assertion of genetic differences between groups — however trivial -- attracts. Whole books have been written on the subject (e.g. that by Segerstråle), and the same criticisms that are made of Eysenck, have been made of Jensen and all the others that I won't bother to enumerate.


 * I therefore submit that the proper place for them in the the article on the History of the race and intelligence controversy, with a pointer from the current article.


 * Sorry for the length of this, and also for a certain amount of inevitable repetition of what I've said previously. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be sorry, it needed to be said. It is about scholarship, which I have defined before and will do so again.  Taking one's research out of context is done all the time. But as you wrote, those who want to continue the debate concerning the validity of genetic differences in IQ, do so where it is covered and not in this article. Sirswindon (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with GRECE
Apparently prefacing the book of Krebs was not the end of it. Here are some snippets I found searching for Eysenck and GRECE:


 * p. 48: "Eysenck's book, On the Inequality of Man, has been published in a French translation by Copernic, GRECE's publishing house."


 * Economic and Political Weekly - Volume 14, Part 4 (1979) - Page 1874: 'Judging by their exposure to the limelight, the main components of the New Right are GRECE (the Research and Study ...) whose successful titles include Hans Eysenck's "The Inequality of Man" in translation and "Race et Intelligence"'


 * p. 150 (this one has page preview) "The publication by Copernic of works such as Hans Eysenck's L'Inegalite de l'homme (The Inequality of Man) or the collaborative Race et Intelligence (under the pseudonym Jean-Pierre Hérbert) showed how thin was the cultural veil drawn across GRECE's sociobiological outlook." The book introduces "Copernic" on p. 145 as "GRECE's own publishing house".


 * p. 12: "12e Colloque national 4 décembre 1977, Palais des Congrès, Paris - « Les illusions de l'égalité », avec Thierry Maulnier, Hans J. Eysenck, Henri Gobard, Julien Cheverny, Alain de Benoist."


 * p. 280 "Douzième colloque national au Palais des Congrès de la Porte Maillot : Les illusions de l'égalité, avec Thierry Maulnier, Hans J. Eysenck, Henri Gobard, Julien Cheverny et Alain de Benoist. Février-mars 1978. Le G.R.E.C.E. crée l'événement... " Note that the publisher of this is Copernic.

Apparently he also took part in at least one GRECE-related seminar in France besides GRECE being the effective publisher of his book Inequality of Man in France. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tremendous work! This research is revealing. But it showes also, that you can't take Buchanan serious. He dosn't direct his attantion on Eysencks relationship with far right groups and doesen't examine this issue in-depth. I don't want to aggrieve anyone, but I think the buchanan part is a bit essayistic. -- WSC ® 09:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very useful. The Die Zeitung article you mention in a thread above is a highly reliable source. But Buchanan's biography is still reliable for this article. Gibson's too. We can't write an article about an academic and disregard the full length biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't say the biographys aren't reliable. I said, you can't take them serious for the right-wing-issue. And this biographys shoulden't quote any conjectures about Eysencks purposes or what he really thought about that issue. We are an enzyklopedia. Not readers digest. -- WSC ® 10:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading what is being written here, makes me ask “where is scholarship?” Reading all the references it is still Impossible to know if Eysenck had any right-wing motivations in what he wrote. As to Widescreen’s remark: I don't say the biographys aren't reliable. I said, you can't take them serious for the right-wing-issue. And this biographys shoulden't quote any conjectures about Eysencks purposes or what he really thought about that issue. We are an enzyklopedia. Not readers digest.” He is correct, being an encyclopedia none of the material regarding allegations, conjectures, or what Eysenck might have thought, belong in the Article. Encyclopedias are about FACTS. Sirswindon (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AE request
I've asked uninvolved admins to intervene over there. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An introduction this time (instead of a preface)
Pearson's racist views and his connections to both the old and new right have been discussed in many sources. [example of such]" And the WorldCat entry confirms: "Responsibility: 	Roger Pearson ; with introduction by Hans J. Eysenck." Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

More removal of content cited from secondary sources
Edit by Paul Magnussen. Please explain why those passages selected by a secondary source are not representative of HE's views on R&I. And explain why you think a secondary source discussing HE's role as a "prolific popularizer" should not be included in this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that no explanation was given, I've added them back. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly Eysenck may be described as a "prolific popularizer", no objection there.


 * But as to the rest (which I think you did not add back) being representative of HE's views:


 * The second quotation (of which the elided passage is "such as transfer from the natural mother to a foster mother)" is taken out of context, in that all the evidence adduced to support this statement — the "facts when it was written", many pages, up to and including the study by Ronald Wilson (1972) — is omitted.


 * It's only this that makes Barnett's dismissive statement seem superficially plausible.


 * The sentence from R, I & E is not taken out of of context and does seem representative, and I apologise for deleting it along with the rest.


 * The comment on it, however, is just invective and belongs to no apparent domain of knowledge. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't that just your own personal judgement? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What domain of knowledge does it then belong to? We can't abdicate all judgment, or we'd have to include all staments on all subjects,however uninformed. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Boundary between Hans Eysenck article and History of the race and intelligence controversy
Since race and intelligence was the most controversial topic on which Eysenck wrote, I see a tendency for material from each of these two topics gradually to enlarge the other one, without limit.

Since arbitration has already been invoked, I submit that it would be useful if the Arbitrators would also decide where the boundary should be. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators won't decide this but see WP:POVFORK for guidance. And common sense. We can provide links so that readers who are more interested in the debate as a whole than in Eysenck's own positions can find the information they need. But we also need to have a sufficient account here so that readers can get a full picture of Eysenck as his life and work are presented in the best, recent secondary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the pointer. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of extensive quotes from Bartlett
By Including Bartlett’s extensive Quote, you have included what is NOT the present accepted academic position regarding how much genetics plays in determining the IQ of an individual. Therefore if you include Barnett, than the most widely held view must also be included. (It is also what Eysenck wrote concerning Individual Differences). What you included:
 * Barnett follows with a quote from another book by Eysenck: “the whole course of development of a child's intellectual capabilities is largely laid down genetically, and even extreme environmental changes . . . have little power to alter this development. Barnett lambasts the latter with: "As we know, this statement is in conflict with the principles of genetics, especially the interaction of heredity and environment. Nor did it correspond to the facts even when it was written.”

From “Child Development and Education” by T.M. McDevitt and J. E. Ormrod, 2007. Evidence for Hereditary Influences Earlier we mentioned that measures of information processing speed correlate with IQ scores. Speed of processing depends on neurological efficiency and maturation, which are genetically controlled. From this standpoint, then, we have some support for a hereditary basis for intelligence (Perkins, 1995). The fact that children with certain genetic defects (e.g., Down syndrome) have, on average, significantly lower IQ scores than their nondisabled peers (Keogh & MacMillan, 1996) provides  further evidence of heredity's influence. But perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from twin studies and adoption studies. Twin studies Numerous studies have used monozygotic (identical) twins and dizygotic (fraternal) twins to get a sense of how strongly heredity affects IQ. Because monozygotic twins begin as a single fertilized egg which then separates, they are genetically equivalent human beings. In contrast, dizygotic twins are conceived as two separate fertilized eggs. They share about 50 percent of their genetic makeup, with the other 50 percent being unique to each twin. If identical twins have more similar IQ scores than fraternal twins, we can reasonably conclude that heredity influences intelligence. Most twins are raised together by the same parent(s) and in the same home, and so they share similar environments as well as similar genes. Yet even when twins are raised separately (perhaps because they have been adopted and raised by different parents), they typically have similar IQ  scores (Bouchard & McGue, 1981; N. Brody, 1992; Mackintosh, 1998; Plomin & Petrill, 1997). In a review of many twin studies, Bouchard and McGue (1981) found these average (median)  correlations: Identical twins raised in the same home: .86 Identical twins raised in different homes: .72 Fraternal twins raised in the same home: .60 The correlation of .72 indicates that identical twins raised in different environments tend to have very similar IQ scores. In fact, these twins are more similar to each other than are fraternal twins raised in the same home.

If you wish, please appeal to an independent reviewer, but until quotations from references that represent the view accepted by the majority of the academic community are also included, that portion of Bartlett must be deleted. Sirswindon (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is: this is from a reliable secondary source and should not be deleted. You may find something equally authoritative to balance it with. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As to reliability: this is a statement about genetics. Is Bartlett a geneticist?  I don't know, I'm not familiar with him; I'm merely asking. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the Bartlett material is almost too laughable to be taken seriously. Few (if any) geneticists believe that heredity doesn’t play a significant role in determining the level of a person’s IQ?  The question has always been: “It is not how high is your IQ, it is what do you do with it?”  Please bring in an independent reviewer with an academic background.  Sirswindon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Laughable as she may seem to you, is Sandra Scarr also not qualified to comment according to you? Half the criticism you deleted was actually sourced from her, and only quoted by Barnett. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly Scarr is qualified, but what was quoted was not the criticism (which you have now included). Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First most of this "quotes from Bartlett" are actually quotes from Eysenck (as quoted by "Bartlett"). And his name is S.A. Barnett not "Bartlett". A brief bio of him appears here "Professor S A Barnett, formerly Professor of Zoology, Faculty of Science, ANU" meaning Australian National University. And a longer bio can be found here. He seems qualified enough to select quotes from someone, even if you disagree with his comments on them. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please let me put this a different way: Tijfo098 and Itsmejudith, It is obvious that you both have high three-digit IQs. Did your DNA significantly contribute to your high IQ --- and are the low two-digit IQs, all due to their environment?  (We all know someone in a great environment who hasn't a brain in his head.)  Please re-read what was placed in the article from Barnett and you will agree to delete it. Sirswindon (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only three digits? Not me! Itsmejudith (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Barnett's right to comment, I don't know how much genetics research he did (but is that relevant here? Is Eysenck a geneticist?) Barnett for example published a book called Instinct and intelligence: behavior of animals and man first in 1967. It was republished numerous times in the 1970s by Prentice Hall. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me clarify. Eysenck quotes studies in support of his thesis, e.g. by Ronald Wilson (1972) and R.C. Johnson (1963).  Now, I am not saying that Eysenck is necessarily right, far from it.  If Barnett has correctly pointed out logical or factual flaws in the argument, then it doesn't matter whether he's a geneticist or not, the argument would be the same if he were Joe Bloggs.  But if he has just dismissed the whole argument out of hand with one sentence — which I don't know in fact that he has done, since he may have been quoted out of context — if he has done this, then we are entitled to ask what the expertise is that entitles him to dismiss pages of careful argument and scrupulously cited studies without proof. Paul Magnussen (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Temple Smith (Eysenck's UK publisher--no Wikipedia page) an academic publisher of high standards? Is Éditions Copernic--the GRECE funded French publisher of the translation of Inequality of man--an academic publisher of high standards? Is Cambridge University Press, the publisher of Barnett's 1988 book from which the quote was given, an academic publisher of high standards? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Argument from authority? Paul Magnussen (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you're worried that I've quoted Barnett out of context, you can use the google books preview to reassure yourself that I haven't done that: . If you want to add more content&mdash;although not necessarily context&mdash;, you can add what Barnett wrote further about The Inequality of Man: "Yet elsewhere in the book many qualifying statements leave a reader in a state of bewilderment. Among them is reiteration of the need for more research." Those two pages (160-161) are all the attention Barnett pays to Eysenck's books. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I wrote “high three digit IQ.” That would be above 150, and it was due to your DNA not your environment. Carrying this Talk to the highest level of “absurdum” I will be totally controversial by asking: Did Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon ever produce a Plato, Newton, Madam Curie or an Einstein? Why doesn’t someone quote the Russian Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism?)  No geneticist doubts that heredity doesn’t play a significant role in determining the level of a person’s IQ? So if you quote Bartlett you must quote those who hold the majority view that: “the whole course of development of a child's intellectual capabilities is largely laid down genetically, and even extreme environmental changes. . . have little power to alter this development.” Sirswindon (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should be arguing the relative contributions of genetics and environment: that is a matter for the people with the appropriate professional expertise to settle between them. I submit that our task is separate the Reliable from the Unreliable, the fact from the POV, and fact-based criticism from irrelevant insults. Paul Magnussen (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What about Scarr?

 * I'm fine with leaving Barnett's opinion on the 2nd passage out (for now). But what is your argument for removing the criticism of the tone of Eysenck's 1971 book&mdash;criticism advanced by Sandra Scarr, who is one of the signatories of "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"? I already asked this question above, but apparently it got lost in all the side-notes about the IQ of the participants in this discussion... If you want to track down the original passage by Scarr, the citation given in Barnett is: Scarr-Salapatek, S. 1976. Unknowns in the IQ equation. In: The IQ Controversy, ed. NJ. Block & G. Dworkin. New York: Pantheon, pp.114, 116. This book has ISBN 0394730879. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And luckily for the lazy of us, almost the same text by Scarr was republished in her 1981 book, which you can preview in google . I'll rewrite that part directly from Scarr. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to add the following "as is" to the (present) article because it's too detailed, but it's a good quote to add in an article on the book Race, Intelligence and Education itself. Quote from Scarr 1981, p. 63:

To "explain" the genetic origin of these mean IQ differences he [Eysenck] offers these suppositions:

"White slavers wanted dull beasts of burden, ready to work themselves to death in the plantations, and under those conditions intelligence would have been counter-selective. Thus there is every reason to expect that the particular sub-sample of the Negro race which is constituted of American Negroes is not an unselected sample of Negroes, but has been selected throughout history according to criteria which would put the highly intelligent at a disadvantage. The inevitable outcome of such selection would of course be a gene pool lacking some of the genes making for higher intelligence. [p. 42]"

Other ethnic minorities in the US are also, in his view, genetically inferior, again because of the selective migration of lower IQ genotypes:

"It is known [sic] that many other groups came to the U.S.A due to pressures which made them very poor samples of the original population. Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese, as well as Greeks, are examples where the less able, less intelligent were forced through circumstances to emigrate, and where their American progeny showed significantly lower IQ's than would have been shown by a random sample of the original population. [p. 43]"

Although Eysenck is careful to say that these are not established facts (because no IQ tests were given to the immigrants or nonimmigrants in question?), the tone of his writing leaves no doubt about his judgement. There is something in this book to insult almost everyone except WASP's and Jews.

I'll try to find a way to paraphrase/shorten it, but I think just quoting the conclusion of this criticism of Scarr, as Barnett has done, is not a misrepresentation of context or intent. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I managed to paraphrase the above into the text. No wholesale reverts so far :) :) :) Scarr also observes: Another example is Eysenck's curious use of data to support a peculiar line of reasoning about the evolutionary inferiority of blacks: First, he reports that African and U.S. Negro babies have been shown to have precocious sensorimotor development by white norms (the difference, by several accounts, appears only in gross motor skills and even there is slight). Second, he notes that by three years of age U.S. whites exceed U.S. black children in mean IQ scores. Finally he cites a (very slight) negative correlation, found in an early study, between sensorimotor intelligence in the first year of life and later IQ. From exaggerated statements of these various data, he concludes:

"These findings are important because of a very general view in biology according to which the more prolonged the infancy the greater in general are the cognitive or intellectual abilities of the species. This law appears to work even within a given species [p. 79]."

Eysenck would apparently have us believe that Africans and their relatives in the U.S. are less highly evolved than Caucasians, whose longer infancy is related to later higher intelligence. I am aware of no evidence whatsoever to support a within-species relationship between longer infancy and higher adult capacities. This one seem too complex to paraphrase in this article though. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, and with the version you've put in; this is reasoned criticism. Scarr should be Reliable.  (As it happens, I agree that the book could have done without without these hypotheses.  Tact was never a priority with Eysenck, as he admitted himself (quoted in article)). Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reference to Barnett. His one-line dismissal seems to have disappeared from the article, so perhaps we can spare ourselves further discussion of him. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Scarr's comments on R, I & E are are a secondary source, right? Barnett's quotation from them is tertiary. Is this correct? (I'm not objecting, BTW, tertiary is fine with me, as long as it's reliable) Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in part. Barnett has selected a couple of quotes from Eysenck, but the criticism he advanced on R, I & E is entirely from Scarr and we are citing Scarr directly now, so Barnett is bit redundant there. By the way, Buchanan also refers to Scarr's criticism when discussing R, I & E (on p. 286 IIRC). Scarr's article first appeared in Science in 1971; it was republished a few times since then in various books. We took out Barnett's own criticism, which was on The Inequality of Man. I suspect that book was also reviewed somewhere, especially since it was translated to French and German, but I couldn't find something right away. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)