REDHUGO-H 2

Fox, Margalit. "Arthur R. Jensen Dies at 89; Set Off Debate About I.Q." The New
     York Times, 1 Nov. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/
     arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html. Accessed 22 Mar. 2020.

Margalit Fox details the significance of the late Arthur Jensen's life and career in this strangely controversial obituary. Jensen is most known for his 1969 work titled How Much Can We Boost IQ
and Scholastic Achievement? which sparked outrage on campuses across an America in full swing with the Civil Rights Era. Fox credits Jensen with effectively reviving the racial cognition debate in America and contributing to similar works decades later such as The Bell Curve. Beyond this, she even delves into the history and aspects of the intelligence debate, directly referencing ideas such as general intelligence, denoted as "g" (Fox). However, as she is still writing in the context of an obituary, Fox returns her article to Jensen and includes comments from both his supporters and critics in order to highlight that despite his controversial career, he was still an apt and important social scientist. Nonetheless, it is clear that Jensen's posthumous attention can be attributed to the significance of his lasting mark on the academic world.

Jensen, Arthur Robert. "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?"
     Harvard Educational Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 1969, pp. 1-123. APA
     PsycNet, doi:10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7. Accessed 22 Mar.
     2020.

Arthur Jensen's most famous and controversial work, How Much Can We Boost IQ
and Scholastic Achievement?, was published in 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review. Despite being in such an elite journal, Jensen tackles many issues that psychologists and social scientists of the time had struggled with, mostly taking unorthodox stances regarding potential racial genetic groups and their effects on intelligence. Being backed by numerous studies and scraps of data, Jensen calls for his peers to consider the possible relationships between race, genetics, and intelligence (Jensen). As this article managed to immediately spark near-unprecedented controversy in the academic world, Jensen forever became associated with this work for both better and worse. As other famous related works cited Jensen's studies, he is often credited with reviving the race and intelligence debate in America. The response has been both praise from certain self-imposed "free thinkers" and social scientists as well as claims of racism from "anti-hate" organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. In every aspect, this work remains a cornerstone of academic dissent in American history.

REDHUGO-H 1

"Forced Sterilization." Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, edited by John Hartwell
     Moore, vol. 1, Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 483-86. Gale in
     Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2831200159/
     UHIC?u=lap17ehs&sid=UHIC&xid=5a9613a2. Accessed 21 Mar. 2020.

This article serves as a comprehensive reference point for the general history of eugenics. With eugenicists often being directly involved in the history of racial, genetic, and psychological research in the western world, it goes without saying that understanding the origins and effects of eugenics is imperative to understanding the development of racial intelligence research. The article covers several modern examples as well in order to establish lines of contrast and to support its argument of the unethical practices exemplified by events that modern audiences are more familiar with. More significantly, however, it more closely details the influence of eugenics in the United States, directly referencing the supposedly "mentally defective" victims of state-mandated sterilization ("Forced"). By uncovering some darker memories of America's past, the article effectively establishes points of reference and potential caveats for the audience's understanding of race and intelligence.

LeFrancois, Arthur G. "Skinner V. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)."
     Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by David
     S. Tanenhaus, vol. 4, Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 409-10.
     Gale in Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3241200924/
     UHIC?u=lap17ehs&sid=UHIC&xid=1a479412. Accessed 21 Mar. 2020.

LeFrancois covers one of the most significant US Supreme Court cases to date in this history lesson-turned-ethics discussion. In addition to giving the expected context of the case itself, the author goes into unexpected detail regarding the history of eugenics in America, contributing to his credibility as an evaluator of the results of the case. With the author also referencing the relationship between eugenics and anti-miscegenation laws, he ties the case to a larger conversation on race and intelligence. He then moves on to analyze the larger social and political context of the case and how it affected the ruling (LeFrancois). By providing a commentary on the legal precedents set by Skinner v. Oklahoma in the context of ethical relations to the Constitution, LeFrancois provides insight into the conclusion of the eugenics chapter in American history.

REDHUGO Reading 2-2

          As the authors continue in their slower, smoother approach to persuasion as the book approaches Part IV, not only have their methods of argumentation changed, but the nature of their claims have as well. While it is perhaps a more subtle change from the beginning of Part III, it is nonetheless a significant one in Herrnstein and Murray's most controversial-yet-successful piece, The Bell Curve. In contrast with the former half of the book, the authors generally used a consistent formula in their arguments: laying context, making a claim, then providing and analyzing data. While it may seem like an approach similar to that of a high schooler's, it remained effective for most of the book's earlier topics, as the reader is expected to now view in hindsight as simply for contextual purposes. Now, rather than simply stating a flat claim, the authors first inject more personal, hidden insight into the topic. Sometimes it takes the form of more recent data that the authors have discovered, while at others it may simply be a new revelation that they both haven't discussed yet and expect the audience to themselves have not yet had. As a result, claims are more smoothly interwoven in the authors' discussions of topics and relevant evidence while still remaining fairly explicit. As long as the audience themselves are able to notice this, the impact of the authors' arguments is naturally strengthened.
          The primary caveat that a majority of the audience would have with such a change in Herrnstein and Murray's argumentative style, however, is a correlated change in the book's overall persuasive impact. While its earlier parts were not particularly repetitive or poorly-argued, there remains a very noticeable style change from Part II to Part III that continues to become more apparent as it approaches its final section. While upon his/her first reflection, the reader may appreciate such a change of pace, style, and thus impact, at some point, it may also cause the reader to develop a disdain for the authors' reluctance to employ such changes earlier in their work. Thus in hindsight, the difference in the effectiveness of the book's two halves is seemingly too drastic for a well-organized study.
         

REDHUGO Reading 2-1

         In keeping with The Bell Curve's theme, Herrnstein and Murray use the latter half of the book to start tackling its main contentions with full force. With the noticeably increased use of data, graphics, and less convoluted arguments, the authors have begun the main course of this work in classic sociologist fashion. By laying out the bread and butter in the former half, the authors can finally begin to get into the weeds of what initially made this work so controversial for its time. The so-called "radical notions" that The Bell Curve is known for among mainstream social scientists are unraveled in Part III, as Herrnstein and Murray use all the context that they spent several hundred pages building in order to finally take a stronger, more unorthodox stance. As such, they naturally are forced to support such enthusiasm with a more outstanding approach to argument-building, doubling down on the use and analysis of data, which they now have to validate more carefully than ever.
          The authors, however, refrain from simply throwing lobs of complex, eye-straining graphs and charts at the reader. Instead, while they certainly attempt to satisfy the reader's statistical appetite, Herrnstein and Murray take meticulous steps in their persuasive methodology, as they are well aware of the ilk of their arguments. While 1994 may seem like a point in the distant past in comparison to today's advancements, the social climate is not nearly so different as ours is now. With this in mind, the authors clearly understand that they must choose their words carefully and reinforce not only their arguments but also their evidence in a way that evokes as least criticism as possible, as their claims themselves will have already done enough in that regard.

Speaking of Race Podcast Review

Speaking of Race: Race and Intelligence

Part 1

Part 2

          Speaking of Race is a year-and-a-half-long project by the University of Alabama where three professors get together and discover the history of race through podcasts. Their four-part series about race and intelligence explores the history of eugenics, intelligence testing, and the lasting debates about the possibilities of genetics links between racial groups and general intelligence. Immediately, however, the hosts take a clear stance, claiming that intelligence has thus far been impossible to fairly or comprehensively quantify, and they even note that its future research is likely to remain unfruitful. As they are all professors of science, anthropology, and the like, their credibility as hosts is significant, and it is obvious that they expect their audience to be aware of such through repeated references to their experience and education. Thus, their bold historical claims and biased implications are intended to be met with serious consideration.

          Such aforementioned historical "claims" are frequent, though often unexplained. Much of the podcast consists of the hosts reading off of a script, telling narratives about the history of the scientific community's foray into intelligence research. With personal anecdotes, quotes, and light comments occasionally thrown into the mix, the hosts keep the program restricted and tightly-organized, rarely forming genuine discussions involving the clashing of ideas and the models of debate. Perhaps this format was intended to disguise the program as one that is purely informative and unbiased, but unfortunately, such a possibility is voided by the hosts' likely unintentional implications. By repeatedly referencing well-known historical figures and emphasizing the little-known facts to disparage their reputations, the hosts show clear intentions in forming the opinions of the audience. With constant labels of "racism" thrown at figures with either unclear or nonexistent premises, the hosts not only belittle the social intelligence of their listeners but also promote close-minded views of academic dissent.

REDHUGO Reading 1-2

          The use of visuals is to be expected in a work involving the study of statistics, and thus Murray and Herrnstein often remind the reader of the significance behind The Bell Curve's namesake. Using numerous varieties of charts, graphs, tables, and all else of the ilk, the authors frequently attempt to break down abstract concepts using visual aids. Simply stating that the wages of less-educated workers have decreased significantly has a far less powerful effect than letting the reader see the discrepancies of the numbers side-by-side. Likewise, the "bell curve" that is the namesake of the book cannot have the same impact without first being able to visualize such a graphic. Thus, the author's visuals serve an integral part in not only attracting audiences but also in reinforcing statistical claims.
          Ironically, however, it is far beyond the scope of any social scientist to be able to find a universal, comprehensive graphic that can accurately portray any single factor in society or in the class system. The basis for Murray and Herrnstein's work is tackling each factor individually and in natural succession, laying statistical foundations and then proceeding to prove their significance. As a result, however, this method often backfires on the authors when they appear to be obstructed by a phenomenon of probability, where exceptions, plot outliers, and multiple uncontrollable factors are in play at once. These instances, while usually acknowledged by the authors, can result in disengagement from the reader, and so certain uses of visual aid in the book have been critiqued as void of logical significance.

REDHUGO Reading 1-1

         Murray and Herrnstein waste no space in diving straight into their points in The Bell Curve. From the first few pages alone, the reader is immediately exposed to a series of historical narratives, statistical jargon, and the politics of psychometrics. Their method for laying the foundation of their argument is perhaps unnecessarily extended, but it nonetheless provides all the relevant context needed to take the whole of society into scope. The first of the book's four parts explains the modern evolution of class in America. Taking into account its trends and consequential impacts, the reader is foreshadowed to significant potential links between the disputed heritability of intelligence and its all-encompassing impacts. By introducing their audience to what is an immediately recognizable and heavily debated staple in American society, Murray and Herrnstein aptly appeal to the reader's assumed contextual background as well as their personal role in the factors in question.
          The nuance to the authors' approach is relatively subtle, yet it still remains significant. Even in the preface and introduction to the book, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the intended audience is not assumed to be one commonly associated with readers of the book. While the authors don't hesitate in throwing relatively advanced content at the reader, they take a slower, methodological approach in introducing such. They use a basic skeleton of first: assuming the reader is aware of any common knowledge relevant to the topic (i.e. the visual trend of correlation), second: further reinforcing the clarity of such relevance, and third: relating new ideas to the current skeleton. Depending on the topic, the authors also use a variety of well-known historical or political entities in order to appeal to the reader's personal knowledge or potential interests. This skeleton is cloned repeatedly throughout the book, thus potentially resulting in a loss of engagement from the reader, but the authors' discussions simultaneously progress in complexity.