[The] IQ controversy: A survey of recent articles (1966, Spring). The Wilson Quarterly, 20(2), 133-135.

Ives, S. W., Silverman, J., Kelly H., & Gardner, H. (1981). Artistic development in the early school years: A cross-media study of story-telling, drawing, and clay modelling. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 14, 95-101.

Jacoby, Russell, & Glauberman, Naomi. (Eds.). (1995). The bell curve debate: History, documents, opinions. New York: Times Books.

James, G. A. (1991). Different strokes for different folks: Personal learning styles. Today's Parent, 8(1), 19-21.

James, William (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)

James, W. (1898). The will to believe: And other essays in popular philosophy. London: Longmans, Green &Co.

James, W. (1909/1978). The meaning of truth. A sequel to pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

James, W. (1910/1963). Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press.

Arthur R. Jensen

Jensen, A. R. (1969). "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement". Harvard Educational Review 39: 1-123.

Jensen, A. R. (1970). "Can We and Should We Study Race Differences?", in J. Hellmuth: Disadvantaged Child, Vol. 3: Compensatory Education: A National Debate. New York: Brunner/Mazel. ISBN.

Jensen, A. R. (1973). Educability and Group Differences. London: Methuen.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Free Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1982). "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons". Contemporary Education Review 1: 121-135.

Jensen, A. R. (1992). "Spearman's Hypothesis: Methodology and Evidence". Multivariate Behavioral Research 27: 225-234.

Jensen, A. R. (January-March 1993). "Spearman's Hypothesis Tested with Chronometric Information-Processing Tasks". Intelligence 17 (1): 47-77.

Jensen, A. R. (1994). "Psychometric g Related to Differences in Head Size". Personality and Individual Differences 17: 597-606.

Jensen, A. R. (1997). "The Puzzle of Nongenetic Variance", in R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko: Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN.

Jensen, A. R. (1998a). "Adoption Data and Two g-Related Hypotheses". Intelligence 25: 1-6.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Jensen, A. R. (2000). "Testing: The Dilemma of Group Differences". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6: 121-127.

Jensen, A. R. and Johnson, F. W. (1994). "Race and Sex Differences in Head Size and IQ". Intelligence 18: 309-333.

Jensen, A. R. and Reynolds, C. R. (1982). "Race, Social Class and Ability Patterns on the WISC-R". Personality and Individual Differences 3 (4): 423-438.

Jensen, A. R. and Whang, P. A. (1994). "Speed of Accessing Arithmetic Facts in Long-Term Memory: A Comparison of Chinese-American and Anglo-American Children". Contemporary Educational Psychology 19: 1-12.

-----------------

Christopher F. Chabris, at the time, a Ph. D. candidate at Harvard, specializing in cognitive neuroscience, utilized the August 1998 issue of Commentary to publish an excellent, well-informed and most interesting article on the IQ slant to intelligence.

Chabris titled his discussion "IQ Since The Bell Curve." In only eight (8) pages, he succinctly restated the case that 'g', the general intelligence factor, does indeed exists and is measurable. In other words, Chabris supported the idea that there are important differences among individuals in IQ, or general intelligence. In a more recent edition of the same journal, twenty-one individuals responded to his comments (see Does IQ matter?). One of these individuals was Arthur R. Jensen, Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology, University of California, at Berkley, California.

To copy a clause used by Stephen Jay Gould (1996, p. 61), as "I cannot match [his] prose", I shall cite Jensen directly:

"Christopher F. Chabris displays a keen perception of the current state of affairs related to The Bell Curve and the so-called "IQ controversy." Among the article's remarkable features is the fact that it provides the first public recognition that, with notable exceptions, the community of specialists in psychometrics has been shamefully negligent in defending its science and what it knows to be true about the g factor, or general intelligence, the existence of which is firmly established by massive evidence and is contradicted by virtually none. The only important direction now left for further research on the nature of g is to go directly into the human brain itself. Research has already revealed a number of anatomical and physiological brain correlates of psychometric g. This evidence, in addition to the high heritability of g, suggests it is a biological as well as a psychological phenomenon.
Therefore, it is probably puzzling to the general reader that Mr. Chabris, who is working in cognitive neuroscience, should tell us that his friends were surprised by his writing an article on intelligence. This is not surprising, considering how g has been generally ignored by cognitive neuroscientists.
Entirely aside from the politically-correct prejudice that surrounds research on intelligence, there is another reason why researchers in cognitive neuroscience have generally paid so little attention to the g factor: the failure to recognize the important distinction between the essential design features of the brain (the main interest of neuroscientists), which show distinct modules and specific localization of functions for various distinct cognitive functions, on the one hand, and individual differences in the speed and efficiency with which these functions operate (the main interest of psychometricians and differential psychologists), on the other. But I would argue that both of these facets are proper subject matter for brain research. I suggest as a heuristic hypothesis that the design features of the brain--its neural structures and functions--that are necessary for the many distinct processes that enter into information-processing, or intelligence (such as attention, perception, discrimination, generalization, learning, memory, language, thinking, problem-solving, and the like) are essentially the same for all biologically normal Homo sapiens, i.e., those free of chromosomal and major gene anomalies or brain damage.
Correlated individual differences in the functioning of these various information processes are a result of other quantitative biochemical and physiological conditions in the brain, most of them highly heritable, that are separate from the brain's essential design features, or "hard-wiring," but are, as it were, super-imposed on all of them in common, and affect the overall speed and efficiency of their functioning.
A methodology for discovering these physical conditions responsible for the existence of psychometric g is explained in my recent book, The g Factor, along with examples of individual variation in the several different quantitative anatomical and physiological conditions that are found to cause various distinct cognitive functions to be correlated and hence to result in the wide range of individual differences in general ability. (pp. 20-21)."
Reference
Gould, Stephen Jay (1996). The mismeasure of man: Revised and expanded. New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1981)

Jensen, Arthur R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39(1), 1-123.

Jensen, Arthur R. (1982). The chronometry of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jensen, Arthur R., & Weng, Li-Jen, (1994, May-June). What is good g? Intelligence, 18, 231-258.

Jennings, Peter (1994). Common miracles: The new American revolution in education. ABC News Special [videotape no. M6295V]. Orlando Park: Illinois.

Johnson, B. W., Redfield, D. L., Miller, R. L., & Simpson, R. E. (1983). The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory: A construct validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 907-913.