Kenneth Kaye's publications on the IQ hoax

Review of H.J. Eysenck's The I.Q. Argument: Race, Intelligence, and Education (1972)

Adult Education, 1972, Vol. XXII, No. 3, 229-233. "While geneticists and mathematicians have repeatedly pointed out the wrong assumptions and faulty logic contained in Jensen's paper, he and Eysenck and Shockley have entrenched themselves in their ignorance, taken advantage of popular misconstruals of the issues, and likened themselves to Copernicus and other now-sainted heretics of the past. The comparison is unfortunate. Copernicus was a revolutionary: Eysenck defends the present scientific and social order. And Copernicus's grounds for proof did not include an appeal for sympathy because he had been criticized."

Some clarity on Inequality (1973)

School Review, August 1973, pp. 634-641. Review of Christopher Jencks et al., Inequality: Family and Schooling in America. "In addition to writing clearly, Jencks writes responsibly. ... His political bias is stated explicitly throughout the book: he wants to bulldoze the left half of the income distribution curve so that each family earns at least half the national average."

I.Q.: A conceptual deterrent to revolution in education (1973)

Elementary School Journal, October 1973, pp. 9-23. I had written most of a book manuscript entitled The I.Q. Hoax. What I wound up publishing were this article aimed at educators and educational researchers, and the chapter below, for philosophers of science. "Educational revolution will not come until after educational psychology makes a paradigm shift. Psychology has sold society a dogmatic set of assumptions that preclude beliefs in the educability of children, the potential of curriculum, and the accountability of schools."

The IQ Controversy and the Philosophy of Education (1975)

In R.S. Cohen et al. (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XXXII (Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, University of Notre Dame, November 1974), pp. 181-188. "These mundane matters seem to have taken us far from the cleanliness of philosophy. Yet there is no clear boundary at which we could have stopped. Our purest conceptions about human intelligence and development are inseparable from the research paradigms and instruments we use. These in turn are inseparable from the applied questions that guide the research, and the policy questions are inseparable from the society's values and myths, which finally reduce to the purest conceptions about human development."

The nature of intelligence (1973)

School Review, August 1977, pp. 592-595. Review of Lauren Resnick, ed. The Nature of Intelligence. "The stated goal ... is to integrate the several disciplines that have pondered human intelligence. They are, of course, doomed to fail at that task as the proverbial blind wise men were doomed to fail in apprehending the nature of the elephant."

Testing testing (1981)

The Sciences, January 1981, pp. 26-28. "This era was a bleak chapter in the history of American social science, and it is remarkable that Arthur Jensen has emerged from it with his talent for careful compiling of evidence, his lucid writing style and his courage intact. He is neither absolutely right, nor absolutely wrong. His book deserves to be taken on its merits."