{"id":7472,"date":"2018-10-22T03:00:18","date_gmt":"2018-10-22T02:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=7472"},"modified":"2019-05-07T08:38:27","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T07:38:27","slug":"intelligence-research-persecuted-by-both-nazis-and-communists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2018\/10\/intelligence-research-persecuted-by-both-nazis-and-communists\/","title":{"rendered":"Intelligence research — persecuted by both Nazis and Communists"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rindermann (Cognitive Capitalism<\/em><\/a>, 2018) writes:<\/p>\n

Contradicting common beliefs, National Socialists were opposed to intelligence research (Becker, 1938; Jaensch, 1938): in their view, intelligence research would represent a \u2018supremacy of Bourgeoisie spirit\u2019 (Jaensch, 1938, p. 2); intelligence measurement would be an instrument \u2018of Jewry\u2019 to \u2018fortify its hegemony\u2019 (p. 3); selection in schools according to intelligence would stand for a \u2018system of examination of Jewish origin\u2019 (p.\u00a04), especially the concept of intelligence as a \u2018one-dimensional dimension\u2019 (p. 3) and \u2018one common central factor\u2019 (Becker, 1938, p. 24). Because people differ and therefore intelligence differs (p. 4) they called for an \u2018intelligence measurement according to a national and typological point of view\u2019 (p. 15); for Germans they asked for a measurement of \u2018realism\u2019, \u2018conscientiousness\u2019 and \u2018actually of the character value of intelligence\u2019. They were opposed to a measurement solely of \u2018theoretical intelligence\u2019<\/strong>, of \u2018intellectualism\u2019 (Becker, 1938, p. 22); instead they favoured \u2018practical intelligence\u2019<\/strong> (p. 18) that should be measured. Nazi researchers were opposed to the methods of correlation and factor analysis (p. 23f.); general intelligence did not exist: \u2018In fact there is no general, qualitatively comparable and from type independent intelligence.\u2019 (Jaensch, 1938, p. 4)<\/p>\n

If the term \u2018Jewish\u2019 were exchanged for \u2018dominant class\u2019 we would have the same critique as mentioned by Bourdieu, only 40 years earlier and developed by the National Socialists. And the critique from the \u2018left\u2019 of today against cross-cultural intelligence comparisons, incomparability, bias, g factor etc. was also first mentioned by the National Socialists.<\/p>\n

Of cause, this is all scientifically irrelevant, because statements cannot be disproved by showing who has said something too, before, simultaneously or later. Only logic, empirical data and content-based arguments count. If \u2018Jews\u2019 (or gentiles), \u2018ruling classes\u2019 (or suppressed people), \u2018Capitalists\u2019 (or workers), \u2018Whites\u2019, \u2018Europeans\u2019 (or Africans) or somebody else benefits from intelligence or intelligence research, this does not make any statement more or less wrong or correct. It is true that in modernity and in at least partly meritoric societies the \u2018upper classes\u2019 have on average higher intelligence (intelligence helps to climb the social ladder; Deary et al., 2005; Saunders, 1997), and that \u2018Whites\u2019, \u2018Europeans\u2019, and \u2018Jews\u2019 have higher average intelligence and that \u2018Jews\u2019 are outstandingly represented in research including intelligence, but does this change the veridicality of statements?27 If something like the intelligence concept is rejected due to ethnic or social contexts, with the same argument it would be possible to reject money, books, psychology or science itself. Scientific (epistemic) statements have to be evaluated by their approximation to truth and finding new truth. Political, ideological or ethical criteria cannot substitute criteria of truth.<\/p>\n

Similar to National Socialism, in Communism intelligence research was condemned. Alexander Luria was unable to publish his pioneering cross-cultural study on cognitive ability before 1974, which he conducted four decades earlier in the 1930s in Uzbekistan.<\/p>\n

It seems to be that once again les extr\u00eames se touchent, here in the National Socialist and Communist opposition against intelligence research. And it is another hint that intelligence is a civic-burgher phenomenon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here of course the attentive reader will note the parallel to Robert Sternberg’s thinking about intelligence: deny g factor\/one dimension, assert importance of practical intelligence beyond theoretical (academic) intelligence. I don’t see any mention of the part of his trio successful intelligence<\/em>, but maybe if one looked at the sources. The two German sources given are:<\/p>\n