关于种族和智力的神话禁忌

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Review of General Psychology Pub Date : 2020-10-07 DOI:10.1177/1089268020953622
J. Jackson, A. Winston
{"title":"关于种族和智力的神话禁忌","authors":"J. Jackson, A. Winston","doi":"10.1177/1089268020953622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"3 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020953622","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence\",\"authors\":\"J. Jackson, A. Winston\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1089268020953622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of General Psychology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020953622\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of General Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020953622\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020953622","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

最近的讨论重新唤起了一种古老的说法,即关于智力种族差异的遗传研究一直是一个长期而有效的禁忌。我们认为,鉴于自1969年以来对此类工作的广泛出版物,引用和讨论,禁忌和压制的说法是一个神话。我们批判性地审视(自我描述的)世袭主义者目前和唯一经历媒体的重大歪曲,定期的身体威胁,谴责和学术失业的说法。我们在这些说法中记录了大量的夸大和扭曲。有人一再声称,对断言普通黑人劣等的研究的负面接受是由于“环保主义者”、左翼分子、马克思主义者或“暴徒”在意识形态上对学术界的完全控制,这是对那些从事合法和有价值的学术批评的人的毫无根据的人格诋毁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence
Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of General Psychology
Review of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.
期刊最新文献
Relational Ontology in the Mapuche Thinking: Possibilities for Indigenous Well-Being Amidst Colonial Settings Education and Training: Professional The 4D Model of American Political Conservatism: Disgust, Disorder Aversion, Deontology, and (Social) Dominance The Kokoro in Japanese Spiritual Care Antiracist Psychology to Advance Equitable Public Policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1