Arthur Jensen, evolutionary biology, and racism.

Arthur R. Jensen (1923-2012) defended the idea that racial differences in intelligence were biologically based. He based his ideas on what he claimed were sound population genetics and evolutionary biology. Viewing his work through the lenses of those disciplines reveals that his arguments for biological racial differences did not meet the minimum evidentiary requirements needed to show that socially defined races were genetic populations. His evidence was from 19th-century race science and the race science of the Nazi regime. His reliance on such evidence supported Jensen's fears that the country was in danger of collapse because of dysgenic breeding by those of low intelligence. Jensen's well-known associations with scientific racists were not incidental to his scientific work, but central because he cited their work throughout his career. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Commentary on a recent event.

On May 14, 2022, a gunman walked into a supermarket in Buffalo, NY, and opened fire on the customers, killing 10 and injuring three. The alleged killer published a document explaining he chose a supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood to maximize the likelihood of killing Black people. He believed in the "Great Replacement" theory that Jews were conspiring to commit "White Genocide" by having inferior races outbreed the superior White race. The 180-page "Manifesto" relied on a mix of Internet memes, plagiarized arguments from a similar killing in New Zealand, links to White nationalist and antisemitic websites, and citations to scientific publications. Overwhelmingly, the scientific publications cited in the document were from psychology. In this brief article, the author contends that psychologists need to ask themselves why an alleged deranged killer took his inspiration from psychology and not, for example, human genetics. The answer is that geneticists have recognized the responsibility that comes along with inquiry. While researchers are free to pursue any questions they desire, scientific and editorial standards still need to be met for disciplinary integrity. The heart of academic freedom is the ability and responsibility to distinguish responsible scholarship from its pretender. Psychology must do better. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A predictor model for discharge destination in inpatient rehabilitation patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to conduct an exploratory factor analysis on admission data, identify key variables that may predict discharge to home, and create and test a predictor model using confirmatory factor analysis and structured equation modeling. DESIGN: A secondary data analysis was conducted using a data set of 176,419 cases. Statistical analyses used included an exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling using variables collected upon admission. RESULTS: The hypothesis model included ten items that loaded on a latent factor of physical performance and five items that loaded on a latent factor of cognitive performance. The final predictor model resulted in three physical performance items (grooming, toileting, and chair transfers) and four cognitive performance items (comprehension, expression, problem solving, and memory) with results of χ(2) (df) of 44,708.630 (11), root mean square error of approximation of 0.152, and comparative fit index/Tucker-Lewis index of 0.957/0.918. CONCLUSIONS: Four factors (admit cognitive scores, admit physical scores, age, and diagnosis category) were identified and tested. The latent factors admit cognitive performance scores and admit physical performance scores were shown to be strong predictors for discharge to home, whereas diagnosis categories and age were weak predictors in this model.

The scientific attack on Brown v. Board of Education, 1954-1964.

Psychologists' work was cited in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). One criticism of the citation was that psychology could be used to overturn the Brown decision and return the country to segregation. A historical examination of such an attempt to overturn Brown in the early 1960s on the basis of new psychological knowledge shows that psychology was not persuasive in the face of the civil rights movement. The failure of segregationists to overturn Brown with psychological experts underscores how psychology is ineluctably bound to the larger society.

Facts, values, and policies: a comment on Howard H. Kendler (2002).

In a recent article, Howard H. Kendler (2002) criticized Kenneth B. Clark and the other social scientists who worked in Brown v. Board of Education for polluting their science with value judgments. This article argues that Kendler's critique is misguided because it conflates a policy judgment with a value judgment. In addition, Kendler inconsistently applied his own standard of objectivity when he examined in the social science used in Brown.