Controversial Eysenck
Sir: I am much indebted to a Mr Anthony Clare who, in an article entitled "Eysenck the Controversialist" (April 21) furnishes me with one of the best examples of tendentious and Irresponsible journalism I have come across for quite a while — say several weeks at least. He devotes a great deal of Space to demolish a statement I made in my book Race, Intelligence and Education to the effect that the Irish score poorly on IQ tests. The point he makes is that I based my conclusions Just on one study by John Macnamara, and that this study was inappropriate because of language difficulties these children had. If this were indeed the only study on which my conclusions were based then Mr Clare might have a point although, as I expained in my book, I do not accept Macnamara's explanation. However, others have found the same result, even when Using non-verbal tests; in a short book Meant for the general public I did not of course include references to all the relevant studies. If Mr Clare is unfamiliar with them I am quite willing to furnish him with the references. We thus have here a very interesting situation. Either Mr Clare was ignorant of the facts — in which case he had no business to accuse me of all sorts of devilry, or else he did know but intentionally misled his readers — an alternative I prefer not to consider. I thought even the most junior journalist was taught to verify his facts; would it be inappropriate to ask why Mr Clare did not do so?
Mr Clare goes on to criticise my statement that there is not much to choose between England and Ireland With regard to educational differences Which might have produced the difference in IQ. He goes into ecstacies of contumely, yet the statement in its context is perfectly accurate. Numerous empirical studies, including for instance the extremely important Coleman Report, have demonstrated very thoroughly that such differences as exist between the two countries do not affect IQ to any but the most minimal degree. Is Mr Clare familiar with these facts, or is he again writing in ignorance?
Finally, Mr Clare indulges in one of the oldest and most discreditable tricks of the trade — calling up anonyMous witnesses. " Time and again " he claims to have met experts only too ready to criticise my writings, but unwilling to do so because they "back away from a public confrontation with cine they readily acknowledge to be a better media manipulator." Mr Clare does not seem to be aware of the fact that scientific controversies are fortunately not settled by manipulation of "le media, but in scientific journals Where the editors and expert referees take great care that no " manipulation " is indulged in by any of the scientists taking part in a controversy. It is indeed interesting that practically all the criticisms of Jensen and myself aPPeared in non-scientific journals, weekly magazines and newspapers; I t_ would be hard put to it to name even cme that appeared in a high-grade Psychological or genetic journal. If all these anonymous critical experts Whom Mr Clare runs into time and again would only publicise their criticisms in the appropriate technical journals, how mikh Setter for science this would be!
Mr Clare does me the doubtful honour of saying that I am a good controversialist. It does not seem to occur to him that this may be so because I like to base myself on facts, and facts alone. I readily acknowledge Mr Clare to be a better controversialist because he manages to make bricks without straw, and sell his readers a silk purse made from a sow's ears.
H. J. Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5.
Previous page
