Intelligence debates and some Australian confusions
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11510652 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lazar Stankov (0000-0001-8823-2540, The University of Sydney, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 73-76 |
| Publication date | 2000-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Psychologist (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0005-0067 • E-ISSN: 1742-9544 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00050060008257471 |
| OpenAlex | W2005532406 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 16 |
In this rejoinder to Bates and Stough (2000), I correct some misunderstandings regarding my position on Australian individual differences research. Contrary to the claims of Bates and Stough, I do not dispute the importance of well-conducted research using biological approaches to intelligence. I do not advocate censorship of scientific reports, rather I advocate the need for sensitivity and responsibility amongst those working in the individual differences field. This is emphasised by pointing to the naivete of those who claim to divorce research from social restraints and political pressures. The research program conducted in my laboratory is presented as evidence of my acceptance for an eclectic approach, in contrast to the purely reductionistic methodology endorsed by some Australian psychologists. A natural conclusion from my argument is that poorly conducted research and the presentation of premature findings could be used to improperly further the claims of prejudicial sections of our society
Argument (complex analysis · BATES · Epistemology · Field (mathematics · Political science · Politics · Position (finance · Presentation (obstetrics · Reductionism · Sociology · Cognitive Abilities and Testing · Law · Medicine · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |