Eysenck
Eysenck, H.J.
Influences on
Intelligence
Intelligence is a shorthand term covering a complex range of human capacities. There are no universally accepted definitions, but intelligence is generally taken to relate to factors such as the capacity to make sense of abstract ideas and to perceive patterns of complex relationships. There are many factors which relate to 'intelligence', such as capacity for insight into human relationships, verbal and numerical ability, non-verbal insights, 'motor intelligence' (such as ability to quickly master complex motor tasks like driving or tennis); 'emotional intelligence'; 'spiritual intelligence', and so on. A key assumption of many early workers in the field was that all such abilities factors simply reflected an underlying 'general intelligence'. Such a viewpoint would probably be seen as oversimplified these days. It is more likely that intelligence involves a constellation of partly interdependent factors, such as verbal and numerical ability, visuo-spatial ability, or visual pattern-recognition.
Nature-nurture in 50's and 60's
The nature-nurture debate (1955 – present day). Between the mid 1950s and the early 1980s one of the main debates that dominated psychology was nature-nurture. The crux of the nature-nurture debate was the degree to which human attributes, particularly intelligence and personality, were determined by either genetic factors (nature) or environmental factors (nurture). This nature-nurture debate was particularly fierce in the area of intelligence, following the publication, and subsequent criticism, of Sir Cyril Burt's results from his study of the intelligence quotients (IQ) of separated twins. Over many years Burt claimed to have studied 58 pairs of monozygotic (MZ – from the same ovum) twins (popularly referred to as 'identical'). This was a larger number than any other researcher had been able to obtain. For that reason, Burt's claims that the IQs of separated MZ twins were more alike than those of dizygotic (DZ – 'non-identical') twins reared together was very influential in supporting claims that intelligence is largely inherited. However, it was later alleged that Burt at worst fabricated his results, and at best behaved in a 'dishonest manner' because he did not find as many separated twins as he had claimed. The debunking of Burt's results even became the leading article on the front cover of an issue of the Sunday Times in 1976 and Burt was posthumously discredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS). The nature-nurture debate over intelligence generated a public debate between a leading hereditarian (someone who believes that intelligence is largely inherited) – Hans Eysenck – and the environmentalist who had first uncovered problems in Burt's reported statistics (Leon Kamin). This was published in 1981 in a book titled Intelligence: the battle for the mind. The debate has rumbled on since with publications such as The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and with various defences of Burt's conclusions and data. Few psychologists now argue for only one side of the nature-nurture debate. This is partly because most now accept that both genetic inheritance and environment play some part in all human psychological processes. The successful mapping of human genes in the Human Genome project has contributed new evidence to discussions of the heritability of psychological characteristics. However, the debate in psychology is now more one of the relative contributions of nature and nurture, and the specific mechanisms of interaction, than one of absolute dichotomies. Written by: Course Team
Genetic
Genetic research. Human genetic research involves the study of inherited human characteristics. In the context of DSE212, the focus is particularly on possible insights into the origins of our psychological characteristics, including possible disorders (e.g. schizophrenia). The relationship between our genes and our individual psychology is not a simple one – there are complex interactions between different genes themselves, and between genes and the environment. The whole debate about the relative importance of biological and social explanations of human behaviour is a vigorous one within the social sciences generally. There are two main categories of genetic research – statistical and molecular – and these are described below in more detail: Statistical genetics. There are a number of different aspects of statistical genetics. Epidemiology involves the study of the distribution and origins of disease using statistical methods. Similar approaches can be used to estimate the genetic contribution to particular human disorders (or talents). In many cases, a particular genetic background doesn't provide 100% of the explanation for why a particular disorder occurs. Rather the genetic background gives rise to a stronger or weaker predisposition, which may be triggered by particular environmental or psychological factors. Statistical genetics may also be able to identify combinations of genetic and environmental risk factors that show there are particular subgroups of the general population who are at increased risk of a particular disorder.\nMolecular genetics. This method focuses on analysing the biochemistry underlying genes, and how this emerging knowledge can help increase understanding of human health and disease. Key aspects of the biochemistry of genes involve looking at how they are able to replicate and be transmitted, often in terms of the chemistry of the 'nucleic acids' DNA and RNA. The Human Genome Project is a major undertaking in a number of laboratories (particularly in the USA and Britain) to examine the location of every human gene and to examine the chemical structure of each gene, in order to find out the role the gene may play in affecting health and disease.
Neuropsychological basis of the mind
Neuropsychological basis of the mind/consciousness. Neuropsychology examines how neurological processes in the brain affect both behaviour and the experience of consciousness. This involves studying the brain, for example by examining the structure of the brain and the corresponding neural activity within it. Another approach is to examine damaged brains, looking at the consequences of the damage for behaviour, perception and language. Many cognitive functions have specific centres in the brain, though some cannot be localised in this way, and attention has turned instead to the identification of networks of interacting brain areas.
Source: The Times, September 9th 1997.
The techniques of analysis became a matter of scientific controversy, which grew more heated when th ey were applied to postulate innate intellectual differences between races, first by Jensen, a former colleague, and then by Eysenck himself.
Hans Jurgen Eysenck, the son of gifted actor parents, was born in Berlin in 1916 and brought up in Germany, mainly by his grandmother. He grew up to detest the Hitler regime and was described in school, despite his Christian background, as a 'white Jew'.
The same enjoyment of battle was evident in Eysenck's lifelong devotion to sport. An all-round athle te, he was a particularly strong tennis player who enjoyed a daily game for most of his life.
All of Eysenck's subsequent research flows directly from his work at Mill Hill, which was also the source of his lifelong insistence on the interdependence of experimental and clinical psychology.
He was insufficiently concerned to understand the integrative complexity of human beings, but he map ped an immense area of psychological territory. It was characteristic that he took pleasure in extending that territory into fringe areas provided they were susceptible to quantitative exploration. For example, he found evidence to support basic astrological notions.
Like his writings, his research covered a great range, but always related to his continually evolvin g theory of personality, which involved the interacting influences of inherited biological individual differences, learnt behaviour and cultural influences.
Considering his background and enduring attitudes, it is ironic that Eysenck came to be reviled as a racist and even physically attacked by unthinking students for his alleged views about race and intelligence.
The controversial aspects of Eysenck's career and his competitive spirit might be thought to reflect a dogmatic, difficult and unfriendly personality. On the contrary, he was a warm and devoted family man, generous and extremely loyal to all his students and colleagues, even when their views were very different from his own. This was well illustrated by his spirited defence of the posthumously suspected scientific integrity of Sir Cyril Burt.
But the scientific disputation was mild compared to the ideological condemnation, which ranged from the argument that certain value-loaded areas of study should not be subjects for research to extremes of personal calumny. At the same time, frankly racist groups took remarks out of context to use as propaganda.
His experimental analyses of 'dimensions' of personality, such as 'extroversion/introversion' (terms he coined) and 'neuroticism/stability', were extremely influential, and students and collaborators from all over the world were attracted to his department. Among the closest of his collaborators was his second wife, Sybil.
He left Germany in 1934 to continue his education in Britain, and ultimately to graduate with consid erable distinction from Cyril Burt's psychology department at University College London. After a difficult early war period as an 'enemy alien' - during which he completed his PhD thesis - he had the good fortune to impress and be employed by Aubrey Lewis, a distinguished psychiatrist and director of the wartime emergency hospital at Mill Hill, which had strong links with the Maudsley Hospital at Camberwell, where the Institute of Psychiatry was later established.
He was always interested in the practical application of his findings as well as in pure research. A lthough no therapist himself, he provided much of the intellectual force behind the highly successful development in Britain of the active approach to the treatment of emotional disorders, based on learning procedures which came to be known as 'behaviour therapy'.
Following an English tradition stemming from Francis Galton and continued by the London school of ps ychology in which he had been trained, he carried out statistical analyses of the correlated test scores of relatives of varying degree, including twins reared together and apart, in order to assess the genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences in human abilities and personality characteristics. His findings tended to indicate strong genetic influences, and this ran counter to contemporary attitudes, especially in the United States, concerning the malleability of human nature.
Eysenck, who also wrote of the dangers of opposing the 'Zeitgeist', claimed that he wrote his Race, Intelligence and Education (1971) as a brief factual account to reduce the emotional content of the debate evoked by Jensen. In it he stated that direct genetic evidence could not be used to establish racial differences. Nevertheless, he relished polemics. No one was more able to see the weaknesses of both sides of an argument, or to exploit the weaknesses in his opponent's case while camouflaging those in his own.
Intellectually, Eysenck's strengths and weaknesses both derived from his unswerving allegiance to th e linear thinking of classical science and a commitment to developing his particular line of theory. This took him a very long way along narrow but vastly ramifying paths.
Behind the communicator lay an equally prolific researcher, devoted to a strict objective and empiri cal approach to the problems of psychology. He always claimed that his youthful intention had been to become a physical scientist but that he was diverted into psychology by the matriculation requirements of the University of London.
This contrasted in many ways with the then dominating interpretative procedures of psychoanalysis. I n similar manner, he fostered within his department a section concerned with the practice of and training in clinical psychology. Eysenck died in 1997.
Top