Jason Richwine, whose statements on race and IQ in his doctoral dissertation at Harvard essentially forced his resignation from the Heritage Foundation has an interesting Op-Ed up at Politico. He talks of the evidence that his views aren't particularly controversial in the cognitive science field:
How can I be sure all of this reflects mainstream thinking? Because, over the years, psychologists have put together statements, reports, and even books aimed at synthesizing expert opinion on IQ. Many of these efforts were made in explicit response to the periodic media firestorms that engulfed people who spoke publicly about cognitive science.
With my dissertation touching on the relatively controversial issue of climate change, I'm aware that a lot of the time discussions amongst those in the field can be a lot more interesting and less divisive than what you'll often hear in the media. (On that note, when media reports cite the IPCC as stating certain things about climate change, often the easiest counterpoint to some of those claims is a more recent report from ... the IPCC).
The problems with politics aren't simply with politicians but also with the journalists who report on them. To run a society well it's important to consider not just what's politically acceptable but what's actually true. To go back to that article by Jason Richwine:
... it’s difficult to have a mature policy conversation when other journalists are doing little more than name-calling. It’s like convening a scientific conference on the causes of autism, only to have the participants drowned out by anti-vaccine protesters.
For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.
