{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04015544041450777, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030224525043177895, 'mean_word_length': 4.637469586374696, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Jensen Debate

Central to Jensen's argument is the assumption that we can legitimately use comparative IQ figures in order to make statements about the mean intelligence level of different racial groups. Thus he speaks of 'The particular constellation of abilities we now call "intelligence" and which we can measure by means of intelligence tests'1 and follows this up by saying that the IQ 'is now the most universal "unit" in the measurement of intelligence'.2 One of the basic weaknesses in his position seems to me to be a logical rather than an empirical one: the inference from 'X has an IQ of (say) 130' to 'X is intelligent' is, I believe, far more questionable than is usually realized. It may be helpful to start by comparing the adjective 'intelligent' with some of the many others which we use in talking about human propensities, for example cheerful, aggressive, untidy, etc. Few such adjectives can be regarded as value-free: most of them not only describe the kinds of things which the person does and says but also express the speaker's valuesin particular his approval or disapproval of the behaviour in question.3 The distinction between 'value-free' and 'value-laden' adjectives is not, I admit, a hard-and-fast one. For example, the phrase 'an untidy mop of hair' does not necessarily express disapproval, while 'he is tall' or 'he is fat' may or may not carryvalue-laden implications according to the context (compare, 'I didn't mean any harm. I only said he was fat, which he is') To classify adjectives as either value-free or value-laden is therefore to make the mistake described by the late Professor Austin as 'the . .. worship of tidy-looking dichotomies'.4 Where, however, an adjective has possible value-laden implications, i.e. is open to interpretation as being value-laden, its use is justified only if these values are stated or presupposed. Now it is this very uncertainty as to the extent to which the word 'intelligence' is value-free which in my opinion has added fuel to the flames of the present debate. If Jensen were simply a research scientist presenting his value-free findings, then Flew's assertions that it is 'monstrous' that he should be pilloried and harassed would be justified. It is far from clear, however, that the word 'intelligence' is value-free in the