I'm thinking of setting up a memorial website for Jensen. Which domain name should I get? On the site, I will put all his books that I can locate, as well as publications about or dedicated to him.

Red means taken. Green is available.

arthurjensen.com
arthurjensen.[anything else than com]
arthurrobertjensen.*
arthurrjensen.*

I like arthurjensen.net. Short and cheap (TLDs do not cost the same).

Domainnames are really cheap. I have a webhost already. The main work is compiling all his works. Many of the older ones are very hard to find, some of them due to vandalism.

Jensen is the best scientist I've heard of. I'm sad that I didn't get to meet him before he died. I have a poster of him and Galton on my wall.

I will make some more posters with quotes from awesome people.

I've also begun collecting great Jensen quotes at Wikiquote. I had to create the page for him as well. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

One can follow the progress at the temporary domain http://emilkirkegaard.dk/arthurjensen/

I have bought arthurjensen.net. It is currently undergoing registration. It should be active within 24 hours of this writing.

I need some help:

First, people willing to 1) download his papers, 2) upload them to my Wordpress installation, 3) add a link to the file on the "Collected Works" page. Let me know if anyone wants to help out with this so I can send them a username and password.

Second, people willing to acquire his last two books I have not already acquired yet.

Third, people willing to add missing papers to the list of collected works. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an updated one. The one in the list is copied from Miele's 2002 book, so approximately 10 years of research publications are missing.

Domain is up: http://arthurjensen.net/

Apparently Jensen wrote a large number of small articles in a less serious format that are interesting and pretty unknown. I discovered them only because I read almost complete bibliography when I was copying it from a book.

They can be found here: http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?authors Just search "Jensen". There are 20 or so short articles. One gem:

1. Way back in 1972, at the Davis campus of the University of California, I was having lunch with the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky. He had invited me to come to Davis and discuss the manuscript of my book Educability and Group Differences (Jensen, 1973), on which I had solicited his comments. (He was a respectful and friendly critic.) On that same day, the campus newspaper gave notice of a speech to be delivered by one of the leading figures in the Creationist crusade that aimed to banish Darwin from the biology textbooks used in California high schools. The article also stated that this Biblical Fundamentalist had challenged Dobzhansky (who was then the world's foremost expert on the genetic theory of evolution) to a debate on Creationism, and that Dobzhansky had declined the offer. I asked him why. He said he had long since reached the conclusion that any argument between persons who were not in at least ninety percent agreement on the issues was a total waste from a scientific standpoint, although he conceded that a poorly informed audience might find it entertaining. I have remembered Dobzhansky's wise advice ever since, but have rarely had occasion to act on it. In reading Brace's review, however, I deemed it is most appropriate to do so.

There is much truth in this. :)

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.041

21. I have not banished the word 'intelligence' from my scientific vocabulary and substituted g instead of it, contrary to Anderson's impression (par. #1). In Chapter 3 I refer to "intelligence" as an interspecies behavioral phenomenon that reflects the different design and operational features of different species. It is those features of brain design and operation that are common to all biologically normal members of a given species. On the other hand, I advise discussing intraspecies individual differences in cognition in terms of independent psychometric factors, including not only g, but all factors that can be reliably and consistently demonstrated in the psychometric abilities domain of a given species. In Homo sapiens, the g factor happens to be the largest and most ubiquitous, and that is what my book is about.

22. I find it pointless to talk about intraspecies individual differences in "intelligence" as I have defined it. I wrote: "The term 'intelligence,' then, would apply only to the whole class of processes or operating principles of the nervous system that make possible the behavioral functions that mediate the organism's adaptation to its environment, such as stimulus apprehension, perception, attention, discrimination, stimulus generalization, learning, learning-set acquisition, remembering, thinking (e.g., seeing relationships), and problem solving (Jensen, 1998, p. 46). And, in what I think may be the most important chapter of my book (Chapter 3:"The trouble with 'intelligence'"), I go on to explain why using the word 'intelligence' in this broad generic sense causes confusion in discussing individual differences in humans, as I hypothesize that all biologically normal humans possess the same intelligence in the sense in which I have defined it, but they show quantitative differences in these functions, which are best described behaviorally in terms of independent latent variables, or factors.

[...]

26. Anderson devotes much of his commentary to his disapproval of operationalism. On this point, however, I emphatically plead not guilty. I am not at all an operationalist. As I understand it, operationalism insists on operational definitions of ALL terms in a given area of scientific discourse, including theoretical constructs. It holds that the operational definition of a construct constitutes the sole and total meaning of that construct -- its operational definition, in other words, is both necessary and sufficient. I neither believe nor advocate this sterile position, and my occasional arguments with Lloyd Humphreys's theoretical approach to intelligence and g actually stem from my rejection of positivism and its corollary operationalism (Jensen, 1984, 1994). (However, I greatly admire Humphreys's empirical contributions.) Theoretical constructs, I believe, need not be operationally defined and, in fact, cannot be so defined, as they are not observable or directly measurable entities. General mental ability, or g, is as much a theoretical construct (or latent variable) as gravitation, or G. I have not proposed an operational definition of g. On the other hand, scientific work requires precise definitions or descriptions (call them operational definitions, if you wish) and aexplicit agreement on the measurements, indices, or other quantitative representation of the observed phenomenon it attempts to investigate empirically and explain theoretically.

27. I'm not going to read my whole book again to be sure, but I can't imagine that I ever said anything like "the g factor is intelligence," as Anderson interprets my view. Since g is a latent variable, we can at best only achieve estimates of it. Factor analysis has proven to be the best method for doing this. But the g construct certainly has surplus meaning beyond the operations of factor analysis, and that's why there is so much about g that calls for further exploration and discovery. Nor do I anywhere "reduce g to genes" -- again Anderson's words. But I think it is an important finding that the heritability estimates of various psychometric tests are related to those tests' g loadings, considering that the calculations of heritability and of tests' g loadings are based on different kinds of data that have no necessary connection between them. The fact that a connection is actually found surely adds to the Galton-Spearman conception of the construct validity of g.

28. Finally, a word on behalf of the consilience of scientific knowledge. I have read E. O. Wilson's book "Consilience" (Wilson, 1998) and liked it a lot, mainly because long before I even knew this word, I had been a consilience seeker in my personal philosophy, as a way of seeking the interrelatedness of many different things within a scientific context. This appeals to me as an absolute non-believer in anything supernatural and as one who has sought a scientifically satisfying general philosophy or world view. Therefore I am happy to find that Anderson characterizes my notion of the "g nexus" (Jensen, 1998, Chapter 14) as an example of consilience, even though it is quite limited in view of Wilson's all-embracing conception. Admittedly, the "g nexus" is at present just an idea for a broad research program, which I expect to come about as a connecting (not to say unifying) theme in the behavioral and social sciences. With or without a structural theory of intelligence per se, the g construct is there and its role in extra-psychometric variables of educational, social, economic, and personal importance can be determined and studied, even while our understanding of the physical basis of g is far from complete. Progress in understanding that most central aspect of the g nexus will accelerate along with the technical advances and discoveries being made today in brain research. More than one path will lead to the scientific understanding of g, which is clearly one of the most important constructs in human psychology.

The first is interesting regarding Jensen's view on operationally defining "intelligence" as g (akin to Gottfredson's view).

The second, the inspiration for the title of Lynn and Vanhanen's 2012 book?

Regarding progress in completing his bibliography. It seems that Jensen did not publish that much after 2002. I have searched Google Scholar, PsycArticles, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Intelligence and PAID journals as of now. If anyone knows of any missing publications, let me know.

Regarding progress in completing his bibliography. It seems that Jensen did not publish that much after 2002. I have searched Google Scholar, PsycArticles, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Intelligence and PAID journals as of now. If anyone knows of any missing publications, let me know.

A complete biography up to 2002. Perhaps you already have it?
Helmuth

There is a complete bibliography in the Miele book which is the one I used to build on. I think it is newer than the one in your book.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Galton_wallpaper.xcf

Here's a good method.

However, it's probably not worth it if your physical copy is not in Europe as you would have to send it by mail to the US. Perhaps it's just cheaper to buy a copy on Amazon.