ABSTRACT
At first sight there may be apparent a deep gulf between the positive evaluation of Jensen’s work expressed in my chapter and such criticisms as appear in the chapter by Carroll, or in Longstreth’s (1984) critique. Seeing that Carroll was asked to stress the negative side, the positive suggests that a better view might by obtained by combining both these aspects of Jensen’s work, and doing so may suggest interesting lines of future research. Indeed, it is the purpose of this reply to Carroll to indicate that essentially I do not disagree with the detailed criticisms he has made, but that my evaluation of Jensen’s s work is not essentially altered as a consequence.
