THE MISMEASURE OF MAN PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Stephen Jay Gould | 448 pages | 17 Jun 1996 | WW Norton & Co | 9780393314250 | English | New York, The Mismeasure of Man by

He does, however, essentially state that IQ is meaningless because it reifies , and that there's nothing innately different about one human's brain or another's, in a sort of "Harrison Bergeron" vision of equality. Pinker pretty much shows this to be false, but finds a way to celebrate our differences. To me, the problem with IQ is not that it measures nothing, in theory, although some people just don't test well, and I exclude them from judgment. My beef is that IQ is just so linear and one-dimensional. Who decided that skill in math and grammar was the sole indicator of intelligence? What about athletic ability? Artistic ability? Ability to categorize? Or to ask the big questions? What about people with great "people skills," or an aptitude for mechanics? Educators will be familiar with Gardner's theory of multiple , and I subscribe to it wholeheartedly. Darwin himself was of average intelligence, but excelled at research Gardner's "naturalist" intelligence. And I believe that each of us is capable of whatever we wish to accomplish—there are pilots and painters without arms, and I almost cringe before throwing out the token "Beethoven was deaf" nugget. Genes are not destiny, and work can overcome them. That said, smart people know their limits and they don't wax poetic about how they don't exist and we're all equal in every way. I know that I am not good at math, that is, I was not born with an innate ability to comprehend mathematics intuitively. I could certainly apply myself and learn math, but why bother? And this brings us to the part of the book that made me give it one star—"The Real Error of ," consisting of eighty-six pages of advanced math. This is a fatal error for a pop-sci book. Sample: The original measures may be represented as vectors of unit length, radiating from a common point. If two measures are highly correlated, their vectors lie close to each other. The cosine of the angle between any two vectors records the correlation coefficient between them Not exactly quantum mechanics, to be sure, but enough to kill my interest, and lose the point. If Gould needs a lot of math to tell me something very loose and unsure, and Pinker needs no math to tell me something completely concrete, well, Occam and his famed blade point to the latter. This is the second Gould I've read, and it was the second to involve a disclaimer about a glut of details to come in the introduction. When you're used to Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan , with their grand, sweeping,and poetic generalizations about life, the universe, and everything, these details are not only shelter to the devil—they are the devil. Believe it or not, I recommend this book. The first four chapters and the epilogue—the story of a sterilized woman with Down's syndrome, which broke my heart—are pretty good. But bad editing is its downfall. When I count three spelling errors, I send the thing back to my mental publishers. View 1 comment. Mar 01, Sean DeLauder rated it it was amazing. Before a proper summation can be given, one first has to understand the Why of The Mismeasure of Man. The Why being hundreds of years of conservative, white-folk-do-well-because-they're-smartest ideology supported by "science", and the more recent belief in the existence of an inherited IQ number by which all humans can be ranked, culminating in , by Herrnstein and Murray It is a book that asserts poor people are, in short, intellectually inferior to the non-poor, and thus Before a proper summation can be given, one first has to understand the Why of The Mismeasure of Man. It is a book that asserts poor people are, in short, intellectually inferior to the non-poor, and thus can never rise above their status barring some fluke to achieve the success that wealthier people enjoy. The book was roundly criticized as sloppy, statistically inaccurate, and pandering to a conservative audience that wanted to believe the poor were not worth the money spent on them, with Gould as one of its loudest critics. In sum, Gould's book is an admonishment of ideology behind The Bell Curve Gould published The Mismeasure of Man years earlier, then re published when The Bell Curve was released and the willingness of social scientists to shape their findings to fit their narrative over the past centuries of anthropological research. In essence, they found what they set out to find support for white, Europeans being more intelligent than others , in spite of clear evidence to the contrary--thus the title of the book. For those with a mathematical bent, the latter portion of the book explains the error of Herrnstein and Murray's calculations, and the continuing trend of partiality toward specific data that proved their hypothesis while ignoring data that might disprove it. The latter part of this trend is what Gould finds disheartening and enraging at the same time. It is symptomatic of Bad Science. That being when scientists find an abundance of evidence that points in a different direction from what they expected, yet cling to their preconceived expectations anyway, and search for a way to manipulate their data to confirm the existing bias. Imagine if Newton had at first insisted his laws of motion were based upon the energy inherent in apples, and never allowed his findings to alter his opinion. In the far future these notions of gender- and race-based intellectuality will be long behind us and we will look back in incredulity. But if not for Gould, this book, and others like him, we might never take those steps forward. If you take anything from the book, or at least the idea of the book if you choose not to read it in its entirety, it should be 1 always approach an idea with some degree of skepticism, and 2 consider the possibility of an agenda behind a proposal--even when offered by something so noble and ideal as the scientific community. Sep 26, Mehrsa rated it it was amazing. Gould is a good person and an excellent thinker. This is a call to scientists to examine their own biases and it is a demolishment of centuries of racist genetic testing. It's also such a pleasure to read someone who is a sound thinker and can write logically. I know some of his debunkings i. Morton have since been debunked, but that does nothing to diminish the importance of this work. Also, he notes that racist "science" tends to proceed from movements demanding equality. And so it is that Gould is a good person and an excellent thinker. And so it is that the likes of Murray joined by a bunch of other people are once again advancing the guard of IQ determinism. I could really use an updated Mismeasurement of Man right about now View 2 comments. This book is a political document, not a popular science book. Unfortunately, the book is an example of dishonest cherry picking of findings and selective omission of studies that would ruin the story Gould tries to construct. Ironically, Gould commits the same "crime" he accuses the racist scientists of: selective bias. There is no scientific honesty in this book, and as a consequence, Gould gives ammo to those he tries to discredit and disarm. Irony once again. Maybe this topic should be left un This book is a political document, not a popular science book. Maybe this topic should be left untouched, as there is great potention for harm associated with it. That is my own personal conclusion after pursuing the primary literature on the topics raised by Gould. Shelves: sciences. Some of us, the cooperative ones, got quite good at it and had our choice of colleges. We were, we were told, intelligent--or, correlatively, "not living up to potential". Beyond the satisfaction of thinking myself smart, however, was an unease. It wasn't just that I wasn't particularly good at much of anything except tests, it was because of the segregation of students from one another beginning in elementary school and continuting, with ever greater degrees of discrimination, through junior and senior high schools. I couldn't buy it. A lot of the kids I was being separated from seemed smarter than me by any number of practical estimations. Gould's book is a and critique of intelligence testing. It began in France, simply as a means of identifying areas of relative academic standing. Its purpose was benign: find the kids lagging in, say, numeration and pay enough attention to them to bring them up to speed. It became, primarily under the North Americans, a ontological measure of inherent capacity. Much of Gould's exposition hinges on the uses and abuses of factoral analysis, a mathematical tool he himself employed in his own academic training. His explanation of the method and of its history of abuse by intelligence measurers is clear and telling. Some of Gould's critique is based on a review, conducted by his students, of the data originally gathered and manipulated by early intelligence theorists. Errors are found, lots of them-- virtually all tendentious. Would that the means existed for such reviews of many of the foundational discoveries of science! May 12, Geoffrey Miller rated it it was ok. Intellectually fraudulent, utterly ignorant of modern intelligence research, politically biased. View all 6 comments. Jan 02, Danny rated it liked it. I'm no expert in , neuroscience, , education, biology, physiology, psychology, , or quantitative methodology. I'm only a layperson with an interest in literature, humanity, and science. So just note that the comments below are offered by a nonprofessional. My comments on The Mismeasure of Man : This book presents an interesting history of various attempts to measure intelligence among groups and attempts to rank groups by "innate" mental ability. Gould argues, e I'm no expert in psychometrics, neuroscience, genetics, education, biology, physiology, psychology, factor analysis, or quantitative methodology. Gould argues, essentially, that such attempts are useless and unfounded because intelligence is not a reified thing, and that preconceived political and social views bias have always plagued efforts to measure intelligence and always will. The book is an indictment of biological determinism, racism, and attempts to justify racism through science. So the book does not present a complete history, in my view. While his arguments appeal to my sensibilities, I think Gould fails in some degree to offer sufficient counter arguments by others who challenge his own thinking which is what I hoped for. So, as with nearly all books, this work should be read and considered in conjunction with other works that both agree and disagree with Gould's analysis and conclusions. I certainly do appreciate Gould's critique on the attempts, past and present, to classify racial groups in some kind of hierarchical ranking. However, I think, while a noble effort, Gould himself brings his own bias to the work. This is just to say that I agree with Gould in general, but I read with caution. Davis about the book two responses from people with opposing political views , and works by others who supported and criticized Gould's work. My opinions hold firm. Psychometrics and testing is of great value when identifying gaps in and evaluating education programs and policy. There is absolutely no valid justification for racism. Individual ability cannot be determined by race. Mental ability is not a measure for "social worth. Intelligence and academic success are influenced by a combination of biological, physiological, and psychological factors and a multitude of environmental factors including health, diet, education, social policy, , school climate, parenting, proximity to violence and crime, etc. And, finally, what I've learned most of all from this exercise is that there is always much, much more to be learned. I offer these references below not to advocate for the authors' political view, but simply to present alternative perspective: Davis, Bernard D. Neo- Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. The Public Interest, 74, Jensen, Arthur R. The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Education Review, 1, Apr 14, Peerawat Chiaranunt rated it did not like it. I found this book very disappointing considering how much I love other books by Gould. The Mismeasure of Man aims to attack some of the supposed evidence for . The book's purpose intrigued me initially, but as I began reading its content, I found Gould's method very unconvincing. This is one of Gould's arguments that I found most difficult to buy - Gould's attack on craniometry. He first gives a brief background of some of the first craniometric studies of human races done by Ag I found this book very disappointing considering how much I love other books by Gould. He first gives a brief background of some of the first craniometric studies of human races done by Agazzis and Morton quite informative. Gould then points out the flaw in Morton's studies: his measurements of the volume of skulls are done by filling the skull with seeds, and Morton might have, according to Gould, pressed the seeds further in the skulls that he believed a priori to be larger. It is an interesting case study of confirmation bias, and Gould claimed that he repeated Morton's measurements to find out that Morton's measurements were indeed influenced by his preconceptions. Gould seems to forget that he too has his own preconceptions about the topic. I think it is very difficult to read a book that relies on claiming that its opponent is under the influence of confirmation bias. The author would then simply repeat the experiment, only to be falsified by his critics, who suggest that he too is under the influence of said bias. It somehow seems like an endless exchange of straw-man arguments, and I don't find that very interesting to read about. I suggest that you should read that rather than The Mismeasure of Man. Jun 22, Shaenon Garrity rated it really liked it Shelves: nonfiction. A history of the use of intelligence testing to support racism, sexism, and class boundaries, focusing on two areas: 19th-century craniometry and 20th- century IQ tests. The going gets a little heavy in the final chapters when Gould busts out the math, but it's an eye-opener, using two specific historical examples to make larger points about the way science, though supposedly neutral, can be warped to enforce existing prejudices. When poor Italian immigrants flooded into America in the early 20t A history of the use of intelligence testing to support racism, sexism, and class boundaries, focusing on two areas: 19th-century craniometry and 20th-century IQ tests. When poor Italian immigrants flooded into America in the early 20th century, research suddenly proliferated "proving" that Italians were a separate, mentally inferior nonwhite race; in Britain, studies focused on supporting the innate rightness of the class system and recommending lesser education for poor children. Gould's message is ultimately positive: that our mental limits are far less relevant than our mental potential. Mar 17, Nebuchadnezzar rated it really liked it Shelves: politics-and-political-philosophy , evolutionary-biology , philosophy-and-history-of-science , psychology-and-neuroscience. The Mismeasure of Man is often touted as a definitive refutation of racialist pseudoscience and eugenics. However, while I would highly recommend Gould's work, I would do so as an entry point to the subject. Gould's prose is highly readable and entertaining as always. His coverage of the history of eugenics and scientific racism is excellent and engaging and it's worth reading for this alone. Now, on to the qualifications. A flaw in the book is Gould's revised measurements of Morton's skulls. Gou The Mismeasure of Man is often touted as a definitive refutation of racialist pseudoscience and eugenics. Gould seems to have inadvertently proven his own point as revised measurements of their cranial capacity have been taken and it seems that Morton was mostly right, contra Gould. This doesn't detract too heavily from Gould's main point in my opinion, as cranial capacity cannot be used as a proxy measurement for IQ anyway. But it is hypocritical to accuse a long-dead academic of ideological bias and sloppy methodology and then engage in the same distortions. As Gould gets closer to the present, he begins to get sloppier. He derails in one part to take some swipes at sociobiology and E. For anyone familiar with the sociobiology debate, this comes off as Gould just venting about a personal squabble. His rebuttals to the more contemporary race and IQ proponents do not adequately address their methodology. While placing them in historical context makes it fairly easy to see what their basic motives and mistakes are, Gould fails to rigorously refute their more nuanced statistical arguments. I would recommend the work of James R. Flynn on more contemporary race and IQ arguments. Flynn's work on the subject is superior in its scholarship and nuance. Nevertheless, this book is a great place for the lay person to start when it comes to the sordid history of the use of biology and psychology in service of ideology and bigotry. Apr 01, Cassandra Kay Silva rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. This was absolutely spectacular! A scientific look at the prejudices that pseudo science has used to confirm and back unnecessary racism. An inside look at the so called evidence that has furthered the labeling and segregating of mankind. It was absolutely flawless! I loved this book. Page after page was extremely infuriating. It is amazing how we can use science to twist facts to our own liking. I am so glad I found this at the library. It makes me both simultaneously wonder what other current This was absolutely spectacular! It makes me both simultaneously wonder what other current "facts" are being distorted to further agendas, and feel extremely grateful that we are finally trying to put all human beings on an even footing. There is no better time to be who you are than today. View all 4 comments. Nov 12, Jack rated it it was ok Shelves: non-fiction , 20th-century , amerika. This wasn't quite the book I was looking for, nor is it entirely what it appears - at least, as it may appear to a contemporary reader. Perhaps when it was first published it didn't seem so Let me try to explain myself. That's why I picked it up. That's not really what the book is about, only about thirty pages near the end address that book particularly. Gould's work is a general This wasn't quite the book I was looking for, nor is it entirely what it appears - at least, as it may appear to a contemporary reader. Gould's work is a general for-the-layman, kinda, criticism of intelligence testing, nature-over-nurture style science. I think it was intended to be polemical, but its targets, while correctly identified in the terms of advancing his argument, are too soft to really persuade me. I haven't read The Bell Curve , nor do I intend to I have other ways of self-harm , but I am aware of it as a malingering presence over right-wing American politics, whose rhetoric has continuously encroached over Europe and Ireland in the past few years. It's a notable work of scientific racism and as someone fervently against that whole hate thing, I wanted to read a strong rebuttal of prejudice veiled in objective language. I'm open about being thoroughly against racial differences being quantified in intelligence. I had my opinion before I read this book, and my disappointment stems from feeling that if I wasn't already inclined towards that belief, I would not be persuaded of it; at least, not as regarding modern prejudice. Most of this book is about scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. I didn't really need to know exactly how phrenology was a pseudoscience, nor did I need to learn that men of that milieu had biases that corrupted the supposed objectivity of their work. I knew that already. By the time Gould got to 'the point' for me, it was too late, because I expected something different of this book than what I wanted. I have to reflect more so on my own desires or biases as a reader than appraise an apparently sound, if politically unfit academic work. I don't get into arguments online because I rarely write to anyone. I find it difficult to converse with anyone with the immediacy the electronic word has. I've been reading forums since I was 12, and absorbing almost everything I read as accurate reflections of life experience, as grains of truth. I find the idea of being a political centrist repulsive, but I'm not really sure what I believe. At least, I don't find my beliefs to be systematic or coherent enough to wage war with my ideological opponents as the bulk of discourse, online or otherwise, seems to be. And yet I came at this book not to learn both sides of a debate, but strengthen an inherent belief of mine. If I am unusually hypocritcal in my efforts to sharpen my political sensibility, I must improve; yet the thought that this is a mundane reality of human experience is similarly demoralizing. Yeats may have written that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity, but I sure am sick of being vacillating while posturing at being some sort of intellectual free-thinker. A bit of passionate intensity might do me some good. I would like my words, in speech or text, to have some power similar to the tens of thousands of words I have read over many years, in books, or more frequently, anonymous remarks online, that assert their realities upon my consciousness regardless of contradicting variance. I don't think it made me more intelligent or well-rounded to absorb so much conflicting free expressions of opinion, even if that is a supposed hallmark of democracy. It has been mostly confusing. Apr 27, Yasiru rated it it was ok. I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind o I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind of selective bias he accuses others of apart from other errors , however commendable his motivation might have been. The whole episode provides a somewhat more detached lesson which is still very important and goes back at least to David Hume, an empiricist well aware of the limits his school of thought imposed itself - science only tells us how things are, and carries no suggestions about how they ought to be though it can tell you what ways some outcome might be best brought about. We can't afford to meet fatally polarised views from The Bell Curve say, which this book criticises with those from the opposite ideological extreme. Only seek falsifiable trends, record them, then consider what can be done with them for purposes decided in advance by different modes of discourse from the empirical ethical and otherwise. It's also important with the scientific method to admit what we don't know and anticipate deficiencies in our analyses and possibly the overall paradigm see Kuhn's work. There should always be a strong philosophical or ideological bulwark between scientific description and policy prescription. Certainly beware reification, but also be vigilant against the more pressing concern of slippery slopes. Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against has not lost any of its potency and urgency. Whether through craniometry, obscure body measurements, general intelligence or IQ- tests, the ruling class has time and time again found ways to reify social and historical classes as expressions of a timeless, unchanging reality. This mechanism, rooted in feudalism, persists vigourously in capitalism and makes a sneaky comeback in the guise of fascism and colonialism. To be recogniz Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against hereditarianism has not lost any of its potency and urgency. To be recognized and combatted - in the end, all attempts to directly connect biology to sociology succumbs to race science, whether in the shape of "judeo- bolshevism", the paternalistic discourse of slavery or the endless contempt for the have-nots and their organizing: IQ of 75 or below should be the realm of unskilled labor, 75 to 85 "preeminently the range for semi-skilled labor. IQ 75 is an "unsafe risk in a motorman or conductor, and it conduces to discontent" Terman, Proper vocational training and placement is essential for those "of the 70 to 85 class. May 02, Ayelet Waldman rated it it was amazing. One shouldn't read Baron-Cohen without first fortifying oneself with Gould. This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch-hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Gould deems Jensen and his school "biodeterminists," and sets out to debunk the theoretical basis of intelligence research, the g-factor along with providing a history lesson. Something I did really a This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch-hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Something I did really appreciate about the book is the first two thirds or so. Here, Gould gives an excellent overview of the history of racism in Western science, which I am very glad to have read. Had I stopped after chapter 5 or so, I would probably give this book at least 4 stars. Unfortunately, Gould does not stop there, and it becomes increasingly obvious that he goes to great care to provide the reader with the most racist and sexist quotes possible in order to impassion them and fill them with rage against those modern hereditarians to whom he will later compare the various 19th century outdated western thinkers. In this way, he poisons the well against them, and talks himself and the reader into the a priorism which he claims to despise. There are countless problems with his assertions, most of which have not held up well in the last 40 years. Here are only a few: 1. Morton's skulls: Gould 'corrects' Morton's measurements because he believes Morton fudged them just to fit his own beliefs. Several years after the publication of this book someone went back to re-measure Morton's skulls and -- surprise! It is now well-known that there is a strong correlation between brain size and cognitive ability between. He examines almost no research from the s or 70s. If I were dissatisfied with the state of modern astronomy would I rail against Ptolemy, or would I try to engage with thought from the last several decades? The g-factor: this section has particularly not faired well as, even among environmentalists, the reality of the g-factor has more or less become accepted. The theory of multiple intelligences has not held up, and I am unaware of any modern researcher that espouses this view. His explanation of what it is is also a straw man: it is an empirically derived concept, not a "thing" that has a "concrete" location in the brain, nor is it "innate" and not subject to environmental changes; IQ tests are are also not a direct measure of it, which is what Gould seems to think -- they are only estimates that have a margin of error. The two concluding articles are inconsequential and use the same types of sophistry to malign various people via straw mans and well-poisoning although I appreciate his short comments on Darwin at the end. Most of the 5 star reviews of this are by people who have not read 'the other side. I would recommend reading Jensen's response: "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons" and a more up-to-date work on modern research in this area: "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Dr. Richard J. Sep 24, Tanja Berg rated it really liked it Shelves: evolution , history , science. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within". I cannot do this book justice in a review. The matter is complicated and lies at the heart of what I believe. I have not yet taken an IQ test which I couldn't have done better if I had practiced certain things beforehand. Next number in a line, l "We pass through this world but once. Next number in a line, logic - it's all perfectly learnable and not a bit innate. I could be as smart as I like, but if I didn't know the language of the test, I would fail. That the result of this kind of testing would signify some kind of innate, inherited, intelligence is ludicruos - I was sure of that even at 15! Philippe Rushton , selectively "cherry-picked facts" from his research to support their own claims. He lamented, "Some people have turned the Morton-Gould affair into an all or nothing debate in which either one side is right or the other side is right, and I think that is a mistake. Both men made mistakes and proving one wrong does not prove the other one right. In another study, published in , Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re-measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the "Caucasians" possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample. To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases. Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was "poorly supported", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work "weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science". Despite this criticism, the authors acknowledged that they admired Gould's staunch opposition to racism. In this paper was reviewed by Michael Weisberg, who reported that "most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases". They also maintain that the "methods deployed by Morton and Gould were both inappropriate" and that "Gould's statistical analysis of Morton's data is in many ways no better than Morton's own". A paper argues that Morton's data was unbiased but his interpretation of the results was not; the paper argues he had similar findings to research conducted by a contemporary craniologist Freidrich Tidemann, who had interpreted the data differently to argue strongly against any conception of a racial hierarchy. In a review of The Mismeasure of Man , Bernard Davis , professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, said that Gould erected a straw man argument based upon incorrectly defined key terms—specifically reification —which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of statistical data , all motivated more by politics than by science. Davis also criticized the popular-press and the literary-journal book reviews of The Mismeasure of Man as generally approbatory; whereas, most scientific-journal book reviews were generally critical. Nonetheless, in , Gould contradicted Davis by arguing that of twenty-four academic book reviews written by experts in psychology, fourteen approved, three were mixed opinions, and seven disapproved of the book. Goddard — about the intelligence of Jewish, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants to the U. Countering Gould, Davis further explained that Goddard proposed that the low IQs of the sub-normally intelligent men and women who took the cognitive-ability test likely derived from their social environments rather than from their respective genetic inheritances, and concluded that "we may be confident that their children will be of average intelligence, and, if rightly brought up, will be good citizens". In his review, psychologist John B. Carroll said that Gould did not understand "the nature and purpose" of factor analysis. Bartholomew , of the London School of Economics , said that Gould erred in his use of factor analysis , irrelevantly concentrated upon the fallacy of reification abstract as concrete , and ignored the contemporary scientific consensus about the existence of the psychometric g. Reviewing the book, Stephen F. Blinkhorn , a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Hertfordshire , wrote that The Mismeasure of Man was "a masterpiece of propaganda " that selectively juxtaposed data to further a political agenda. In his review, psychologist Franz Samelson wrote that Gould was wrong in asserting that the psychometric results of the intelligence tests administered to soldier-recruits by the U. Army contributed to the legislation of the Immigration Restriction Act of Herrnstein reported that "the [intelligence] testing community did not generally view its findings as favoring restrictive immigration policies like those in the Act, and Congress took virtually no notice of intelligence testing". Barash wrote that Gould unfairly groups sociobiology with "racist eugenics and misguided Social Darwinism ". A paper argued that the Gould was incorrect in his assessment of the Army Beta and that, for the knowledge, technology and test development standards of the time, it was adequate and could measure intelligence, possibly even in the modern day. In his review of The Mismeasure of Man , Arthur Jensen , a University of Berkeley educational psychologist whom Gould much criticized in the book, wrote that Gould used straw man arguments to advance his opinions, misrepresented other scientists, and propounded a political agenda. According to Jensen, the book was "a patent example" of the bias that political ideology imposes upon science—the very thing that Gould sought to portray in the book. Charles Murray , co-author of The Bell Curve , said that his views about the distribution of , among the races and the ethnic groups who compose the U. Psychologist wrote that The Mismeasure of Man is a book that presents "a paleontologist 's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science". Arthur Jensen and Bernard Davis argued that if the general intelligence factor were replaced with a model that tested several types of intelligence, it would change results less than one might expect. Therefore, according to Jensen and Davis, the results of standardized tests of cognitive ability would continue to correlate with the results of other such standardized tests, and that the intellectual achievement gap between black and white people would remain. Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton accused Gould of "scholarly malfeasance" for misrepresenting and for ignoring contemporary scientific research pertinent to the subject of his book, and for attacking dead hypotheses and methods of research. He faulted The Mismeasure of Man because it did not mention the magnetic resonance imaging MRI studies that showed the existence of statistical correlations among brain -size, IQ , and the g factor , despite Rushton having sent copies of the MRI studies to Gould. Rushton further criticized the book for the absence of the results of five studies of twins reared apart corroborating the findings of Cyril Burt —the contemporary average was 0. James R. Flynn , a researcher critical of racial theories of intelligence, repeated the arguments of Arthur Jensen about the second edition of The Mismeasure of Man. Flynn wrote that "Gould's book evades all of Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black—white IQ gap, by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g no more need be said. This is manifestly false. According to psychologist Ian Deary , Gould's claim that there is no relation between brain size and IQ is outdated. Furthermore, he reported that Gould refused to correct this in new editions of the book, even though newly available data were brought to his attention by several researchers. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Main article: Stephen Jay Gould. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. The Mismeasure of Man , p. The Public Interest. Retrieved June 7, B Biol. Mismeasure of Man. The Mismeasure of Man pp. The Mismeasure of Man: Revised edition. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved Clark Monthly Review 57 Feb. July Gould was one of the judges. Discover 27 Dec. Current Anthropology. The New Yorker 70 Nov. The Mismeasure of Man - Wikipedia His research was mainly in the evolution and speciation of land snails. Gould was a leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory holds that few evolutionary changes occur among organisms over long periods of time, and then a brief period of rapid changes occurs before another long, stable period of equilibrium sets in. Gould also made significant contributions to the field of evolutionary developmental biology, most notably in his work, Ontogeny and Phylogeny. An outspoken advocate of the scientific outlook, Gould had been a vigorous defender of evolution against its creation-science opponents in popular magazines focusing on science. Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. The definitive refutation to the argument of The Bell Curve. How smart are you? If that question doesn't spark a dozen more questions in your mind like "What do you mean by 'smart,'" "How do I measure it" and "Who's asking? Gould's brilliant, funny, engag The definitive refutation to the argument of The Bell Curve. Gould's brilliant, funny, engaging prose dissects the motivations behind those who would judge intelligence, and hence worth, by cranial size, convolutions, or score on extremely narrow tests. How did scientists decide that intelligence was unipolar and quantifiable? Why did the standard keep changing over time? Gould's answer is clear and simple: power maintains itself. European men of the 19th century, even before Darwin, saw themselves as the pinnacle of creation and sought to prove this assertion through hard measurement. When one measure was found to place members of some "inferior" group such as women or Southeast Asians over the supposedly rightful champions, it would be discarded and replaced with a new, more comfortable measure. The 20th-century obsession with numbers led to the institutionalization of IQ testing and subsequent assignment to work and rewards commensurate with the score, shown by Gould to be not simply misguided--for surely intelligence is multifactorial--but also regressive, creating a feedback loop rewarding the rich and powerful. The revised edition includes a scathing critique of Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve , taking them to task for rehashing old arguments to exploit a new political wave of uncaring belt tightening. It might not make you any smarter, but The Mismeasure of Man will certainly make you think. Get A Copy. Paperback , 2nd edition , pages. Published June 17th by W. Norton Company first published October 28th More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Mismeasure of Man , please sign up. Is this book argumentum ad consequentiam at it's finest? Zach Didn't read the book did you Joel? See 1 question about The Mismeasure of Man…. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of The Mismeasure of Man. Jul 07, Trevor rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: everyone. Shelves: evolution , science , philosophy , history , race , social-theory. Have you ever felt a little upset with white people saying black people are lesser people? Well, prepare to feel furious. Gould documents a series of scientific frauds by racist scientists seeking to show white racial superiority. This book will make your blood boil - but if more people had read it no one would have fallen for all that bell-curve rubbish a few years later. Racism sucks, and it is based on ignorance. If you are looking for a cure to such ignorance, this is as good a place to star Have you ever felt a little upset with white people saying black people are lesser people? If you are looking for a cure to such ignorance, this is as good a place to start as any. View all 3 comments. Recommended to Max by: Any number of liberal-arts junkies. Shelves: politics , education , book-challengefailed , general-science. Gould need only have written the two-page epilogue to his book, a concise essay, rather than the remainder of the book. In fact, the entire thing is just so much pink fiberglass insulation leading up to the final page of the book. Everything he intended to say is there without any jargon or facts and figures. As a teacher, I intend to photocopy and teach that page alone. Carry on if desired. It is regrettable, then, that this, which will be placed, in due time, on that narrow metaphorical shelf, bewildered not out of being truly beyond grasping, but rather out of poor presentation and overly technical writing. I feel that this is relevant to the aims of this review. And now you know. To be clear, the first four chapters are not troublesome; it's chapter five, "The Real Error of Cyril Burt," that should've been omitted. But I'll get to that in due time. These are the main points of Gould's book: a That there is no discernible difference, especially of intellect, between the various races of Homo sapiens ; b that scientists are prey to the same biases and subjectivities as we all are, and they may colour their work thus; c that intelligence is a nebulous, unquantifiable entity, and we often fall prey to the fallacy of reification when referencing intelligence, i. Wilson, is incorrect insofar as it seeks to find an explanation for human behaviour in Darwinian theory. I can get behind propositions a through c , but I find d revolting and completely off-base. In fact, my point b above, Gould's assertion that scientists' work might be shaped by their biases, is the basis for the ultimate failure of The Mismeasure of Man. Gould "knows" that IQ measures nothing, and that sociobiology is false, and that admitting any innate difference between human minds will lead to social darwinism, so of course, he's churned out this massive synthesis in support of precisely those ideas. The fact that he doesn't realize his hypocrisy is more or less vomit-inducing. I agree with Gould when he quotes John Stuart Mill, saying that The tendency has always been strong to believe whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something particularly abstruse and mysterious. The rub is that some things that don't answer to names actually don't exist, for one. Unicorns come to mind. Another conundrum arrises when we take into account the first rule of , as quoted in Steven Pinker 's The Blank Slate : All human behavioural traits are heritable. This is key. It simply states, rather uncontroversially, that all traits might be inherited, and to say as much is not to embrace genetic determinism. But in the book, Gould poo-poos sociobiology and the rule. He states that human being have no innate leaning toward aggressiveness. In a sense, Mismeasure is the archenemy of The Blank Slate. Gould never actually advocates that we are blank slates, stating instead that I cannot adopt such a nihilistic position without denying the fundamental insight of my profession. He does, however, essentially state that IQ is meaningless because it reifies intelligence, and that there's nothing innately different about one human's brain or another's, in a sort of "Harrison Bergeron" vision of equality. Pinker pretty much shows this to be false, but finds a way to celebrate our differences. To me, the problem with IQ is not that it measures nothing, in theory, although some people just don't test well, and I exclude them from judgment. My beef is that IQ is just so linear and one-dimensional. Who decided that skill in math and grammar was the sole indicator of intelligence? What about athletic ability? Artistic ability? Ability to categorize? Or to ask the big questions? What about people with great "people skills," or an aptitude for mechanics? Educators will be familiar with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, and I subscribe to it wholeheartedly. Darwin himself was of average intelligence, but excelled at research Gardner's "naturalist" intelligence. And I believe that each of us is capable of whatever we wish to accomplish—there are pilots and painters without arms, and I almost cringe before throwing out the token "Beethoven was deaf" nugget. Genes are not destiny, and work can overcome them. That said, smart people know their limits and they don't wax poetic about how they don't exist and we're all equal in every way. I know that I am not good at math, that is, I was not born with an innate ability to comprehend mathematics intuitively. I could certainly apply myself and learn math, but why bother? And this brings us to the part of the book that made me give it one star —"The Real Error of Cyril Burt," consisting of eighty-six pages of advanced math. This is a fatal error for a pop-sci book. Sample: The original measures may be represented as vectors of unit length, radiating from a common point. If two measures are highly correlated, their vectors lie close to each other. The cosine of the angle between any two vectors records the correlation coefficient between them Not exactly quantum mechanics, to be sure, but enough to kill my interest, and lose the point. If Gould needs a lot of math to tell me something very loose and unsure, and Pinker needs no math to tell me something completely concrete, well, Occam and his famed blade point to the latter. This is the second Gould I've read, and it was the second to involve a disclaimer about a glut of details to come in the introduction. When you're used to Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan , with their grand, sweeping,and poetic generalizations about life, the universe, and everything, these details are not only shelter to the devil—they are the devil. Believe it or not, I recommend this book. The first four chapters and the epilogue—the story of a sterilized woman with Down's syndrome, which broke my heart—are pretty good. But bad editing is its downfall. When I count three spelling errors, I send the thing back to my mental publishers. View 1 comment. Mar 01, Sean DeLauder rated it it was amazing. Before a proper summation can be given, one first has to understand the Why of The Mismeasure of Man. The Why being hundreds of years of conservative, white-folk-do-well-because-they're-smartest ideology supported by "science", and the more recent belief in the existence of an inherited IQ number by which all humans can be ranked, culminating in The Bell Curve , by Herrnstein and Murray It is a book that asserts poor people are, in short, intellectually inferior to the non-poor, and thus Before a proper summation can be given, one first has to understand the Why of The Mismeasure of Man. It is a book that asserts poor people are, in short, intellectually inferior to the non-poor, and thus can never rise above their status barring some fluke to achieve the success that wealthier people enjoy. The book was roundly criticized as sloppy, statistically inaccurate, and pandering to a conservative audience that wanted to believe the poor were not worth the money spent on them, with Gould as one of its loudest critics. In sum, Gould's book is an admonishment of ideology behind The Bell Curve Gould published The Mismeasure of Man years earlier, then re published when The Bell Curve was released and the willingness of social scientists to shape their findings to fit their narrative over the past centuries of anthropological research. In essence, they found what they set out to find support for white, Europeans being more intelligent than others , in spite of clear evidence to the contrary--thus the title of the book. For those with a mathematical bent, the latter portion of the book explains the error of Herrnstein and Murray's calculations, and the continuing trend of partiality toward specific data that proved their hypothesis while ignoring data that might disprove it. The latter part of this trend is what Gould finds disheartening and enraging at the same time. It is symptomatic of Bad Science. That being when scientists find an abundance of evidence that points in a different direction from what they expected, yet cling to their preconceived expectations anyway, and search for a way to manipulate their data to confirm the existing bias. Imagine if Newton had at first insisted his laws of motion were based upon the energy inherent in apples, and never allowed his findings to alter his opinion. In the far future these notions of gender- and race-based intellectuality will be long behind us and we will look back in incredulity. But if not for Gould, this book, and others like him, we might never take those steps forward. If you take anything from the book, or at least the idea of the book if you choose not to read it in its entirety, it should be 1 always approach an idea with some degree of skepticism, and 2 consider the possibility of an agenda behind a proposal--even when offered by something so noble and ideal as the scientific community. Sep 26, Mehrsa rated it it was amazing. Gould is a good person and an excellent thinker. This is a call to scientists to examine their own biases and it is a demolishment of centuries of racist genetic testing. It's also such a pleasure to read someone who is a sound thinker and can write logically. I know some of his debunkings i. Morton have since been debunked, but that does nothing to diminish the importance of this work. Also, he notes that racist "science" tends to proceed from movements demanding equality. And so it is that Gould is a good person and an excellent thinker. And so it is that the likes of Murray joined by a bunch of other people are once again advancing the guard of IQ determinism. I could really use an updated Mismeasurement of Man right about now View 2 comments. This book is a political document, not a popular science book. Unfortunately, the book is an example of dishonest cherry picking of findings and selective omission of studies that would ruin the story Gould tries to construct. Ironically, Gould commits the same "crime" he accuses the racist scientists of: selective bias. There is no scientific honesty in this book, and as a consequence, Gould gives ammo to those he tries to discredit and disarm. Irony once again. Maybe this topic should be left un This book is a political document, not a popular science book. Maybe this topic should be left untouched, as there is great potention for harm associated with it. That is my own personal conclusion after pursuing the primary literature on the topics raised by Gould. Shelves: sciences. Some of us, the cooperative ones, got quite good at it and had our choice of colleges. We were, we were told, intelligent--or, correlatively, "not living up to potential". Beyond the satisfaction of thinking myself smart, however, was an unease. It wasn't just that I wasn't particularly good at much of anything except tests, it was because of the segregation of students from one another beginning in elementary school and continuting, with ever greater degrees of discrimination, through junior and senior high schools. I couldn't buy it. A lot of the kids I was being separated from seemed smarter than me by any number of practical estimations. Gould's book is a history and critique of intelligence testing. It began in France, simply as a means of identifying areas of relative academic standing. Its purpose was benign: find the kids lagging in, say, numeration and pay enough attention to them to bring them up to speed. It became, primarily under the North Americans, a ontological measure of inherent capacity. Much of Gould's exposition hinges on the uses and abuses of factoral analysis, a mathematical tool he himself employed in his own academic training. His explanation of the method and of its history of abuse by intelligence measurers is clear and telling. Some of Gould's critique is based on a review, conducted by his students, of the data originally gathered and manipulated by early intelligence theorists. Errors are found, lots of them--virtually all tendentious. Would that the means existed for such reviews of many of the foundational discoveries of science! May 12, Geoffrey Miller rated it it was ok. Intellectually fraudulent, utterly ignorant of modern intelligence research, politically biased. View all 6 comments. Jan 02, Danny rated it liked it. I'm no expert in psychometrics, neuroscience, genetics, education, biology, physiology, psychology, factor analysis, or quantitative methodology. I'm only a layperson with an interest in literature, humanity, and science. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. The Mismeasure of Man , p. The Public Interest. Retrieved June 7, B Biol. Mismeasure of Man. The Mismeasure of Man pp. The Mismeasure of Man: Revised edition. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved Clark Monthly Review 57 Feb. July Gould was one of the judges. Discover 27 Dec. Current Anthropology. The New Yorker 70 Nov. Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lay summary 27 July American Journal of Psychology. Science Feb. American Psychologist. New York: Penguin Books. Journal of Intelligence. Contemporary Education Review. Archived from the original on Intelligence: A New Look. Personality and Individual Differences. Archived from the original PDF on Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. Books by Stephen Jay Gould. Essay collections from Natural History. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. Cover of the first edition. Print Hardcover and Paperback. The Panda's Thumb. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

Gould was a leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory holds that few evolutionary changes occur among organisms over long periods of time, and then a brief period of rapid changes occurs before another long, stable period of equilibrium sets in. Gould also made significant contributions to the field of evolutionary developmental biology, most notably in his work, Ontogeny and Phylogeny. An outspoken advocate of the scientific outlook, Gould had been a vigorous defender of evolution against its creation-science opponents in popular magazines focusing on science. He wrote a column for Natural History and has produced a remarkable series of books that display the excitement of science for the layperson. His coverage of the history of eugenics and scientific racism is excellent and engaging and it's worth reading for this alone. Now, on to the qualifications. A flaw in the book is Gould's revised measurements of Morton's skulls. Gou The Mismeasure of Man is often touted as a definitive refutation of racialist pseudoscience and eugenics. Gould seems to have inadvertently proven his own point as revised measurements of their cranial capacity have been taken and it seems that Morton was mostly right, contra Gould. This doesn't detract too heavily from Gould's main point in my opinion, as cranial capacity cannot be used as a proxy measurement for IQ anyway. But it is hypocritical to accuse a long-dead academic of ideological bias and sloppy methodology and then engage in the same distortions. As Gould gets closer to the present, he begins to get sloppier. He derails in one part to take some swipes at sociobiology and E. For anyone familiar with the sociobiology debate, this comes off as Gould just venting about a personal squabble. His rebuttals to the more contemporary race and IQ proponents do not adequately address their methodology. While placing them in historical context makes it fairly easy to see what their basic motives and mistakes are, Gould fails to rigorously refute their more nuanced statistical arguments. I would recommend the work of James R. Flynn on more contemporary race and IQ arguments. Flynn's work on the subject is superior in its scholarship and nuance. Nevertheless, this book is a great place for the lay person to start when it comes to the sordid history of the use of biology and psychology in service of ideology and bigotry. Apr 01, Cassandra Kay Silva rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. This was absolutely spectacular! A scientific look at the prejudices that pseudo science has used to confirm and back unnecessary racism. An inside look at the so called evidence that has furthered the labeling and segregating of mankind. It was absolutely flawless! I loved this book. Page after page was extremely infuriating. It is amazing how we can use science to twist facts to our own liking. I am so glad I found this at the library. It makes me both simultaneously wonder what other current This was absolutely spectacular! It makes me both simultaneously wonder what other current "facts" are being distorted to further agendas, and feel extremely grateful that we are finally trying to put all human beings on an even footing. There is no better time to be who you are than today. View all 4 comments. Nov 12, Jack rated it it was ok Shelves: non-fiction , 20th-century , amerika. This wasn't quite the book I was looking for, nor is it entirely what it appears - at least, as it may appear to a contemporary reader. Perhaps when it was first published it didn't seem so Let me try to explain myself. That's why I picked it up. That's not really what the book is about, only about thirty pages near the end address that book particularly. Gould's work is a general This wasn't quite the book I was looking for, nor is it entirely what it appears - at least, as it may appear to a contemporary reader. Gould's work is a general for-the-layman, kinda, criticism of intelligence testing, nature-over-nurture style science. I think it was intended to be polemical, but its targets, while correctly identified in the terms of advancing his argument, are too soft to really persuade me. I haven't read The Bell Curve , nor do I intend to I have other ways of self-harm , but I am aware of it as a malingering presence over right-wing American politics, whose rhetoric has continuously encroached over Europe and Ireland in the past few years. It's a notable work of scientific racism and as someone fervently against that whole hate thing, I wanted to read a strong rebuttal of prejudice veiled in objective language. I'm open about being thoroughly against racial differences being quantified in intelligence. I had my opinion before I read this book, and my disappointment stems from feeling that if I wasn't already inclined towards that belief, I would not be persuaded of it; at least, not as regarding modern prejudice. Most of this book is about scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. I didn't really need to know exactly how phrenology was a pseudoscience, nor did I need to learn that men of that milieu had biases that corrupted the supposed objectivity of their work. I knew that already. By the time Gould got to 'the point' for me, it was too late, because I expected something different of this book than what I wanted. I have to reflect more so on my own desires or biases as a reader than appraise an apparently sound, if politically unfit academic work. I don't get into arguments online because I rarely write to anyone. I find it difficult to converse with anyone with the immediacy the electronic word has. I've been reading forums since I was 12, and absorbing almost everything I read as accurate reflections of life experience, as grains of truth. I find the idea of being a political centrist repulsive, but I'm not really sure what I believe. At least, I don't find my beliefs to be systematic or coherent enough to wage war with my ideological opponents as the bulk of discourse, online or otherwise, seems to be. And yet I came at this book not to learn both sides of a debate, but strengthen an inherent belief of mine. If I am unusually hypocritcal in my efforts to sharpen my political sensibility, I must improve; yet the thought that this is a mundane reality of human experience is similarly demoralizing. Yeats may have written that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity, but I sure am sick of being vacillating while posturing at being some sort of intellectual free-thinker. A bit of passionate intensity might do me some good. I would like my words, in speech or text, to have some power similar to the tens of thousands of words I have read over many years, in books, or more frequently, anonymous remarks online, that assert their realities upon my consciousness regardless of contradicting variance. I don't think it made me more intelligent or well-rounded to absorb so much conflicting free expressions of opinion, even if that is a supposed hallmark of democracy. It has been mostly confusing. Apr 27, Yasiru rated it it was ok. I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind o I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind of selective bias he accuses others of apart from other errors , however commendable his motivation might have been. The whole episode provides a somewhat more detached lesson which is still very important and goes back at least to David Hume, an empiricist well aware of the limits his school of thought imposed itself - science only tells us how things are, and carries no suggestions about how they ought to be though it can tell you what ways some outcome might be best brought about. We can't afford to meet fatally polarised views from The Bell Curve say, which this book criticises with those from the opposite ideological extreme. Only seek falsifiable trends, record them, then consider what can be done with them for purposes decided in advance by different modes of discourse from the empirical ethical and otherwise. It's also important with the scientific method to admit what we don't know and anticipate deficiencies in our analyses and possibly the overall paradigm see Kuhn's work. There should always be a strong philosophical or ideological bulwark between scientific description and policy prescription. Certainly beware reification, but also be vigilant against the more pressing concern of slippery slopes. Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against hereditarianism has not lost any of its potency and urgency. Whether through craniometry, obscure body measurements, general intelligence or IQ-tests, the ruling class has time and time again found ways to reify social and historical classes as expressions of a timeless, unchanging reality. This mechanism, rooted in feudalism, persists vigourously in capitalism and makes a sneaky comeback in the guise of fascism and colonialism. To be recogniz Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against hereditarianism has not lost any of its potency and urgency. To be recognized and combatted - in the end, all attempts to directly connect biology to sociology succumbs to race science, whether in the shape of "judeo-bolshevism", the paternalistic discourse of slavery or the endless contempt for the have-nots and their organizing: IQ of 75 or below should be the realm of unskilled labor, 75 to 85 "preeminently the range for semi-skilled labor. IQ 75 is an "unsafe risk in a motorman or conductor, and it conduces to discontent" Terman, Proper vocational training and placement is essential for those "of the 70 to 85 class. May 02, Ayelet Waldman rated it it was amazing. One shouldn't read Baron-Cohen without first fortifying oneself with Gould. This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch-hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Gould deems Jensen and his school "biodeterminists," and sets out to debunk the theoretical basis of intelligence research, the g-factor along with providing a history lesson. Something I did really a This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch-hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Something I did really appreciate about the book is the first two thirds or so. Here, Gould gives an excellent overview of the history of racism in Western science, which I am very glad to have read. Had I stopped after chapter 5 or so, I would probably give this book at least 4 stars. Unfortunately, Gould does not stop there, and it becomes increasingly obvious that he goes to great care to provide the reader with the most racist and sexist quotes possible in order to impassion them and fill them with rage against those modern hereditarians to whom he will later compare the various 19th century outdated western thinkers. In this way, he poisons the well against them, and talks himself and the reader into the a priorism which he claims to despise. There are countless problems with his assertions, most of which have not held up well in the last 40 years. Here are only a few: 1. Morton's skulls: Gould 'corrects' Morton's measurements because he believes Morton fudged them just to fit his own beliefs. Several years after the publication of this book someone went back to re-measure Morton's skulls and -- surprise! It is now well-known that there is a strong correlation between brain size and cognitive ability between. He examines almost no research from the s or 70s. If I were dissatisfied with the state of modern astronomy would I rail against Ptolemy, or would I try to engage with thought from the last several decades? The g-factor: this section has particularly not faired well as, even among environmentalists, the reality of the g-factor has more or less become accepted. The theory of multiple intelligences has not held up, and I am unaware of any modern researcher that espouses this view. His explanation of what it is is also a straw man: it is an empirically derived concept, not a "thing" that has a "concrete" location in the brain, nor is it "innate" and not subject to environmental changes; IQ tests are are also not a direct measure of it, which is what Gould seems to think -- they are only estimates that have a margin of error. The two concluding articles are inconsequential and use the same types of sophistry to malign various people via straw mans and well-poisoning although I appreciate his short comments on Darwin at the end. Most of the 5 star reviews of this are by people who have not read 'the other side. I would recommend reading Jensen's response: "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons" and a more up-to-date work on modern research in this area: "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Dr. Richard J. Sep 24, Tanja Berg rated it really liked it Shelves: evolution , history , science. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within". I cannot do this book justice in a review. The matter is complicated and lies at the heart of what I believe. I have not yet taken an IQ test which I couldn't have done better if I had practiced certain things beforehand. Next number in a line, l "We pass through this world but once. Next number in a line, logic - it's all perfectly learnable and not a bit innate. I could be as smart as I like, but if I didn't know the language of the test, I would fail. That the result of this kind of testing would signify some kind of innate, inherited, intelligence is ludicruos - I was sure of that even at 15! Validity of a test : the extent to which it measures what it is supposed to measure. Does an IQ test really measure intelligence, and what precisely IS intelligence? Herrnstein and Charles Murray intellligence is a single measurable thing, which is inherited and does not change. This would be laughable if the consequences of their beliefs have not had such negative affects on . Stephen Jay Gould takes the studies of the intelligence researches and picks them apart. He doesn't spare his words and that makes this book a refreshing and personal read. He makes a strong point about Binet, the inventor of IQ in fearing that it would be used to limit possibilities - which is exactly what happened. Binet invented his test to find children who needed extra help in class - that was his sole purpose. He did not claim to measure intelligence, the "" is a division of mental age with chronological age and to be used to determine whether a child needed special education or not. Binet: "the scale, properly speaking, deos not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured". The result of extensive intelligence testing in the United States resulted in the sterlization of thousands upon thousands of "morons, imbeciles and idiots", to prevent further deterioration. Again, I cannot do "the mismeasure of man" justice here - but I recommend everyone to read it. It is frightening, upsetting and immensely informative. Mar 12, Serdar rated it it was amazing. This is, strictly speaking, not the first time I've read this book. The first time was at least twenty years ago, when I gave my father a copy for his birthday he enjoyed it greatly and then snuck a read of it myself separately. Okay, I didn't read the whole thing; I cut straight to the chapter where Gould swung a wrecking ball through "The Bell Curve" in a few concise pages, the better to arm myself with arguments against that apologia for institutionalized racism. But I did myself a disservi This is, strictly speaking, not the first time I've read this book. But I did myself a disservice by not reading everything that came before, and so this time I read everydarnthing between the covers. Much of the first third or so of the book is going to be tough sledding for some people, and Gould himself apologizes for this, because he has to get technical about certain things that are highly relevant to his point. But the strands come together quickly enough, and soon you see the point being made: Most of what we have labeled "intelligence" is aptitude testing used in ways not intended by its manufacturers and not very reliable to begin with , and has served to justify all manner of other mismeasurements of men. And Gould makes no apology for the political flavor of his argument: he is arguing for better ways to understand human beings than by devices that have lent themselves to allowing whole classes of people to be intentionally mislabeled as a little less than human. The details matter, and the book goes into those details for a good reason. Mar 15, Usha Alexander rated it it was amazing. A must-read for everyone interested in the history of race and racialism. Nov 28, Natalie rated it did not like it. This was one of the most boring books I have ever read. Gould brought up some good points and he told some good stories, but he just went on and on and on. After 5 hours of different ways that these scientists measured skulls and how it was wrong, I was so ready to be done. Not only was the book boring, it was insanely negative. Gould paints a picture of doom and gloom, that mankind is completely subject to their own preconceptions and that all measurements done in the name of science are skewed This was one of the most boring books I have ever read. Gould paints a picture of doom and gloom, that mankind is completely subject to their own preconceptions and that all measurements done in the name of science are skewed to show what the scientist wants to see, and no scientific study can be trusted. Isn't that a little dramatic? Also, other reviewers have mentioned Gould's own skewed perception of the data that he is presented, and they have a good point. Just like the people in his book, Gould is susceptible to bias. So if you decide to read this book, and you can stay awake long enough to make it through, make sure you take Gould's advice, and take everything he says with a grain of salt. It is just one man's point of view. Yes, although science relies on cold, hard quantification; it is, at the end of the day, a human enterprise and thus, subject to all of our varieties of weaknesses, biases, opinions, and ugliness. I think this book should be on the reading list for all budding scientists including myself : beware, you my wrap your research in all the fancy analysis and mathematical formulation that you want, but you can still be led astray and down the path of bad science and logical fallacies. The book does re Yes, although science relies on cold, hard quantification; it is, at the end of the day, a human enterprise and thus, subject to all of our varieties of weaknesses, biases, opinions, and ugliness. The book does really make you question the usefulness and validity of standardized tests that are a critical part of western higher education. ETS itself will admit that current research is mixed at best with regards to correlating GRE performance with graduate school success. Written with great detail and volumes of valuable information, this book should be required reading for many different disciplines from anthropology and biology to statistics and history. Gould shines a light on a long history of bias, bad science, discrimination an racism in areas of education, measure of intelligence, anthropology and even immigration and eugenics. Unfortunately, I am not well educated in statistics for which I couldn't appreciate the book at its fullest and should revisit it Written with great detail and volumes of valuable information, this book should be required reading for many different disciplines from anthropology and biology to statistics and history. Unfortunately, I am not well educated in statistics for which I couldn't appreciate the book at its fullest and should revisit it once I have acquired the necessary knowledge. I believe that this book would be a great addition to any thinking person's library and should be recommended to everyone. Aug 01, Linnaea rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: everyone. Shelves: non- fiction. Should be required reading for anyone who's ever taken a . And even more so for anyone who has ever administered, scored or helped write such a test, or used results from such a test to make judgements about people. The book is both a history of the development and use of measures of intelligence starting with skull measurements and culminating in the Stanford-Binet , in particular their use in racial and gender based discrimination, and a critical examination of the nature of Should be required reading for anyone who's ever taken a standardized test. The book is both a history of the development and use of measures of intelligence starting with skull measurements and culminating in the Stanford-Binet , in particular their use in racial and gender based discrimination, and a critical examination of the nature of the data and the statistical analysis methods used to interpret it. Jun 14, sologdin rated it it was ok Shelves: sciences , leftwing-polemical. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. In Gould conducted his own analysis on some of Morton's endocranial-volume data, and alleged that the original results were based on a priori convictions and a selective use of data. He argued that when biases are accounted for, the original hypothesis—an ascending order of skull volume ranging from Blacks to Mongols to Whites—is unsupported by the data. The Mismeasure of Man presents a historical evaluation of the concepts of the intelligence quotient IQ and of the general intelligence factor g factor , which were and are the measures for intelligence used by psychologists. Gould proposed that most psychological studies have been heavily biased, by the belief that the human behavior of a race of people is best explained by genetic heredity. He cites the Burt Affair , about the oft-cited twin studies , by Cyril Burt — , wherein Burt claimed that human intelligence is highly heritable. As an evolutionary biologist and historian of science , Gould accepted biological variability the premise of the transmission of intelligence via genetic heredity , but opposed biological determinism , which posits that genes determine a definitive, unalterable social destiny for each man and each woman in life and society. The Mismeasure of Man is an analysis of statistical correlation , the mathematics applied by psychologists to establish the validity of IQ tests, and the of intelligence. For example, to establish the validity of the proposition that IQ is supported by a general intelligence factor g factor , the answers to several tests of cognitive ability must positively correlate ; thus, for the g factor to be a heritable trait, the IQ-test scores of close-relation respondents must correlate more than the IQ-test scores of distant-relation respondents. More specifically, a high, positive correlation between the intelligence quotients of a parent and a child can be presumed either as evidence that IQ is genetically inherited, or that IQ is inherited through social and environmental factors. Moreover, because the data from IQ tests can be applied to arguing the logical validity of either proposition—genetic inheritance and environmental inheritance—the psychometric data have no inherent value. Gould pointed out that if the genetic heritability of IQ were demonstrable within a given racial or ethnic group , it would not explain the causes of IQ differences among the people of a group, or if said IQ differences can be attributed to the environment. For example, the height of a person is genetically determined, but there exist height differences within a given social group that can be attributed to environmental factors e. An example of the intellectual confusion about what heritability is and is not, is the statement: "If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to percent because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin", [11] which Gould said is misleading, at best, and false, at worst. First, it is very difficult to conceive of a world wherein every man, woman, and child grew up in the same environment, because their spatial and temporal dispersion upon the planet Earth makes it impossible. Second, were people to grow up in the same environment, not every difference would be genetic in origin because of the randomness of molecular and genetic development. Therefore, heritability is not a measure of phenotypic physiognomy and physique differences among racial and ethnic groups, but of differences between genotype and phenotype in a given population. Furthermore, he dismissed the proposition that an IQ score measures the general intelligence g factor of a person, because cognitive ability tests IQ tests present different types of questions, and the responses tend to form clusters of intellectual acumen. That is, different questions, and the answers to them, yield different scores—which indicate that an IQ test is a combination method of different examinations of different things. As such, Gould proposed that IQ-test proponents assume the existence of "general intelligence" as a discrete quality within the human mind , and thus they analyze the IQ-test data to produce an IQ number that establishes the definitive general intelligence of each man and of each woman. Hence, Gould dismissed the IQ number as an erroneous artifact of the statistical mathematics applied to the raw IQ-test data, especially because psychometric data can be variously analyzed to produce multiple IQ scores. The majority of reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were positive, as Gould notes. The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man won the non-fiction award from the National Book Critics Circle ; the Outstanding Book Award for from the American Educational Research Association ; the Italian translation was awarded the Iglesias prize in ; and in , the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th-best English-language non-fiction book of the 20th century. In a paper published in , John S. Michael reported that Samuel G. Morton's original 19th-century study was conducted with less bias than Gould had described; that "contrary to Gould's interpretation Morton's research was conducted with integrity". Nonetheless, Michael's analysis suggested that there were discrepancies in Morton's craniometric calculations , that his data tables were scientifically unsound, and he "cannot be excused for his errors, or his unfair comparisons of means". Philippe Rushton , selectively "cherry-picked facts" from his research to support their own claims. He lamented, "Some people have turned the Morton-Gould affair into an all or nothing debate in which either one side is right or the other side is right, and I think that is a mistake. Both men made mistakes and proving one wrong does not prove the other one right. In another study, published in , Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re- measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the "Caucasians" possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample. To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases. Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was "poorly supported", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work "weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science". Despite this criticism, the authors acknowledged that they admired Gould's staunch opposition to racism. In this paper was reviewed by Michael Weisberg, who reported that "most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases". They also maintain that the "methods deployed by Morton and Gould were both inappropriate" and that "Gould's statistical analysis of Morton's data is in many ways no better than Morton's own". A paper argues that Morton's data was unbiased but his interpretation of the results was not; the paper argues he had similar findings to research conducted by a contemporary craniologist Freidrich Tidemann, who had interpreted the data differently to argue strongly against any conception of a racial hierarchy. In a review of The Mismeasure of Man , Bernard Davis , professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, said that Gould erected a straw man argument based upon incorrectly defined key terms—specifically reification —which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of statistical data , all motivated more by politics than by science. Davis also criticized the popular-press and the literary-journal book reviews of The Mismeasure of Man as generally approbatory; whereas, most scientific-journal book reviews were generally critical. Nonetheless, in , Gould contradicted Davis by arguing that of twenty-four academic book reviews written by experts in psychology, fourteen approved, three were mixed opinions, and seven disapproved of the book. Goddard — about the intelligence of Jewish, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants to the U.

And yet the idea of innate limits - of biology as destiny - dies hard, as witness the attention devoted to The Bell Curve, whose arguments are here so effectively anticipated and thoroughly undermined by Stephen Jay Gould. In this edition Dr. Gould has written a substantial new introduction telling how and why he wrote the book and tracing the subsequent history of the controversy on innateness right through The Bell Curve, Further, he has added five essays, in a separate section at the end, on questions of The Bell Curve in particular and on race, racism, and biological determinism in general. These additions strengthen the claim of this book to be, as Leo J. Kamin of Princeton University has said, "a major contribution toward deflating pseudobiological 'explanations' of our present social woes". I've been reading forums since I was 12, and absorbing almost everything I read as accurate reflections of life experience, as grains of truth. I find the idea of being a political centrist repulsive, but I'm not really sure what I believe. At least, I don't find my beliefs to be systematic or coherent enough to wage war with my ideological opponents as the bulk of discourse, online or otherwise, seems to be. And yet I came at this book not to learn both sides of a debate, but strengthen an inherent belief of mine. If I am unusually hypocritcal in my efforts to sharpen my political sensibility, I must improve; yet the thought that this is a mundane reality of human experience is similarly demoralizing. Yeats may have written that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity, but I sure am sick of being vacillating while posturing at being some sort of intellectual free-thinker. A bit of passionate intensity might do me some good. I would like my words, in speech or text, to have some power similar to the tens of thousands of words I have read over many years, in books, or more frequently, anonymous remarks online, that assert their realities upon my consciousness regardless of contradicting variance. I don't think it made me more intelligent or well-rounded to absorb so much conflicting free expressions of opinion, even if that is a supposed hallmark of democracy. It has been mostly confusing. Apr 27, Yasiru rated it it was ok. I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind o I read from this book though I readily admit I haven't read the whole thing during my introductory psychology course at university because the lecturer pointed it out as an example of good science debunking racial prejudices. I was somewhat sceptical then about a book on science being written for the express purpose of countering a political attitude supposedly resting on scientific grounds , and as it turned out, Gould was overzealous with his case and may have proceeded with just the kind of selective bias he accuses others of apart from other errors , however commendable his motivation might have been. The whole episode provides a somewhat more detached lesson which is still very important and goes back at least to David Hume, an empiricist well aware of the limits his school of thought imposed itself - science only tells us how things are, and carries no suggestions about how they ought to be though it can tell you what ways some outcome might be best brought about. We can't afford to meet fatally polarised views from The Bell Curve say, which this book criticises with those from the opposite ideological extreme. Only seek falsifiable trends, record them, then consider what can be done with them for purposes decided in advance by different modes of discourse from the empirical ethical and otherwise. It's also important with the scientific method to admit what we don't know and anticipate deficiencies in our analyses and possibly the overall paradigm see Kuhn's work. There should always be a strong philosophical or ideological bulwark between scientific description and policy prescription. Certainly beware reification, but also be vigilant against the more pressing concern of slippery slopes. Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against hereditarianism has not lost any of its potency and urgency. Whether through craniometry, obscure body measurements, general intelligence or IQ-tests, the ruling class has time and time again found ways to reify social and historical classes as expressions of a timeless, unchanging reality. This mechanism, rooted in feudalism, persists vigourously in capitalism and makes a sneaky comeback in the guise of fascism and colonialism. To be recogniz Though written 40 years ago, Gould's polemic against hereditarianism has not lost any of its potency and urgency. To be recognized and combatted - in the end, all attempts to directly connect biology to sociology succumbs to race science, whether in the shape of "judeo- bolshevism", the paternalistic discourse of slavery or the endless contempt for the have-nots and their organizing: IQ of 75 or below should be the realm of unskilled labor, 75 to 85 "preeminently the range for semi-skilled labor. IQ 75 is an "unsafe risk in a motorman or conductor, and it conduces to discontent" Terman, Proper vocational training and placement is essential for those "of the 70 to 85 class. May 02, Ayelet Waldman rated it it was amazing. One shouldn't read Baron-Cohen without first fortifying oneself with Gould. This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch- hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Gould deems Jensen and his school "biodeterminists," and sets out to debunk the theoretical basis of intelligence research, the g-factor along with providing a history lesson. Something I did really a This book, published in , was partially a response to Arthur Jensen, a famous psychometrician and behavior geneticist, who I might consider the 'arch-hereditarian' of modern intelligence research, and whose famous article drew great ire from the public and a wide variety of intellectuals. Something I did really appreciate about the book is the first two thirds or so. Here, Gould gives an excellent overview of the history of racism in Western science, which I am very glad to have read. Had I stopped after chapter 5 or so, I would probably give this book at least 4 stars. Unfortunately, Gould does not stop there, and it becomes increasingly obvious that he goes to great care to provide the reader with the most racist and sexist quotes possible in order to impassion them and fill them with rage against those modern hereditarians to whom he will later compare the various 19th century outdated western thinkers. In this way, he poisons the well against them, and talks himself and the reader into the a priorism which he claims to despise. There are countless problems with his assertions, most of which have not held up well in the last 40 years. Here are only a few: 1. Morton's skulls: Gould 'corrects' Morton's measurements because he believes Morton fudged them just to fit his own beliefs. Several years after the publication of this book someone went back to re-measure Morton's skulls and -- surprise! It is now well-known that there is a strong correlation between brain size and cognitive ability between. He examines almost no research from the s or 70s. If I were dissatisfied with the state of modern astronomy would I rail against Ptolemy, or would I try to engage with thought from the last several decades? The g-factor: this section has particularly not faired well as, even among environmentalists, the reality of the g-factor has more or less become accepted. The theory of multiple intelligences has not held up, and I am unaware of any modern researcher that espouses this view. His explanation of what it is is also a straw man: it is an empirically derived concept, not a "thing" that has a "concrete" location in the brain, nor is it "innate" and not subject to environmental changes; IQ tests are are also not a direct measure of it, which is what Gould seems to think -- they are only estimates that have a margin of error. The two concluding articles are inconsequential and use the same types of sophistry to malign various people via straw mans and well-poisoning although I appreciate his short comments on Darwin at the end. Most of the 5 star reviews of this are by people who have not read 'the other side. I would recommend reading Jensen's response: "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons" and a more up-to-date work on modern research in this area: "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Dr. Richard J. Sep 24, Tanja Berg rated it really liked it Shelves: evolution , history , science. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within". I cannot do this book justice in a review. The matter is complicated and lies at the heart of what I believe. I have not yet taken an IQ test which I couldn't have done better if I had practiced certain things beforehand. Next number in a line, l "We pass through this world but once. Next number in a line, logic - it's all perfectly learnable and not a bit innate. I could be as smart as I like, but if I didn't know the language of the test, I would fail. That the result of this kind of testing would signify some kind of innate, inherited, intelligence is ludicruos - I was sure of that even at 15! Validity of a test : the extent to which it measures what it is supposed to measure. Does an IQ test really measure intelligence, and what precisely IS intelligence? Herrnstein and Charles Murray intellligence is a single measurable thing, which is inherited and does not change. This would be laughable if the consequences of their beliefs have not had such negative affects on society. Stephen Jay Gould takes the studies of the intelligence researches and picks them apart. He doesn't spare his words and that makes this book a refreshing and personal read. He makes a strong point about Binet, the inventor of IQ in fearing that it would be used to limit possibilities - which is exactly what happened. Binet invented his test to find children who needed extra help in class - that was his sole purpose. He did not claim to measure intelligence, the "intelligence quotient" is a division of mental age with chronological age and to be used to determine whether a child needed special education or not. Binet: "the scale, properly speaking, deos not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured". The result of extensive intelligence testing in the United States resulted in the sterlization of thousands upon thousands of "morons, imbeciles and idiots", to prevent further deterioration. Again, I cannot do "the mismeasure of man" justice here - but I recommend everyone to read it. It is frightening, upsetting and immensely informative. Mar 12, Serdar rated it it was amazing. This is, strictly speaking, not the first time I've read this book. The first time was at least twenty years ago, when I gave my father a copy for his birthday he enjoyed it greatly and then snuck a read of it myself separately. Okay, I didn't read the whole thing; I cut straight to the chapter where Gould swung a wrecking ball through "The Bell Curve" in a few concise pages, the better to arm myself with arguments against that apologia for institutionalized racism. But I did myself a disservi This is, strictly speaking, not the first time I've read this book. But I did myself a disservice by not reading everything that came before, and so this time I read everydarnthing between the covers. Much of the first third or so of the book is going to be tough sledding for some people, and Gould himself apologizes for this, because he has to get technical about certain things that are highly relevant to his point. But the strands come together quickly enough, and soon you see the point being made: Most of what we have labeled "intelligence" is aptitude testing used in ways not intended by its manufacturers and not very reliable to begin with , and has served to justify all manner of other mismeasurements of men. And Gould makes no apology for the political flavor of his argument: he is arguing for better ways to understand human beings than by devices that have lent themselves to allowing whole classes of people to be intentionally mislabeled as a little less than human. The details matter, and the book goes into those details for a good reason. Mar 15, Usha Alexander rated it it was amazing. A must-read for everyone interested in the history of race and racialism. Nov 28, Natalie rated it did not like it. This was one of the most boring books I have ever read. Gould brought up some good points and he told some good stories, but he just went on and on and on. After 5 hours of different ways that these scientists measured skulls and how it was wrong, I was so ready to be done. Not only was the book boring, it was insanely negative. Gould paints a picture of doom and gloom, that mankind is completely subject to their own preconceptions and that all measurements done in the name of science are skewed This was one of the most boring books I have ever read. Gould paints a picture of doom and gloom, that mankind is completely subject to their own preconceptions and that all measurements done in the name of science are skewed to show what the scientist wants to see, and no scientific study can be trusted. Isn't that a little dramatic? Also, other reviewers have mentioned Gould's own skewed perception of the data that he is presented, and they have a good point. Just like the people in his book, Gould is susceptible to bias. So if you decide to read this book, and you can stay awake long enough to make it through, make sure you take Gould's advice, and take everything he says with a grain of salt. It is just one man's point of view. Yes, although science relies on cold, hard quantification; it is, at the end of the day, a human enterprise and thus, subject to all of our varieties of weaknesses, biases, opinions, and ugliness. I think this book should be on the reading list for all budding scientists including myself : beware, you my wrap your research in all the fancy analysis and mathematical formulation that you want, but you can still be led astray and down the path of bad science and logical fallacies. The book does re Yes, although science relies on cold, hard quantification; it is, at the end of the day, a human enterprise and thus, subject to all of our varieties of weaknesses, biases, opinions, and ugliness. The book does really make you question the usefulness and validity of standardized tests that are a critical part of western higher education. ETS itself will admit that current research is mixed at best with regards to correlating GRE performance with graduate school success. Written with great detail and volumes of valuable information, this book should be required reading for many different disciplines from anthropology and biology to statistics and history. Gould shines a light on a long history of bias, bad science, discrimination an racism in areas of education, measure of intelligence, anthropology and even immigration and eugenics. Unfortunately, I am not well educated in statistics for which I couldn't appreciate the book at its fullest and should revisit it Written with great detail and volumes of valuable information, this book should be required reading for many different disciplines from anthropology and biology to statistics and history. Unfortunately, I am not well educated in statistics for which I couldn't appreciate the book at its fullest and should revisit it once I have acquired the necessary knowledge. I believe that this book would be a great addition to any thinking person's library and should be recommended to everyone. Aug 01, Linnaea rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: everyone. Shelves: non-fiction. Should be required reading for anyone who's ever taken a standardized test. And even more so for anyone who has ever administered, scored or helped write such a test, or used results from such a test to make judgements about people. The book is both a history of the development and use of measures of intelligence starting with skull measurements and culminating in the Stanford- Binet , in particular their use in racial and gender based discrimination, and a critical examination of the nature of Should be required reading for anyone who's ever taken a standardized test. The book is both a history of the development and use of measures of intelligence starting with skull measurements and culminating in the Stanford-Binet , in particular their use in racial and gender based discrimination, and a critical examination of the nature of the data and the statistical analysis methods used to interpret it. Jun 14, sologdin rated it it was ok Shelves: sciences , leftwing- polemical. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. When the conclusions both motivate and shape the research and experimentation, data will always be skewed to favor the prejudiced conclusions. That's one of the most relevant arguments that the book profoundly explores throughout its deconstruction of biologically deterministic pseudosciences. These were always inextricably linked to the social prejudices of the racist, sexist, classist, ableist white men who developed and popularized all of these in fruitless attempts to "evidence" the politica When the conclusions both motivate and shape the research and experimentation, data will always be skewed to favor the prejudiced conclusions. These were always inextricably linked to the social prejudices of the racist, sexist, classist, ableist white men who developed and popularized all of these in fruitless attempts to "evidence" the political status quo of society as results arising from simple nature: Society is a reflection of nature, the strong ruling over the weak. These branches of study took many shapes, many names, and their lasting impact remains even to this day in the continuation of some of these practices. Beginning with the anatomical pseudosciences that took skewed recordings of data obtained via the methodology of anthropometrics, they sought to physiologically "explain" why some groups are "inferior" to others. This lasted for many years, adopting many different names and changing ideas to justify the preconceived bias of the researchers. They assumed that some human groups were inferior, so their anatomy must evidence this, somehow. As other branches of actual science advanced, these people eventually incorporated some of these: the theory of evolution, as well as incomplete theories of heredity and genetics. All this continued until the fraud, the self-contradictions, and data inconsistencies eventually led to them falling out of favor. Here, IQ testing came into the spotlight, and has been the most lasting type of hierarchical ranking of human groups. Measuring, testing, and branding their victims for life through faulty procedures to help determine some mysterious g value obtained through factor analysis. The victims that scored low were inevitably shunned for life, unable to advance, to receive education, accomodations, or any type of aid. Similar to the preceeding case, the people responsible for this were already prejudiced from the start. They assumed the conclusions and sought evidence that favored said conclusions. Fraud, misconduct, faulty testing, data manipulation, and idealized interpretations in favor of their preconceived conclusions was observable throughout the history of these fields. Biological determinism is a theory of limits, and it imposes all forms of limits on the people that rank in the lowest levels of their unilinear models of a ladder of ascending values of worth. The results always victimized less fortunate members of society, trapping them in a self-fulfilling prophecy of bigotry. IQ determines your "worth" from the start, and treats you according to your value, the majority of people being deemed unfit and suffering the results: a continuation of hierarchical oppression, exploitation, and discrimination involving economical limitations, continuing lack of access to education, and massive collective suffering at the hands of eugenics programs in programs of genocide, mass sterilization, etc. Worth cannot be granted as the result of some abstract factor that some bigoted people deemed fundamental. As Thurstone demonstrated, a simple geometric rotation of the vector projection of the factors used to measure IQ leads to the g factor of "general intelligence" disappearing. There's no justification for preferring g, only a biased preference of g as the core value of intelligence, since it "evidences" their bigoted theories; there's not any actual empirical science behind it. And as Gould explains, there's not even any scientific basis for assuming that g, or any value obtained from factor analysis like Thurstone's primary abilities are tangible, something physically real. One cannot separate psychological "measurements" from politics and society. To do so ignores the centuries of unequal material and ideal stratification of society's less fortunate at the hands of the groups benefitting from the hierarchical system. The fact that we have yet to cast aside these faulty ideas as the absurd, asinine ideas of bigoted men is truly saddening. In his words: "I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it is. Science is rooted in creative interpretation. Numbers suggest, constrain, and refuse; they do not, by themselves, specify the contents of scientific theories. Sep 24, Courtney rated it it was ok. Here's what's so annoying about Gould: in general, I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him. But his writing, both argumentatively and stylistically, leaves a lot to be desired. His ability to recognize subjectivity and incorporate it into his framework is an important and fundamental difference, but his seeming inability to recognize how that subjectivity is affecting some of the smaller procedural details in his retesting is not so different. With more experience in the social sciences, I would be inclined to criticize the variables that old scientists chose to represent intelligence or social worth. If the premise of their experiments—their assumptions and operationalizations—are flawed, then why do the outcomes of those experiments even matter in continued analysis? Gould is not always the best at channeling this method into his larger criticism of biological determinism used to rank racial groups. He did this a lot and it became grating. This seems eerily close to the a priori decisions to include or exclude data that he lambasts many craniometric scientists for. I wonder if some of these criticisms I have of Gould also relate to his sympathy for many of the old scientists whose work he criticizes. Perhaps this is an unforgiving view, but the line between conscious and unconscious does not seem as stark to me as it does to Gould. Unconscious bias can still very much be willful in the sense that a scientist can choose not to think about or address social conditions or beliefs that might have contributed to their analyses. If a scientist could have been reasonably expected to consider some of these questions but did not, they are still a responsible agent for that lapse. Gould, meanwhile, is much more of the mindset that unconscious bias acts upon passive individuals, and that limits the extent to which he is willing to criticize the decisions and viewpoints of each scientist. So if you want to learn about the issues addressed in Gould's work: honestly, you could learn more, and have a better and more informative time while learning, elsewhere. Apr 12, Christopher rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. With the return of "race science", yet again, this book is as relevant now as when it was first published. Gould was wrong that Charles Murray's argument would not make it to the twenty-first century, thanks to people like Sam Harris, but was fortunately right about everything else. He even predicted what arguments against his book people would make and preemptively debunked them. The Mismeasure of Man presents a historical evaluation of the concepts of the intelligence quotient IQ and of the general intelligence factor g factor , which were and are the measures for intelligence used by psychologists. Gould proposed that most psychological studies have been heavily biased, by the belief that the human behavior of a race of people is best explained by genetic heredity. He cites the Burt Affair , about the oft-cited twin studies , by Cyril Burt — , wherein Burt claimed that human intelligence is highly heritable. As an evolutionary biologist and historian of science , Gould accepted biological variability the premise of the transmission of intelligence via genetic heredity , but opposed biological determinism , which posits that genes determine a definitive, unalterable social destiny for each man and each woman in life and society. The Mismeasure of Man is an analysis of statistical correlation , the mathematics applied by psychologists to establish the validity of IQ tests, and the heritability of intelligence. For example, to establish the validity of the proposition that IQ is supported by a general intelligence factor g factor , the answers to several tests of cognitive ability must positively correlate ; thus, for the g factor to be a heritable trait, the IQ-test scores of close- relation respondents must correlate more than the IQ-test scores of distant-relation respondents. More specifically, a high, positive correlation between the intelligence quotients of a parent and a child can be presumed either as evidence that IQ is genetically inherited, or that IQ is inherited through social and environmental factors. Moreover, because the data from IQ tests can be applied to arguing the logical validity of either proposition—genetic inheritance and environmental inheritance—the psychometric data have no inherent value. Gould pointed out that if the genetic heritability of IQ were demonstrable within a given racial or ethnic group , it would not explain the causes of IQ differences among the people of a group, or if said IQ differences can be attributed to the environment. For example, the height of a person is genetically determined, but there exist height differences within a given social group that can be attributed to environmental factors e. An example of the intellectual confusion about what heritability is and is not, is the statement: "If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to percent because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin", [11] which Gould said is misleading, at best, and false, at worst. First, it is very difficult to conceive of a world wherein every man, woman, and child grew up in the same environment, because their spatial and temporal dispersion upon the planet Earth makes it impossible. Second, were people to grow up in the same environment, not every difference would be genetic in origin because of the randomness of molecular and genetic development. Therefore, heritability is not a measure of phenotypic physiognomy and physique differences among racial and ethnic groups, but of differences between genotype and phenotype in a given population. Furthermore, he dismissed the proposition that an IQ score measures the general intelligence g factor of a person, because cognitive ability tests IQ tests present different types of questions, and the responses tend to form clusters of intellectual acumen. That is, different questions, and the answers to them, yield different scores—which indicate that an IQ test is a combination method of different examinations of different things. As such, Gould proposed that IQ-test proponents assume the existence of "general intelligence" as a discrete quality within the human mind , and thus they analyze the IQ-test data to produce an IQ number that establishes the definitive general intelligence of each man and of each woman. Hence, Gould dismissed the IQ number as an erroneous artifact of the statistical mathematics applied to the raw IQ-test data, especially because psychometric data can be variously analyzed to produce multiple IQ scores. The majority of reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were positive, as Gould notes. The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man won the non- fiction award from the National Book Critics Circle ; the Outstanding Book Award for from the American Educational Research Association ; the Italian translation was awarded the Iglesias prize in ; and in , the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th-best English-language non-fiction book of the 20th century. In a paper published in , John S. Michael reported that Samuel G. Morton's original 19th-century study was conducted with less bias than Gould had described; that "contrary to Gould's interpretation Morton's research was conducted with integrity". Nonetheless, Michael's analysis suggested that there were discrepancies in Morton's craniometric calculations , that his data tables were scientifically unsound, and he "cannot be excused for his errors, or his unfair comparisons of means". Philippe Rushton , selectively "cherry-picked facts" from his research to support their own claims. He lamented, "Some people have turned the Morton-Gould affair into an all or nothing debate in which either one side is right or the other side is right, and I think that is a mistake. Both men made mistakes and proving one wrong does not prove the other one right. In another study, published in , Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re- measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the "Caucasians" possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample. To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases. Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was "poorly supported", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work "weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science". Despite this criticism, the authors acknowledged that they admired Gould's staunch opposition to racism. In this paper was reviewed by Michael Weisberg, who reported that "most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases". They also maintain that the "methods deployed by Morton and Gould were both inappropriate" and that "Gould's statistical analysis of Morton's data is in many ways no better than Morton's own". A paper argues that Morton's data was unbiased but his interpretation of the results was not; the paper argues he had similar findings to research conducted by a contemporary craniologist Freidrich Tidemann, who had interpreted the data differently to argue strongly against any conception of a racial hierarchy. In a review of The Mismeasure of Man , Bernard Davis , professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, said that Gould erected a straw man argument based upon incorrectly defined key terms—specifically reification —which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of statistical data , all motivated more by politics than by science. Davis also criticized the popular-press and the literary-journal book reviews of The Mismeasure of Man as generally approbatory; whereas, most scientific-journal book reviews were generally critical. Nonetheless, in , Gould contradicted Davis by arguing that of twenty-four academic book reviews written by experts in psychology, fourteen approved, three were mixed opinions, and seven disapproved of the book. Goddard — about the intelligence of Jewish, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants to the U. Countering Gould, Davis further explained that Goddard proposed that the low IQs of the sub-normally intelligent men and women who took the cognitive-ability test likely derived from their social environments rather than from their respective genetic inheritances, and concluded that "we may be confident that their children will be of average intelligence, and, if rightly brought up, will be good citizens". In his review, psychologist John B.

https://files8.webydo.com/9587569/UploadedFiles/07F813AA-C591-2819-B223-C85E3D599BB2.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4636661/normal_6020cfe17de59.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/eafc658d-1462-4a33-b91d-90fc455a2c1e/journal-fur-praktische-chemie-volume-169-543.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9585717/UploadedFiles/3847060C-2E38-92EF-36E8-CAD19344AA7A.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586426/UploadedFiles/9057E29B-0BBF-2860-65D6-F5739E19306E.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9588197/UploadedFiles/EDE40EB8-F7DD-D44C-B3BE-9431FC6824CB.pdf