I started reading this book based a friend's recommendation after a discussion about science and politics. Going into it, I understood it to be two things: An argument against the use of science to "prove" preconceived notions, in particular about the supposedly innate cognitive abilities of different races A larger look at how it's possible to "fight science with science" (my phrase) Given the binary option of saying whether I think Gould is successful in achieving his stated goals, I'd have to say yes. I think that, overall, he compellingly argues that some scientists are disingenuous, or even at times outright deceptive, and use scientific knowledge and techniques to draw unwarranted conclusions that bolster their biases and prejudices. He also shows how a scientist who relies on "good" methodology to gather "objective" data can still suffer bias, but that such data can, at least, be re-examined later. ("Objectivity must be defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference." [p. 36]) My general criticism of Gould is that as much as he points at other people, he doesn't point at himself. Time after time, he lambastes various scientists for failing to see "obvious" problems with their data, techniques, hypotheses, etc. However, Gould has several planks in his own eye.Political Bias: Gould is unequivocally leftist, and it shows. That would be fine, in and of itself, if he followed the same advice that he gives to all the dead scientists he pillories...but alas. In the Introduction to the Revised Edition, Gould says he would respect Charles Murray more if he admitted his conservative bias in The Bell Curve (p. 37-38). To his credit, Gould does discuss his own (politically) liberal history and leanings. However, throughout the book, Gould pokes at political conservatism, making various claims about their motives and intentions with regard to furthering arguments about hereditary intelligence, while completely ignoring similar criticisms of the left. The frequent jibes and potshots at conservatism give the reader a sense of a broad, historical arc in which conservatives, and only conservatives, have tried to foist their ideas on a broader public using (capital-S) Science! There are many places where Gould could equally recriminate leftist ideas, such as when referring to the evils of eugenics or discussing the desire to create a sort of workers' caste system based on "intelligence." Whether he disregards such opportunities intentionally or because he is blind to them seems irrelevant, but the fact of his disregard is, ironically, very telling. Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, but I grew up in a (very) conservative home. Perhaps, because of my background, I am more attuned to criticism against conservatism than other political ideas. If I am misstating Gould's lack of criticism of the left, I am happy to be corrected in the comments to my review.Factual squishiness: Gould is a good story teller, but after reading some others' critiques about his book, I'm not sure if "good story" equals "good history." That said, in a 1983 review of the first edition of Mismeasure, Bernard Davis points to some problems with Gould's analysis of various scientific studies — problems like completely ignoring things that would refute Gould's arguments. Other reviews point out problems not just with Gould's history, but with his science as well, such as John B. Carroll's contradiction of Gould's claims related to factor analysis, g and "reification." Furthermore is the recent study by Jason E. Lewis et al claiming that Gould was largely wrong in his derision of Morton's skull analysis.Now, I admit that I don't have the scientific or historical chops to know whether Gould or his critics are right. However, I do think there is enough evidence to show that Gould's claims are, at best, overstated. (At worst, they're straw men.) Ultimately, I can't take Gould at his word any more than the other scientists.Final thoughts:The problems outlined above notwithstanding, I do think Gould is somewhat successful in his point about the nature of scientific inquiry. That others can go back and review his claims (and correct them where necessary), despite his biases, seems quite obvious, in fact. However, I disagree with others who have said that this "larger" point supersedes the issues prevalent throughout the book. If Gould makes his point, it is ironically, and not intentionally, so.
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. 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, 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. While his history of intelligence testing and racism is instructive, this book does not adequately describe how science and psychometrics have evolved/matured in recent years. 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. In addition to this book, I have read Jensen's response to The Mismeasure of Man, an opinion paper by Bernard D. 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 learning 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." Bias does exist, but scientific reasoning and quantitative methodologies aim to eliminate bias. 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, culture, 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. (1983). Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. The Public Interest, 74, 41-59.Jensen, Arthur R. (1982). The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Education Review, 1, 121-135.
What do You think about The Mismeasure Of Man (1996)?
So dang good. Gould unflinchingly dismantles the long, historical practice of using the era's state of scientific knowledge to support racist, classist, sexist, and xenophobic agendas. Moving from phrenology to IQ tests, he demonstrates in a clear and mordant prose how cultural prejudice can lead to woefully (and sometimes willfully) incorrect applications of the scientific method. He does so not only to shame the bigots of the past-- including some choicely offensive quotes from Actual Beloved American Founding Fathers-- but also to shine a light on the fallibility of humans more generally. That is, despite all the progress that a rich cultural and social milieu has granted us, we must must MUST all strive to be cognizant of our biases, lest we continually repeat the same errors of history and force injustice upon the same unlucky minorities. That this is at least quadruply true for scientists is a reminder of the power that knowledge carries in this culture we have built-- a cause for both cautious pride and dutiful self-awareness.
—Chrissy
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.See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mism...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.
—Yasiru (reviews will soon be removed and linked to blog)
>you are a middle-class academic, you're a LITERAL neoliberal evopsych guy"Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists."http://link.springer.com/article/10.1...Better luck next time, deleted user.
—Geoffrey Miller
