The Mismeasure of Man

Some critics complain that in The Mismeasure of Man Stephen J. Gould attacks a straw man: craniometry is, after all, no more than fin-du-siècle quackery with which no self-respecting scientist would dream of having truck these says. Likewise, the naïve early attempts at to link IQ with heredity that Gould spends so much time recounting have long since been soundly and uncontroversially demolished, so Gould at best is shooting fish in a barrel, and many suspect him of something more mendacious than that. Some suspect a political agenda. The late Stephen Jay Gould, you see, was a *Marxist*, after all. That particular, ad hominem, charge has mystified me the more I've read of Gould's work. I first encountered Gould in discouraging circumstances where his evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium was subjected to a contumelious lambasting at the hands of (usually) mild-mannered philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his (otherwise) wonderful and thought-provoking book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Taken as I was by Dennett's general argument at the time (I'm less swooned by it these days), I thought his vituperative treatment of Gould was out of character - from what I can tell Dennett is a positively genial chap - but otherwise thought nothing of it, other than supposing Gould to be part of the problem and not the solution. There I surely would have left it, and Stephen J. Gould, were it not for Richard Dawkins' silly entry to the "religious wars" The God Delusion - as good an example as one could ask for of how perfectly thoughtful, sensible and smart scientists tend to make arses of themselves when they stray from their stock material. About the only interesting thing in Dawkins' book was how, again, poor old Steve Gould, now sadly deceased, got another shoeing, this time for his pragmatic attempt to reconcile science and religion in Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. This time I had the BS radar switched on, found Dawkins' attack to be pretty obviously misguided (Dawkins may be a great biologist but his epistemology would have had him kicked out of PHIL 101) and wound up being more, not less, persuaded by Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria". In any case, at the very least this Gould chap seemed like the sort of contrarian agitator who was clearly a good sport and an interesting critter, but more to the point it sounded like he had something interesting to say. And so, it transpired, he does. I've since read a number of his books and articles, all of them articulate, beautifully written, witty, erudite and excellent in substance, and never once have I seen any suggestion of Marxist bias (eager followers of my reviews will know I have no particular sympathy with left wing politics). As regards The Mismeasure of Man such insinuations would be especially ironic, since Gould's very point is to illustrate that well-meaning and well respected scientists are all too prone to be d

Are there entire populations of people who are born with an innate, quantifiable intelligence greater than others? Can intelligence even be quantified? According to Gould, science has not yet arrived at a meaningful and scientifically legitimate understanding of this concept of intelligence, nor a way to measure it, nor any proof that certain races are naturally smarter than others. I would expect an eminent evolutionist to spend his time making a case for how biological diversity lends itself to multiple levels of mental ability through natural selection. But instead Gould puts on a turtleneck and tweed and plays historian--quite well, too! His scientific background gives him the credibility to explore this topic like no historian could. Gould walks through the history of science's attempt to quantify human intelligence and demonstrates how and why each method eventually failed. But of course this type of science exists today in various types of IQ tests, bell curves, all of which are used to not only measure this thing we call intelligence, but also by some to argue that some groups are naturally superior to others. Gould analyzes the history, methods and underlying theories behind these contemporary incarnations. The book is readable, well illustrated, well documented, and has a lot of solid historical analysis.

This book is a touchstone of sorts. You can tell a lot about someone from what they say about it and from what they think Gould is saying. Some accuse Gould of trying to argue that there are no IQ differences among people -- he is not arguing that. Some people say that he is trying to argue that there are no IQ differences between any two given people of difference racial backgrounds -- he is not arguing that, either. Gould's argument is fairly straightforward. He is of the opinion that the differences *between* racial groups are on average no greater than the differences *within* racial groups. How Gould's argument could get so distorted and why it gets so many people upset tells me that some people have a need to feel superior and like thinking that there is a scientific justification for them to feel superior.Based on his analysis of historical instances of intelligence testing, he is also of the opinion that the general goal of intelligence testing has been to (1) come up with a single number scale, ranked highest to lowest, that can be used to peg people in a hierarchy of intelligence and then (2) use the results of that numbering scheme to determine social policies used on those people and (3) pass those results on to the public to reinforce the idea that those people who are disadvantaged actually deserve to be disadvantaged because they belong to an inferior race.You can gauge based on how upset people get at Gould's reasoning how close to the truth -- and to the nerve -- he is striking.I think this is an excellent and superbly argued book, and should be read by more people.

_The Mismeasure of Man_ is the best book I have read on intelligence testing, and I hope you read it, too. It is part a social history, part a theoretical deflation of the idea that intelligence can be measured with a single fixed number. Both parts are very interesting and can be read with profit by historians, lay readers, and people on both sides of the IQ debate. Even if Gould is no psychologist, psychologists must answer his arguments, which compel by dint of common sense.I'm surprised no one has mentioned how very literate and artfully written this book is. Readers of Gould's essays will not be surprised by this, but if you're expecting to pick up a dry technical tome with unfathomable jargon, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Gould has written a great book without ``dumbing it down.''

This book is a must-read for anyone. Stephen Jay Gould blows the door open on the way we perceive and evaluate intelligence. He is able to dispense with biological determinism in one graceful stroke.Though written first, this book is very much a refutation of the controversial The Bell Curve. Gould shows how poor science and prejudice has resulted in assessing inteligence in ways that benefit middle and upper-class whites. He chronicles how skull measurements in the 19th century "proved" that men were smarter than women and western Europeans smarter than everyone else. Out of this grew other methodologies to assess inborn intelligence that has done everything to influence immigration policy and the way we teach our children. Gould looks at the modern form of intelligence assessment, the IQ test, and makes the reader question whether such a thing should exist at all. Gould writes very clearly and this book is a model in its comprehensiveness. This! book can be tackled by nearly anyone. It will very likely blow your mind.