Bell Curve Essay, Research Paper

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life ( A Free Press Paperbacks Book ) 1 & # 8211 ; 10 of 77 | following 4 of 4 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: eviewer: Eric Gartman ( see more about me ) from Rockville, MD USAReaders who have non yet read this book will be surprised to larn that the chief subject is non race, but how intelligence explains category construction. The writers argue that intelligence, non environment is the primary determiner of a assortment of societal behaviours, including category, socio-economic degree, offense, educational accomplishment, public assistance, and even parental manners. Hernstein and Murray back up these claims with some of the most persuasive informations of all time seen in the societal scientific disciplines. The importance of a individual & # 8217 ; s intelligence can non be understated. Its is the figure one determiner in determining one & # 8217 ; s life. Hernstein and Murray do non halt at that place nevertheless. They go on, reasoning that the bottom 15 per centum in intelligence are merely non capable of taking attention of themselves, falling into poorness, drugs, alchoholism, etc. American society can no longer accept such conditions for lower cognitive category. They make concrete suggestions on how to alter this status. They besides make striking claims about the danger of affirmatory action plans in advancing people who are non qualified to make of import undertakings. And eventually, they deal with the issue that makes this book so controversial: The lower tested intelligence of African-Americans. At no point do they the claim the spread is merely due to genetic sciences. They suggest past environmental factors come into drama. But their chief point is that modern twenty-four hours racism can non explicate the spread, and plans designed to bridge that spread will neglect, and seting underqualified persons in of import places is non the reply. The writers truly do non travel into item about why the spread exists, puting themselves up for unfavorable judgment. But at least another bookman can research this subject and attempt and explicate it. In amount, this book explains category construction in America, every bit good as the many of the societal maladies of our clip. It offers cogent evidence, and conrete solutions. It is a book of monumental importance, and can non be denounced as racialist. Those who make such claims either did non read the book, or are excessively biased to believe objectively. As Murray notes in his new afterword, modern Sociology is riddled with tabus and self-censorship. The extremist collectivists who dominate the field do this state a great ill service by being so biased and non-objective. They besides refuse to look at biological science, trusting merely on environmental accounts, despite pyschology & # 8217 ; s turning trust on familial determiners of human behaviour. The general populace can merely trust that the field right itself. Until it does, there will no solution to our most urgent societal jobs. Be this reappraisal helpful to you? 2 of 4 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: Raises Interesting Points, September 8, 2000 Reviewer: Kenneth Peterson ( see more about me ) from San Deigo, CA USAAside from all the controversial racism issues, the book makes some other valid, disturbing points, the first of which is the fact that the lower categories in our society are reproducing at a far greater rate than the upper categories. The book asserts that we are engendering ourselves into stupidity, and the point is difficult to reason. Amazing that you can acquire a book published these yearss whose exclusive point is to name the writers of The Bell Curve stupid or racialist. Whether they are racist or not- who cares? Let the reader organize his or her ain sentiment as to the value of the work. While I may non hold with some of the writer & # 8217 ; s points, I respect their bravery in printing them in the face of political correctness.of 8 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: The Truth is unsafe sometimes, August 27, 2000 Reviewer: SteddieVed from NY, NYThough this book addresses controversial issues that are certain to light fierce arguments, it manages to keep its cogency through the legion surveies. When Gallelio and Darwin published their plants, they both suffered terrible unfavorable judgment from the Church. Now as scientific discipline progresssed, we & # 8217 ; ve come to accept Gallelio and Darwin & # 8217 ; s early finds. Its difficult for people to accept truths that may non be in their best involvement. This may unluckily go unsafe and ignite racial tensenesss. I merely have one inquiry for those who refute this book. It is a known fact that the physical properties vary from races. Asians have a by and large lower stature than inkinesss and Whites. And judging from the cultural make up of athleticss events, inkinesss seem superior in athletic activities. Anyone who disagrees with this can merely turn on the Television and watch a hoops game on NBC. So if race plays a function in one & # 8217 ; s physical facets, why non mental? It wouldn & # 8217 ; Ts make sense if we vary dramatically in the physical sense but mentally, we & # 8217 ; re all the same.Murray Is To Blame That Page 47 Did Not Dominate Debate, July 30, 2000 Reviewer: David Thomson ( see more about me ) from Houston, TX USAThe writers of & # 8220 ; The Bell Curve & # 8221 ; were artful when kicking that the media below the belt focussed upon the controversial racial facet of this survey. They handily overlooked the fact that their publishing house, The Free Press, did everything it could to foreground the issue. This well helped to sell a batch of books. Richard J. Herrnstein died shortly after the release of this work. Therefore, my following comments will be directed towards Charles Murray. I wholehearted sorrow that the subjects raised on page 47 did non alternatively rule the argument. Page 47 entirely is good worth the monetary value of this book. I invariably refer to this page many clip throughout a given twelvemonth. Page 47 so competently depicts the increasing societal and cultural divide between the educated elite and the hoi polloi. The former frequently fail to recognize how different they are from those less educated and economically good off. I will give the reader a furtive prevue by straight citing the followers: & # 8220 ; Think of your 12 closest friends or co-workers. For most readers of this book, a big bulk will be college alumnuss. Does it surprise you to larn that the odds of holding even half of them be college alumnuss are merely six in a 1000, if people were indiscriminately paired off. Many of you will non believe it odd that half or more of the twelve have advanced grades. But the odds against happening such a consequence among a indiscriminately chosen group of 12 Americans are really more than a million to one. & # 8221 ; I by and large agree with merely about everything that Charles Murray says refering poorness issues and how best to turn to the jobs of the lasting lower class. Murray is usually a superb mind deserving of much regard. Nonetheless, in respects to & # 8220 ; The Bell Curve, & # 8221 ; I find it necessary to take my hero to undertaking. I can non, for case, accept Murray & # 8217 ; s eccentric averment that a survey of possible racial differences in I.Q. serves us good in inventing feasible societal policies. How could this perchance happen? Let us for a minute, for the interest of statement, embrace the premiss that Orientals topographic point foremost in the overall intelligence curve, whites rank 2nd, and inkinesss linger behind in 3rd topographic point. Do we therefore tacitly, if non explicitly, create ordinances with this premise in head? How do politicians transport out this docket? Will such thought consequence in a presidential run platform declaration? Should Afro-Americans profess their supposed innate lower status, and merrily travel along with programs directing them to employment and a life manner more contributing to those with fewer qualities to offer a competitory universe? Murray contends that these surveies merely indicate a general norm of racial intelligence, and that a black single per Se may really be the smartest individual on this planet. So what? Social policies are chiefly based on the bulk of those under treatment, non the exclusions. Any governmental or societal guidelines underpinned with the impression that black people are dumber than their fellow citizens will most surely stigmatize everyone under that doubtful racial categorization. What is race anyhow? The really definition is cloudy and confounding. Besides, the really construct of human intelligence will stay forevermore per se cloudy. Surveies presently released are likely to be contradicted in the hereafter. Test tubing and other artefacts of the difficult scientific disciplines do non get down to wash up this supreme enigma of gay sapien being. A million old ages from now our offspring will still be debating these frustrating and perplexing affairs. Murray has made a sap of himself. He has latched onto a set waggon necessarily doomed to crash and fire. Charles Murray, nevertheless, has this much traveling for himself: the adult male is still immature plenty to airt his energies and I.Q. to other countries of survey promising to be far more good to the entire human race.13 of 18 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: Swerving the Myth of The Bell Curve, July 10, 2000 Reviewer: Senthuran Vettivelupillai ( see more about me ) from Toronto, CanadaThe Bell Curve is a fantastic digest of scientific theory, statistical informations, and controversial strong beliefs, one of the finest plants in its genre. Charles Murray and the late Richard J. Herrnstein make claims that intelligence and IQ play a cardinal function in the defining of the model of society, and utilize proved statistics and graphs to suitably warrant their thesis. From their position, the cognitive and societal lower class is mostly responsible for many of the societal ailments of society ( offense, bastardy, substance maltreatment ) , while the & # 8216 ; cognitive elite & # 8217 ; unrecorded in peace and prosperity while go toing opera and orchestral concerts, detached from the mean Joe of society. A little but important part of the book is dedicated to on racial and cultural differences in intelligence and the effects of these consequences & # 8211 ; certain to light passionate argument. No uncertainty conservativists, Murray and Herrnstein make a assortment of proposals to better this state & # 8211 ; they denounce public assistance and affirmatory action, believe that support should be diverted off from the disadvantaged to the gifted, and praise the American school system in its success in streaming the & # 8216 ; cognitive elite & # 8217 ; , nevertheless hapless, to exceed Ivy League schools. There is particular bitterness towards individual female parents who, intellectually lacking themselves, give birth to & # 8216 ; dense babes & # 8217 ; at a high rate ( & # 8217 ; giving birth to violent felons in male childs and more individual female parents in misss & # 8217 ; ) , while the & # 8216 ; cognitive elite & # 8217 ; go on to hold low birthrate rates, seting the state at hazard of dysgenesis. Such calls of Judgment Day are rather outstanding throughout the book, but Murray and Herrnstein present Utopian positions of a future tutelary province, in which the cognitive elite take attention of the turning lower class, to maintain the dense & # 8216 ; happy & # 8217 ; and the smart & # 8217 ; safe & # 8217 ; from their jeopardy. However controversial, their claims are affecting and right-on-the-money, and this provocative work is a must read for those concerned about the present and future province of America.12 of 14 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: A Well-Reasoned Expression at the Impact of Intelligence on Life, July 5, 2000 /exec/obidos/tg/cm/top-reviewers-list/-/1/A2KAVOGWK3BRB7/104-6296508-2639935 & # 8211 ; A2KAVOGWK3BRB7/exec/obidos/tg/cm/top-reviewers-list/-/1/A2KAVOGWK3BRB7/104-6296508-2639935 & # 8211 ; A2KAVOGWK3BRB7Reviewer: Jeffrey A. Veyera ( see more about me ) from Waukesha, WI USAWhen & # 8220 ; The Bell Curve & # 8221 ; first saw print some old ages ago, the Birkenstock Left pitched a tantrum as merely they and teething yearlings can. They instantly took to the airwaves in droves to condemn the & # 8220 ; racism & # 8221 ; of the writers, and put out a clump of hastily-written refuse to rebut the book which seemingly none of them had read. Thus it may surprise you to larn that the subdivision on cultural differences in cognitive ability is but 70 pages out of 845 in the book, and that the most & # 8220 ; controversial & # 8221 ; happening within these 70 pages is that, historically, inkinesss on norm have scored lower than Whites on trials of cognitive ability, and that Whites have scored lower on norm than Asians. ( Far from being white supremacists, the writers are seemingly Asiatic supremacists, if we follow the Left & # 8217 ; s distraught statements. ) But the attending paid to race and ethnicity is simply a front man for the Ivory Tower Marxists. The existent thesis of the book, as proven by a overplus of empirical grounds, is this: that in analysing America, intelligence is a far more accurate forecaster of success than category beginning, and that the current stratification of American society is due to differences in cognitive ability instead than in societal category. The Left understands that this is the decease nell for the Marxist dream, and has pulled out all the Michigans to stamp down this book. Yet is this controversial? As we enter the Information Age, it is clear that the rational Rich persons have clear advantages over the Have Nots. Merely 20 % of Americans entree the Internet regularly. Would it surprise anyone to see a positive correlativity between Internet use and tonss on IQ trials? Is anyone amazed that felons tend to be dense, irrespective of the societal category they were born into? Or that stupid scions of affluent households normally blow their money, while bright boies and girls of hapless households seem to make rather good? The thesis is a yawner. What is shocking is that in America, the Left has had such success in making a civilization of category enviousness that we now find the obvious connexion between encephalons and success astounding. Herrnstein and Murray, to their permanent recognition, have one time once more proven that the truth will out, no affair how inconvenient for some. For the record, my male parent was a bricklayer, I score rather good on cognitive trials, and I am making really good in the corporate engineering sector. I therefore tend to sympathise with the writers & # 8217 ; thesis and happen the Birkenstock Bolsheviks of academe to miss credibleness on this issue, as all others. Catch this book and give it a thorough read if you & # 8217 ; re at all interested in intelligence, statistics, sociology, or merely desire to cognize what all the dither was approximately in an unfiltered manner. You won & # 8217 ; t be regretful, no affair where you fall on the Bell Curve.4 of 16 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: Bad Science, June 24, 2000 Reviewer: A reader from FloridaTo Begin with, the construct of IQ is so combative and unscientific that it can non be used as cogent evidence for a certain, extremely fishy, political stance. This book has recieved no acclamation from any internationally respected beginnings, it has, alternatively, come under changeless unfavorable judgment. There are 1000s and 1000s of books which draw upon statistics all & # 8216 ; turn outing & # 8217 ; utterly contradictory point of views. I was impressed with the informations that these two & # 8217 ; scientists & # 8217 ; managed to delve up & # 8230 ; however merely every bit much informations exists that utterly counters their statement. The unfortunate thing about this book is that the writers did non get down composing it from a impersonal point of position, they had their racist hypothesis from the beginning and merely found the grounds to endorse it up. Not that I am discrediting ALL of the grounds. I am absolutely prepared to accept that the mean IQ of an Afro-american is significantly lower than the mean IQ of a white American. HOWEVER, they decline to advert the fact that the mean IQ of an Afro-american is besides significantly lower than the mean IQ of educated native Africans, which is much closer to the white American norm. The bulk of American inkinesss classed as & # 8216 ; black & # 8217 ; are really of every bit much white or native American descent as they are of African descent, and of class their white blood would be that of the lowest category of Whites. Similarly, out of the tremendous populations of the Asiatic states, the competition to acquire out of Asia and into the West is so ferocious that merely the most intelligent and successful Asiatics are able to make it. I don & # 8217 ; t believe that one has to rebut the fact that different races in America have different IQ norms to non be a racist. Having said that, there is nil respectable about this book. The writers, rather evidently from a improminant and mostly damaged school of idea, had their heads made up from the start, and were prepared to utilize the direct correllation between wealth and IQ to endorse up their redundant and racist statement which has been out of favor for decennaries. In world, IQ scores fluctuate wildly given the nature of the trials, and the instruction degree of those taking the trials. The premise that intelligence is the ONLY ground for societal inquality is absurd and blatantly false plenty, but coupled with the belief that genetic sciences is the Lone footing for intelligence it becomes unsafe, the type of tool that will be taken up by the evil racialist utmost right-wing. And that is precisely what happened. You can happen reappraisal of this book on Klan and Christian Identity websites. One hopes that supplying these ugly motions with academic support is non what the writers intended, although one can non be so certain. Very, really, really, really bad scientific discipline. Everybody can retrieve civilisation & # 8217 ; s last expansive experiment in eugenics in the fortiess. Let & # 8217 ; s hope that it ne’er rears its ugly caput once more, and that bad scientific discipline like this is non used to give it respectability.7 of 28 people found the undermentioned reappraisal helpful: GIANT STEP BACKWARD, June 14, 2000 /exec/obidos/tg/cm/top-reviewers-list/-/1/AL5D52NA8F67F/104-6296508-2639935 & # 8211 ; AL5D52NA8F67F/exec/obidos/tg/cm/top-reviewers-list/-/1/AL5D52NA8F67F/104-6296508-2639935 & # 8211 ; AL5D52NA8F67FReviewer: Dave Wayne White ( see more about me ) from San Antonio, TexasDo intelligent and thoughtful people REALLY purchase into this boloney? Are thoughtful and intelligent people REALLY hoodwinked by the statistical fume and mirrors of this book? Or does this book merely supply & # 8220 ; scientific confirmation & # 8221 ; for those already inclined to bigotry and neo-eugenics, ( whose intelligence and contemplation are, at best, a coin flip ) ? A Tale of Texas, as an illustration: While this is merrily less so than it one time was, it is still by and large true that High School football is the Brass Ring in this province. It is promoted, and supported, by a solidly white, male affluent caste who reward jocks who win games with publicity to college and/or concern and industry, based non on intelligence, but on how good they make touchdowns and throw balls. These Chosen Ones go on to go University Regents, Politicians, Businessmen and Public School Superintendents and the rhythm repeats itself, Good Ol & # 8217 ; Boy system Par Excellence. Not intelligence, but a racialist plutocracy. I suspect that similar systems exist everyplace and have existed for a long, Long clip. It & # 8217 ; s non that these writers are & # 8220 ; politically incorrect & # 8221 ; : if that & # 8217 ; s all this book was it would be comparatively harmless. Many Afro-american and Hispanic-American faculty members, among others, have been inquiring recently if the more insulated universe of the ( mostly ) white upper-class will EVER alteration. Now THERE is brave, politically wrong guess & # 8230 ; Reviewer: Joseph H Pierre ( see more about me ) from Salem, OregonFrom The Bell Curve: & # 8220 ; This book is about differences in rational capacity among people and groups, and what those differences mean for America & # 8217 ; s hereafter. The relationships we will be discoursing are among the most sensitive in modern-day America & # 8211 ; so sensitive that barely anyone writes or negotiations about them in populace. It is non for deficiency of information, as you will see. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; To seek to come to clasps with the state & # 8217 ; s jobs without understanding the function of intelligence is to see through a glass in darkness so, to fumble with symptoms alternatively of causes, to falter into supposed redresss that have no opportunity of working. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; We are non apathetic to the ways which this book, wrongly construed, might make injury. We have worried about them from the twenty-four hours we set to work. But there can be no existent advancement in work outing America & # 8217 ; s societal jobs when they are every bit misperceived as they are today. What good can come of understanding the relationship of intelligence to societal construction and public policy? Small good can come without it. & # 8221 ; This is a brave attempt. And, of class, the writers were right about the misperceptions of their work. The book had barely hit the street when the Canis aureuss attacked with their shrieks of & # 8220 ; racism & # 8221 ; and their ad hominem onslaughts. But, the scientific discipline behind the book is faultless, and the facts incontrovertible, and the trials replicable. The decisions? Well, if the statements of the & # 8220 ; politically correct & # 8221 ; adversaries which were directed at this book and its deductions, were applied to the carnal universe, they would be reasoning that a dachsie is absolutely capable of running with the greyhounds, and that a Rottweiler is every bit soft as a spaniel, or that a pedigree is as capable of drawing a plough as is a Percheron, and there is no ground that a Clydesdale should non be allowed to come in the Kentucky Derby. Because, you see, they are all the same species, and hence they must be every bit endowed. What bunk! To let for racial differences is non to badmouth anyone as being inferior. That there are, on norm, physical differences between members of the races of adult male is so obvious that merely a sap would deny it. Why should at that place non besides be mental or temperamental differences every bit good. This is an first-class work, by two scientists who are merely describing what they have found to be true. It is worth your clip. Joseph Pierreauthor of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUSReviewer: Prof. J. P. Rushton ( see more about me ) from the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CanadaMy great esteem for The Bell Curve is overshadowed by the fact that it did non cover exhaustively plenty with the familial footing of racial differences. Evasion was displayed even on whether & # 8220 ; races & # 8221 ; existed, and the place taken seemed unnecessarily vulnerable to classless onslaught. In my ain book Race, Evolution, and Behavior ( 1995, Transaction ) I sifted the grounds and set out a footing for why race differences can merely be understood to the full from a gene-based evolutionary & # 8220 ; life-history & # 8221 ; position. In his interesting Afterword to the softcover edition of The Bell Curve, Murray accepted that Herrnstein and he had played down the heritability of race differences. Mentioning Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Murray drew attending to the important and significant relationship that exists between encephalon size and measured intelligence, to the differential distribution of encephalon size across races, and to the really low IQ tonss of Africans South of the Sahara. Other race differences nevertheless, non addressed by The Bell Curve, still need account. These include testosterone degrees, sexual wonts, offense rates, personality and disposition, velocity of ripening, and wellness and length of service. In Race, Evolution, and Behavior, I show that race differences in these traits show up in a consistent form around the universe and require that IQ differences be seen as portion of a much broader syndrome of behaviour forms & # 8212 ; portion of a life-history.January 25, 2000 Reviewer: Vijay Dinakar ( see more about me ) from New York, United StatesFrom all the negative commentary environing this book, one might acquire the feeling that this is a book about race and genetic sciences. It is non. It is a book that explores the function that intelligence dramas in the formation and stratification of society. The book & # 8217 ; s chief thesis is something like this: In society ( America ) there exists mensurable differences in intelligence degrees among persons. These differences may be adequately discerned by utilizing nonsubjective mental trials. The consequence of these differences in intelligence are profound. Persons at the low terminal of & # 8220 ; the bell curve & # 8221 ; of the intelligence distribution exhibit higher rates of criminalism, bastardy, poorness, and other societal pathologies. Those with higher I.Q & # 8217 ; s, nevertheless, have the best occupations, engage in less condemnable activity, and mostly populate the upper category of America. Indeed, as the writers point out, one & # 8217 ; s I.Q. and non one & # 8217 ; s race, gender, or present societal place will mostly find the type of occupation one will hold. Society has therefore become ( or is fast going ) a meritocracy harmonizing to intelligence. Those with high I.Q & # 8217 ; s ( 120 and above ) will be the hereafter attorneies, physicians, comptrollers, technicians, scientists, applied scientists, faculty members, and the similar. Those who posess substandard cognitive abilities will happen modern society comparatively more hard than those with high intelligence. The issue of race is covered chiefly in one chapter. I must state, contrary to the critism, the writers handled this politically right issue with much civility and restraint. If the book is read with attention, one will detect that decisions are non made where the grounds does non justify them. The writers merely show the most current and relevant grounds ( from both sides ) and either conclude that extra grounds is required or they provide a decision that is warranted. One point that bears reiterating on the issue of race and intelligence: every race is represented throughout the distribution of intelligence. That is, though certain groups ( races ) , may be found more often on the distribution in certain parts, single members of all the groups are represented in all parts of the distribution. If we so accept the fact that persons ever differ with regard to intelligence and we understand the old sentence, I see no ground to fear the informations presented in this book with respects to race and intellligence. For the two old sentence make clear that one & # 8217 ; s race does non find one & # 8217 ; s cognitive ability and the writers make no claim to the contrary. The book as a piece of scholarship is first rate and extremely readable.MISMEASURE OF MANAmazon.com How smart are you? If that inquiry doesn & # 8217 ; t trip a twelve more inquiries in your head ( like & # 8220 ; What do you intend by & # 8217 ; smart, & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; How do I mensurate it, & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; Who & # 8217 ; s inquiring? & # 8221 ; ) , so The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould & # 8217 ; s consummate destruction of the IQ industry, should be required reading. Gould & # 8217 ; s brilliant, amusing, prosecuting prose dissects the motives behind those who would judge intelligence, and therefore deserving, by cranial size, whirls, or mark on highly narrow trials. How did scientists make up one’s mind that intelligence was unipolar and quantifiable, and why did the criterion maintain changing over clip? Gould & # 8217 ; s reply is clear and simple: power maintains itself. European work forces of the nineteenth century, even before Darwin, saw themselves as the pinnacle of creative activity and sought to turn out this averment through difficult measuring. When one step was found to put members of some & # 8220 ; inferior & # 8221 ; group such as adult females or Southeasterly Asians over the purportedly rightful title-holders, it would be discarded and replaced with a new, more comfy step. The 20th-century compulsion with Numberss led to the institutionalization of IQ proving and subsequent assignment to work ( and wagess ) commensurate with the mark, shown by Gould to be non merely ill-conceived & # 8211 ; for certainly intelligence is multifactorial & # 8211 ; but besides regressive, making a feedback cringle honoring the rich and powerful. The revised edition includes a scathing review of Herrnstein and Murray & # 8217 ; s The Bell Curve, taking them to task for rehashing old statements to work a new political moving ridge of uncaring and belt tightening. It might non do you any smarter, but The Mismeasure of Man will surely do you believe. & # 8211 ; Rob Lightner & # 8211 ; This text refers to the Hardcover edition. Saturday Review A rare book-at once of great importance and fantastic to read & # 8230 ; .Gould show a absorbing historical survey of scientific racism & # 8230 ; .A major add-on to scientific literature. To truly step human intelligences is to & # 8220 ; see & # 8221 ; beyond & # 8216 ; g & # 8217 ; , February 7, 1999 Reviewer: Clifford Morris ( cmorris @ igs.net ) from Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Review of Stephen Jay Gould & # 8217 ; s 1996 revised and expanded publication of & # 8220 ; The mismeasure of adult male & # 8221 ; New York: W. W. Norton. ( Original work published 1981 ) In & # 8220 ; Thoug

hts at Age Fifteen”, the sub-title to the new Introduction to the Revised and Expanded Edition of “The Mismeasure of Man”, Stephen Jay Gould (1996) calls himself a “working scientist by trade” (p. 24), then “a statistically minded paleontologist” (p. 25) and finally “an evolutionary biologist by training” (p. 41). The author of thirteen books, Mr. Gould currently teaches geology, the history of science and biology at Harvard University. His strong interest in intelligence initially arose from his desire to bring science and its discoveries to the attention of the nonscientist. In considering the mainstream arguments made about “the theory of a measurable, genetically fixed, and unitary intelligence”, Dr. Gould (1996, p. 21) became concerned about how the social sciences, especially psychology, were misused in the development of the concept of intelligence, in particular, the whole nature of intelligence testing itself. Over the past 19 years, Gould has well responded to such misuses with two timely publications. First of all, in 1981 he produced “The Mismeasure of Man” mainly to argue against the social and political results of those misapplications, more specifically, in response to Arthur R. Jensen’s (1969) article “How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?” Likewise, in 1996, Gould generated the revised version of “The Mismeasure of Man” as a response to Richard L. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s (1994) book “The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life” (Gould, 1996). Throughout the four hundred twenty-four pages of the 1996 version, Gould “argues that early researchers (perhaps unconsciously) biased their measurements of intelligence based on race and points to shortcomings of those trying to substantiate “g” (Yam, 1998, p. 7). Gould uses his 1996 version to reiterate, once again, his two central themes. First and most simply stated for this note, he argues that the psychological construct “intelligence” has not been shown to be any physical object or real thing (see pp. 27, 48, 56, 185, 189). Instead, he suggests that intelligence is one’s ability to face problems in an unprogrammed or creative manner. Throughout the book, he argue that intelligence is what he calls “the ground of culture,” not a biological entity. In short, he views intelligence as the product of cultural evolution … distinct from biological evolution. However, Gould feels that because of the efforts of a group of American psychologists during the war years, the concept of intelligence has been endowed, as just outlined, to the position of a real object. To cite his precise wording, Gould says that now intelligence has been become “reified, or made real”. More simply worded, Gould “sees” reification as a real thing, as something each person possesses that is, unitary, genetically fixed, measurable and constant (for a more detailed account of Gould’s basic premises, the reader is asked to see Carroll, 1985, especially pp. 123-125). Gould’s second major point is that using an abstract concept such as intelligence to quantify and rank people’s worth is an exceedingly dangerous enterprise. He points out that this way of ranking is a fallacy because the task of ranking people implies quantification, or measurement resulting in one single number for each person — the IQ (intellectual quotient) score. Further, “Gould shows how this sort of ranking can lead (and, as he shows clearly, has led) to the erroneous conclusion that oppressed and disadvantaged groups — races, classes, sexes — are found to be innately inferior and deserving of their reduced status, with all of this based on the measurement of something that exists only as an abstract concept at best” (Miller, 1993, p. 8). To sum up all of the aforementioned, Gould considers the use of psychological testing to rank ones’ worth on the basis of the single IQ or general “g” score THE major misuse of science in this century. References Carroll, John, B. (1995). Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ (1981): A retrospective review. Intelligence, 21, 121-134. Herrnstein, Richard. J, & Murray, Charles (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Jensen, Arthur R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39(1), 1-123. Miller, Lynda (1993). What we call smart: A new narrative for intelligence and learning. San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group. Yam, Philip (1998, Winter). Intelligence considered, [Special Issue]. Scientific American, 9(4), 6-11.The history of IQ testing is littered with bad science, and, worse, with bad intentions. In “The Mismeasure of Man” Gould does a masterful job of surveying both, and of showing how much damage IQ testing and the ideas behind it can, and have, done. The most interesting part of the book is the historical detail Gould provides about each of the scientists he discusses. Take Cesare Lombroso, the founder of criminal anthropology, which is the idea that criminals have distinctive and identifiable body and facial characteristics. This idea seems silly to most of us now, but Gould drives the point home by citing some of Lombroso’s daftest ideas–for example, that prostitutes have prehensile big toes (there’s even a picture to show this!) or his claim that animals have criminal types too, citing an ant “driven by rage to kill and dismember an aphid”. And although Lombroso was criticized at the time, he was enormously influential. The twentieth century figures in this story typically made more complex mistakes in science, but Gould, merely by repeating their own work, demolishes their credibility. H.H.Goddard, who tested early American immigrants, found 87% of Russian immigrants (and similar numbers from other nations) to be feeble-minded, a result so ludicrous even Goddard couldn’t believe it. He fiddled with the data and got the number down below 50%, ultimately explaining this number by saying that only the poorest of each nation were emigrating to America. Gould takes the time with each failure of science to show just where the foolishness lies. After Lombroso and Goddard he reviews the work of Terman, Yerkes, Burt, Spearman and Thurstone; the question of “g”, general intelligence, is raised and dismissed, and many more ridiculous stories appear. Towards the end he goes into some detail on the question of factor analysis; the flaw here is not trivial to explain, and this is technically the hardest part of the book to follow. However, by this time the pattern of self-delusion is so clear that the reader takes little persuading. It’s been said for years that what IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests. Gould makes the case for this utterly convincing. This is a profound book, written by someone who understands how science should work, and also how it really does work, all too often, in the real world.THE MISMEASURE OF MAN is a truly great book, exposing the prejudice and bigotry that has often passed under the name of “science.” It is eminently readable for a book that deals with numbers and statistics, which he keeps to a bare minimum that is consistent with exposing the mistakes made by bigoted “scientists.” Gould has managed to take a complicated subject and render it intelligible without ‘dumbing it down.’ This is one of those rare books that everyone should read, as it deals with a subject that influences all of our lives and exposes some of the foolishness that commonly passes for “accepted knowledge.” To object, as some have done, that Stephen Jay Gould is not a psychologist, is a facile objection, an argumentum ad hominem, attacking the person rather than saying anything about the reasoning that Gould presents. Undoubtedly, this is because his reasoning is quite good, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a serious objection to any major point in his book. To object, as some have done, that The Mismeasure of Man is political correctness passing for science, is simply name calling (another argumentum ad hominem). If this were really true, then it would be possible to expose his supposedly faulty reasoning, but that is something they fail to do. To have a conclusion which may be consistent with “political correctness” does NOT prove that it is simply political correctness passing for science, because some ideas that are “politically correct” may very well be true. For example, it is “politically correct” to say that a woman may have the highest IQ score ever achieved, and it turns out that this is apparently true. (Marylin Vos Savant is reported to have the highest IQ; see the Guiness Book of World Records, or just look for her column in the Parade section of a typical Sunday paper in the U.S.) Indeed, this objection, without any supporting evidence, amounts to a claim that “all ‘politically correct’ ideas are false,” which is really exposing the prejudice of those who make such an objection. To object, as some have done, that Gould has “betrayed Darwin,” shows a misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution. He never intended for it to be applied in a manner that is now inappropriately called “social Darwinism.” It is the application of his theory of natural selection to a different domain, not a theory that he advocated in his Origin of the Species. To object, as some have done, that Gould focusses more on old theories rather than current ones, is also misguided, though not so grossly flawed as the argumentum ad hominems already mentioned. Gould examines the foundations of the current theories of IQ to show that they are based on prejudice and bigotry rather than true scientific principles. This is NOT the same as modern chemistry growing out of alchemy or astronomy growing out of astrology, for these modern sciences involve a rejection of the superstitious principles of alchemy and astrology. But there is no rejection of the basic ideas regarding IQs among most current psychologists. To see that the concept of IQs are a gross misrepresentation of that nebulous concept called “intelligence,” it suffices to consider the fact that using a single number to represent all of the complex processes of thought must inevitably involve bias regarding which mental processes are most important. Consider, for example, how many of the test questions will be for testing mathematical reasoning (just one part of an IQ score). The number of these relative to the number for the other aspects of intelligence involves a decision based on the preferences or bias of those who originated the system, not a scientific principle. How much of one’s intelligence is mathematical reasoning? How much should it be? This last question is the decisive one for how many questions about it there will be on an IQ test, but is a normative question, not one of science at all. IQ scores are inherently biased, and as such, are not a part of science at all.Reviewer: [email protected] (see more about me) from Sean R. Scheiderer at the Ohio State University in ColumbusGould’s title plays off Protagoras’ claim that “man is the measure of all things.” This Sophist encouraged his students to utilize whichever methods yielded desired results, but admonished them to always remember that “truth” found this way is relative, a product of a created system, and not an objective verity. Gould shows that many unwitting modern disciples of Protagoras’ school retained the method but forgot the underlying madness. The Mismeasure of Man is an investigation of attempts to reify human “intelligence” in order to determine worthiness (mental and otherwise) by establishing a ranking based on a single derived factor and presenting the resultant scalar reckoning as biological and incontrovertible. This quantifiable difference has allowed scientific establishmentarianism that justifies (and perpetuates) racism, sexism, and classism as inevitable and natural. Gould surveys the last three centuries and exposes the faulty logic of reductive systems for the evaluation of human mind (and spirit): craniometry, craniology, recapitulation, criminal anthropology, and modern I.Q. testing. Gould knows that many readers (and non-readers) will attack him for writing outside his proper domain, and he counters this by insisting that he is not writing a book about psychology per se, but about the general error of reification in the sciences. As young up-and-coming evolutionary biologist, Gould received extensive training in statistics, especially factor analysis. It is with statistical expertise that he exposes the logical (not mathematical) weaknesses of using factor analysis and other quantitative methods to distill a person’s intelligence to a single quantity. Gould shows how this reification is ultimately an embodiment of a priori assumptions after they have been processed through a circular argument, usually obfuscated (instead of supported) by numbers and mathematics in the name of objective quantification. Gould spent an entire month reworking Broca’s data. Gould found in Broca an unparalleled collector of raw figures, but also uncovered “advocacy masquerading as objectivity.” Gould’s historical survey of intelligence testing in the twentieth century demonstrates too well how science can become a powerful technological tool (weapon) of the state. At the beginning of this century, Binet designed his scale to be used as an instrument to help identify those (relatively few) students in need of special education and not as an absolute measure of intelligence or anything else inherent or irredeemable. Goddard (the American who christened the term “moron”) adopted Binet’s methods but not his ideology, proffering Binet’s I.Q. as an intrinsic and permanent entity by which eugenics could and should (and would) be directed. Gould himself uncovers Goddard’s manipulative retouching of photographs of research subjects to suggest their stupidity or vileness (these disturbing photos are reprinted in this book). R. M. Yerkes conducted an enormous study of 1.7 million U.S. Army draftees, a boon to the statistical prowess of a fledgling science, but his method and data analysis were patently absurd as confessed in an 800-page description published by Yerkes. Gould feels sure that those who touted the conclusions of this tome never took the time to read it. Gould includes samples from Yerkes’ intelligence tests as well as the instructions given to the illiterate recruits, often hilarious sometimes disconcerting (Gould also administered the tests to Harvard undergrads). Gould thus traces the evolution of an inheritable, fixed, and quantifiable “intelligence” emerging in America, culminating in negative and positive eugenics (Buck v. Bell (1924)), becoming subtler (insidious) after the horrors of the holocaust became known, but always lurking submerged. Gould suggests that Spearman and other reductionists working in a so-called soft science suffer from “physics envy” as they long for universal laws and basic particles (Gould does realize that physicists themselves no longer find such comforts). “With g as a quantified, fundamental particle, psychology [would be able to] take its rightful place among the real sciences.” In the most challenging and instructive part of the book, Gould dissects factor analysis, a tool of data sorting that simplifies a complex system and thereby helps in the identification of possible underlying causes of correlation amongst variables. Gould acknowledges the great worth of this tool to all sciences, but warns against a great danger: reification. Researchers and non-professionals alike tend to treat mathematical abstracts (Spearman’s g (”general intelligence”) here, “averages” in Gould’s Full House) as if they are real things. Gould traces this proclivity back to seminal practices of western philosophy and the thrill of flushing out the Platonic essence hidden within the evidence. Once factor analysis has delivered a value to a researcher, it may not only be accepted as a real thing, but the most real thing. Gould illustrates (literally) that while the ordering principal of factor analysis is useful, its starting point is arbitrary, as demonstrated by the different but equally mathematically valid approaches which each yield separate results. Gould argues that each approach to the analysis was dictated by a priori assumptions, and the result, meant to prove these assumptions, ends up actually resting on them. This circular reasoning thereby becomes impossible to disprove on its own terms, and Gould must expose the fundamental flaw at its roots: the reification of a result begotten from an arbitrary initiation. Even though this book was written more than a decade prior to The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), it is considered the definitive answer to that now infamous tome (Gould does include a great new introduction and a specific critique of The Bell Curve in the revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man (1996)). Gould explains that the hereditarian viewpoint resurfaces whenever the economic and political climate is favorable, but that the biological determinist argument never really changes substantially. Gould’s book should serve as a timeless reminder of the limitations not of biology, but of reductionist science. Let us heed Protagoras’ words and recognize that whenever man is the measurer and/or the measured, he is also the measure. Not only can Protagoras’ aphorism lead to a more honest science, it will also result in a more humanitarian science. –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.Gould continues his pioneering work of humanizing science, January 11, 1999 Reviewer: Mark Rice ([email protected]) from Eindhoven, The NetherlandsMost reviews of this book will focus on the question of Gould’s treatment of biological determinism as one of this century’s greatest follies. My own opinion is that those focusing on this issue are missing the point. While I do think that the eugenics movement is certainly one of the sadder chapters in our history, I found this particular issue, while beautifully developed and addressed, to be but an example of a larger, more fundamental question. What I see as the main thesis of this book is this: Scientists are people, human. They are prone to the same passions, desires, hopes, dreams, motivations, fears, ambitions, mistakes and biases as the rest of us. That is what makes the mistakes made 80-100 years ago (indeed 50 years ago, last year, yesterday) so relevant. The scientists of the last century were as brilliant as those today, but they viewed the world much differently. Biological determinism was a certainty, a constant. They simply assumed it was so and interpreted all data in this light. Given this premise, of course they would reach the conclusions that seem so horribly biased today. The real message of this book, (to me at least) is this wonderful (and frightening) idea that even today, all scientific “truths” need to be examined and re-examined and re-examined. We can never be sure of what we are seeing as we view all data through a societal lens. To a layman such as myself, often frustrated by the pretentiousness and aloofness of scientists (as well as the jargon-filled literature) this knowledge is one of great liberation. It makes science much less certain, but so much more enjoyable! It brings the scientist down from the priest’s alter to the congregation. This is Gould’s great gift he gives to readers in all his books, but most of all in this one. This book is simply one of the greatest books written about scientific thought. For anyone who wishes to understand how “great mistakes” are made in science, this is a must read! –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.Of intelligence, genetics, and environments (again), April 8, 1998 Reviewer: Massimo Pigliucci ([email protected]) (see more about me) from Knoxville, Tennessee, USASteven J. Gould is most famous among the general public for his collections of essays from his long Natural History series, “This View of Life”. But the best of Gould’s writing is perhaps to be found in his single-theme books. And The Mismeasure of Man is arguably the finest among them. The volume is about the long history of the search for scientific justification of racism, and the many faux pas that science has committed when it comes to the study of human intelligence. The 1996 edition of the classic 1981 book also contains some interesting addenda: “Critique of the Bell Curve”, and “Three Centuries’ Perspective on Race and Racism” (as well as a new introduction), just in case you were not convinced by the arguments lined out in the main text. The Mismeasure can conceptually be divided in two parts: the first deals with the misapplication of measurements of the human body (cranial capacity and facial features), the second one is concerned with the mind (IQ and generalized intelligence). In both cases, Gould follows the same approach that has been so successful in some of his technical opuses, such as Ontogeny and Phylogeny: he tracks the history of a discipline or scientific question, highlights the contributions and discusses the motives of the major players, while simultaneously plunging into the technical aspects of the science behind the problem. So, for example, in order to find out why measuring the cranial capacity of the human head does not tell you much about intelligence, we are introduced to biologists of the caliper of Louis Agassiz (Gould currently holds his chair at Harvard), Samuel George Morton, Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin), and – of course – Paul Broca, the father of craniometry. It is indeed fascinating to find out that theories of the origin of human races actually preceded Charles Darwin and evolutionary thinking, with the “polygenic” school apparently providing solid basis for racism: if the term “human” comprises different species, it is only natural that we rank them according to their biological worth (needless to say, the “objective” ranking invariably ended up putting the author’s race – and gender – in pole position, and somewhat ahead of everybody else). The supporters of the opposing theory of “monogenism” were by no means kinder to other races, though. Their argument was that there was only one Adam, and that every human race descended from him, and degenerated to a greater or lesser extent (again, you guess who degenerated more and who the least). Regardless of the premise, all we needed to know according to craniometrists was the size of the brain (as estimated by the internal volume of the cranium) and we will know how intelligent (and thereby “worthy”) any individual or race really is. Now, one could object that there is indeed a good correlation between cranial capacity and what we intuitively think of as intelligence among animals. After all, biology textbooks report diagrams showing that carnivores have larger brains than herbivores, regardless of body size. And the accompanying explanation makes sense: carnivores need larger brains because they have to process more information and more quickly, they have to face a larger variety of situations, and be able to make a larger number of vital decisions. In other words, they need to be smarter. Gould acknowledges this, but quickly – and correctly – points out that variation across species does not have to have the same cause and meaning as variation within species. He illustrates this with an array of definitely intelligent people whose brain sizes covered almost the whole gamut displayed by non-pathological individuals. However, this is indeed one of the troublesome aspects of this book and, I dare say, of Gould’s writing in general. He dismisses contrary evidence or arguments so fast that one gets the impression of seeing a magician performing a trick. One cannot avoid the feeling of having being duped by the quickness of the magician’s movement, instead of having observed a genuine phenomenon. In this particular instance, I can vouch for Gould as a biologist, but I’m not so sure that the general public is willing to trust him on his word. After having dismissed both craniometry and the aberrant work of Cesare Lombroso on the anthropological stigmata of criminals, Gould moves on to his main target: IQ and intelligence testing. IQ testing was originally introduced by the French psychologist Alfred Binet with the intention of spotting children who were falling behind in the curriculum, so that teachers could pay particular attention to them. Alas, such a noble intent soon fell victim to the human tendency of ranking everything, and led to an astounding series of “scientific” enterprises characterized by deep racist overtones. H.H. Goddard saw the feeble-minded (the technical term being “moron”) as a menace to society; we should care for him, but we should not allow him to reproduce. One of the ghastly consequences of the eugenic movement in the US was the enactment of immigration restriction laws based on perceived racial inferiority, and the actual forced sterilization of individuals deemed genetically inferior: for a few years the United States teetered on the brink of the same precipice over which Nazi Germany readily dove around the same time. One of the chief obstacles to the use of IQ scores is that there are several ways to devise an IQ test, and the results of different tests are not always congruent when performed on the same subjects. But if we have to use a battery of tests, and then somehow weigh their discrepancies, we lose one major attraction of IQ testing: the ability of ranking human beings on a simple, uni-linear scale of worth. Charles Spearman and Cyril Burt set out to accomplish the feat of reducing multiple-tests complexity once again to a single magical number. Burt was a disciple of Spearman (himself one of the founding fathers of modern statistics) and later claimed to have made contributions to the theory of factor analysis which where in fact Spearman’s. Gould plunges into one of the best explanations I have ever come across of the multivariate statistical technique of factor analysis, fundamental to both Spearman’s and Burt’s work. This allows the reader to gain some understanding of a very important tool in modern biostatistics (one that Gould himself uses for his own technical research), while at the same time being able to follow Gould in highlighting the fundamental problems which Spearman and Burt incurred. Simply put, factor analysis is a statistical technique based on the rotation of orthogonal axes in multivariate (i.e., multidimensional) space. This reduces a complex data set (say, made of the results of ten different IQ tests) to a manageable number of linear combinations of the original variables. This smaller set of dimensions identifies the principal “factors” which explain the correlation structure in the original data. Spearman’s suggestion was that all IQ tests have one principal factor in common. That is, the scores on each test are correlated to each other, because they all reflect one underlying quantity, which Spearman named “g”, or general intelligence. Spearman therefore provided one of the two pillars of the eugenic movement: there seemed indeed to be one way to rank individuals by their intelligence with the use of one number: this was the score on the g-factor, instead of the score on any of the available IQ tests. Burt’s major achievement was a supposed confirmation of the second fundamental piece of the puzzle eugenic puzzle: his studies of genetically identical twins suggested a high heritability (incorrectly read as a high level of genetic determination) of intelligence. So, not only do individuals differ in intelligence, but this is easy to measure and genetically determined. Environment, and with it education and social welfare, cannot alter the innate difference among individuals, genders, and races. QED Well, not really. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.