Editing The Mismeasure of Man (section)

==Summary==

===Craniometry===
[[Image:Morton drawing.png|thumb|right|250px|The "species" of man: "a Negro head . . . a Caucasian skull . . . a Mongol head", by S. G. Morton (1839)]]
''The Mismeasure of Man'' is a critical analysis of the early works of [[scientific racism]] which promoted "the theory of
unitary, innate, linearly rankable [[Intelligence#Human intelligence|intelligence]]"—such as [[craniometry]], the measurement of skull volume and its relation to [[Intellectualism|intellectual]] faculties. Gould alleged that much of the research was based largely on [[Racism|racial]] and social prejudices of the researchers rather than their scientific objectivity; that on occasion, researchers such as [[Samuel George Morton]] (1799–1851), [[Louis Agassiz]] (1807–1873), and [[Paul Broca]] (1824–1880), committed the [[Methodology|methodological]] fallacy of allowing their personal ''[[A priori knowledge|a priori]]'' expectations to influence their conclusions and analytical reasoning. Gould noted that when Morton switched from using bird seed, which was less reliable, to [[Shot (pellet)|lead shot]] to obtain endocranial-volume data, the average skull volumes changed; however, these changes were not uniform across Morton's "racial" groupings. To Gould, it appeared that unconscious [[List of cognitive biases|bias]] influenced Morton's initial results.<ref name="Kaplan et al">{{cite journal | last1 = Kaplan | first1 = Jonathan Michael | last2 = Pigliucci | first2 = Massimo | last3 = Banta | first3 = Joshua Alexander | year = 2015 | title = Gould on Morton, Redux: What can the debate reveal about the limits of data? | url = http://philpapers.org/archive/KAPGOM.pdf | journal = Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences | volume = 30 | pages = 1–10 }}</ref> Gould speculated,

<Blockquote>Plausible scenarios are easy to construct. Morton, measuring by seed, picks up a threateningly large black skull, fills it lightly and gives it a few desultory shakes. Next, he takes a distressingly small Caucasian skull, shakes hard, and pushes mightily at the foramen magnum with his thumb. It is easily done, without conscious motivation; expectation is a powerful guide to action.<ref>Gould, SJ (1981). ''Mismeasure of Man''. New York: Norton & Company, p. 97.</ref></Blockquote>

In 1977 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.

===Bias and falsification===
[[File:Cyril Burt 1930s.jpg|thumb|right|170px|Gould cited Leon Kamin's study which argued that Cyril Burt (above) fabricated data.]]
''The Mismeasure of Man'' presents a historical evaluation of the concepts of the ''intelligence quotient'' ([[IQ]]) and of the ''general intelligence factor'' ([[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 (classification of humans)|race]] of people is best explained by [[Genetics|genetic]] [[heredity]]. He cites the [[Cyril Burt#"The Burt Affair"|Burt Affair]], about the oft-cited [[twin study|twin studies]], by [[Cyril Burt]] (1883–1971), wherein Burt claimed that human intelligence is highly heritable.

===IQ, ''g'', statistical correlation, and heritability===
As an [[Evolutionary biology|evolutionary biologist]] and [[History of science|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 [[Intelligence quotient|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 [[Cognition|cognitive ability]] must positively [[correlation|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. However, [[correlation does not imply causation]]; for example, Gould said that the measures of the changes, over time, in "my age, the population of México, the price of Swiss cheese, my pet turtle's weight, and the average distance between galaxies" have a high, positive correlation—yet that correlation does not indicate that Gould's age increased because the Mexican population increased. 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 [[Psychometrics|psychometric]] data have no inherent value.

Gould pointed out that if the genetic heritability of IQ were demonstrable within a given [[Race (classification of humans)|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.g. the quality of nutrition) and to genetic inheritance. The evolutionary biologist [[Richard Lewontin]], a colleague of Gould's, is a proponent of this argument in relation to IQ tests. 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 100 percent because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin",<ref>Gottfredson, Linda (1994). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." ''Wall Street Journal'' 13 December, p. A18.</ref> 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 [[Mind|human mind]], and thus they analyze the IQ-test data to produce an IQ number that establishes the definitive [[G factor (psychometrics)|general intelligence]] of each man and of each woman. Hence, Gould dismissed the IQ number as an erroneous [[Artifact (error)|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.

===Second edition===
The revised and expanded second edition (1996) includes two additional chapters, which critique [[Richard Herrnstein]] and [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray's]] book ''[[The Bell Curve]]'' (1994). Gould maintains that their book contains no new arguments and presents no compelling data; it merely refashions earlier arguments for biological determinism, which Gould defines as "the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the [[brain]], its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status".<ref>Gould, S. J. (1981). ''The Mismeasure of Man'' pp. 24–25. 1996, [https://books.google.com/books?id=WTtTiG4eda0C&pg=PA21 p. 21].</ref>