Editing The Mismeasure of Man (section)

==Reception==
===Praise===
The majority of reviews of ''The Mismeasure of Man'' were positive, as Gould notes.<ref name="MMM44-5">Gould, S. J. (1996). ''The Mismeasure of Man: Revised edition''. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. [https://books.google.com/books?id=WTtTiG4eda0C&pg=PA45 pp. 44-5].</ref> [[Richard Lewontin]], a celebrated evolutionary biologist who held positions at both the University of Chicago and Harvard, wrote a glowing review of Gould's book in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', endorsing most aspects of its account, and suggesting that it might have been even more critical of the racist intentions of the scientists he discusses, because scientists "sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1981/10/22/the-inferiority-complex/|title=The Inferiority Complex|last=Lewontin|first=Richard C.|work=The New York Review of Books|access-date=2018-11-13|language=en-US}}</ref> Gould said that the most positive review of the first edition to be written by a psychologist was in the ''British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology'', which reported that "Gould has performed a valuable service in exposing the logical basis of one of the most important debates in the social sciences, and this book should be required reading for students and practitioners alike."<ref name="MMM45">Gould, S. J. (1996). ''The Mismeasure of Man: Revised edition''. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. [https://books.google.com/books?id=WTtTiG4eda0C&pg=PA45 p. 45].</ref> In ''[[The New York Times]]'', journalist [[Christopher Lehmann-Haupt]] wrote that the critique of [[factor analysis]] "demonstrates persuasively how factor analysis led to the cardinal error in reasoning, of confusing correlation with cause, or, to put it another way, of attributing false concreteness to the abstract".<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-mismeasure.html Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (1981). "Books of the Times"].</ref> The British journal ''Saturday Review'' praised the book as a "fascinating historical study of [[scientific racism]]", and that its arguments "illustrate both the logical inconsistencies of the theories and the prejudicially motivated, albeit unintentional, misuse of data in each case".<ref>''Saturday Review'' (October 1981 p. 74).</ref> In the American ''Monthly Review'' magazine, Richard York and the sociologist [[Brett Clark (sociologist)|Brett Clark]] praised the book's thematic concentration, saying that "rather than attempt a grand critique of all 'scientific' efforts aimed at justifying social inequalities, Gould performs a well-reasoned assessment of the errors underlying a specific set of theories and empirical claims".<ref>York, R., and B. Clark (2006). "Debunking as Positive Science". ''Monthly Review'' '''57''' (Feb.):315.</ref> ''Newsweek'' gave it a positive review for revealing biased science and its abuse.<ref name=Davis1983/> ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and Phi Beta Kappa's ''The Key Reporter'' also reviewed the book favorably.<ref name=Davis1983/>

===Awards===
The first edition of ''The Mismeasure of Man'' won the non-fiction award from the [[National Book Critics Circle]]; the Outstanding Book Award for 1983 from the [[American Educational Research Association]]; the Italian translation was awarded the ''Iglesias'' prize in 1991; and in 1998, the [[Modern Library]] ranked it as the 24th-best English-language [[non-fiction]] book of the 20th century.<ref>American Library (1998). [http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnonfiction.html 100 "Best Nonfiction"]. July 20. Gould was one of the judges.[http://partners.nytimes.com/library/books/042999best-nonfiction.html].</ref> In December 2006, ''[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]]'' magazine ranked ''The Mismeasure of Man'' as the 17th-greatest [[science book]] of all time.<ref>''Discover'' Editors (2006). [http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/25-greatest-science-books/ "25 Greatest Science Books of All Time"]. ''Discover'' '''27''' (Dec. 8).</ref>

===Reassessing Morton's skull measurements===
In a paper published in 1988, 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 [[Craniometry|craniometric calculations]], that his data tables were scientifically unsound, and he "cannot be excused for his errors, or his unfair comparisons of means".<ref name="jsmichael">{{cite journal | last1 = Michael | first1 = J. S. | year = 1988 | title = A New Look at Morton's Craniological Research | journal = Current Anthropology | volume = 29 | issue = 2| pages = 349–54 | doi=10.1086/203646| s2cid = 144528631 }}</ref> Michael later complained that some authors, including [[J. 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."<ref name="jsmichael2013">Michael, J. S. (2013) [http://michael1988.com/?p=114 "Stephen Jay Gould and Samuel George Morton: A Personal Commentary"] michael1988.com.</ref>

In another study, published in 2011, 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.<ref name="plosbiology.org">{{Citation |title=The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias |date=2011 |journal=PLOS Biol |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=e1001071+ | doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071 |last1=Lewis |first1=Jason E. |last2=Degusta |first2=David |last3=Meyer |first3=Marc R. |last4=Monge |first4=Janet M. |last5=Mann |first5= Alan E. |last6=Holloway |first6=Ralph L. |pmid=21666803 |pmc=3110184 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Lewis' study examined 46% of Morton's samples, whereas Gould's earlier study was based solely on a reexamination of Morton's raw data tables.<ref>Kaplan et al. (2015) note that, "Gould did not 'bother' to re-measure the skulls, because Gould explicitly stated that, once Morton developed a method that made the unconscious 'fudging' of the results difficult, the results became reliable."</ref> However Lewis' study was subsequently criticized by a number of scholars for misrepresenting Gould's claims,<ref name="Kaplan et al"/> bias,<ref name="Kaplan et al"/><ref name="SciAmerican">Horgan, John (2011). [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/06/24/defending-stephen-jay-goulds-crusade-against-biological-determinism/ "Defending Stephen Jay Gould's Crusade against Biological Determinism"] ''Scientific American'' Cross-Check (24 June 2011).</ref><ref name="Nature2011">Editorial (2011). [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html "Mismeasure for mismeasure."] ''Nature'' 474 (June 23): 419.</ref> faulted for examining fewer than half of the skulls in Morton's collection,<ref name="Kaplan et al"/><ref name="SciAmerican"/> for failing to correct measurements for age, gender or stature,<ref name="SciAmerican"/> and for its claim that any meaningful conclusions could be drawn from Morton's data.<ref name="Kaplan et al"/><ref name="Weisberg">{{cite journal | last1 = Weisberg | first1 = Michael | year = 2015 | title = Remeasuring man | url = https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/remeasuring-man.pdf | journal = Evolution & Development | volume = 16 | issue = 3 | pages = 166–78 | doi = 10.1111/ede.12077 | pmid = 24761929 | s2cid = 10110412 | access-date = 2015-08-23 | archive-date = 2015-11-17 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151117031309/https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/remeasuring-man.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref>

In 2015 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 facie'' evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases".<ref name="Weisberg"/> Biologists and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan, [[Massimo Pigliucci]], and Joshua Alexander Banta also published a critique of the group's paper, arguing that many of its claims were misleading and the re-measurements were "completely irrelevant to an evaluation of Gould's published analysis". 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".<ref name="Kaplan et al"/>

A 2018 paper argued that Morton's interpretation of the data was biased but that the data itself was accurate. The paper argued that Morton's measurements were similar to those of a contemporary craniologist, [[Friedrich Tiedemann]], who had interpreted the data differently to argue strongly against any conception of racial hierarchy.<ref>Mitchell, Paul Wolff. "The fault in his seeds: Lost notes to the case of bias in Samuel George Morton's cranial race science." PLoS biology 16, no. 10 (2018): e2007008.</ref>

===Criticism===
In a review of ''The Mismeasure of Man'', [[Bernard Davis (biologist)|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 (fallacy)|reification]]''—which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of [[Factor analysis|statistical data]], all motivated more by politics than by science.<ref name="Davis1983">{{cite journal | last1 = Davis | first1 = Bernard | year = 1983 | title = Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ and the press | journal = [[The Public Interest]] | volume = 74 | issue = 2| pages = 41–59 | pmid = 11632811 }}</ref> Davis said that [[Philip Morrison]]'s laudatory book review of ''The Mismeasure of Man'' in ''[[Scientific American]]'' was written and published because the editors of the journal had "long seen the study of the [[Heritability of IQ|genetics of intelligence]] as a threat to social justice". Davis also criticized the popular-press and the literary-journal book reviews of ''The Mismeasure of Man'' as generally approbatory; whereas, he said that most scientific-journal book reviews were generally critical. Davis accused Gould of having misrepresented a study by [[Henry H. Goddard]] (1866–1957) about the intelligence of Jewish, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants to the U.S., wherein Gould reported Goddard's qualifying those people as "feeble-minded"; whereas, in the initial sentence of the study, Goddard said the study subjects were atypical members of their [[ethnic group]]s, who had been selected because of their suspected sub-normal intelligence. Davis also argued that Goddard had 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".<ref name="davis">{{cite journal | last1 = Davis | first1 = Bernard | year = 1983 | title = Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ and the press | url = https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/neo-lysenkoism-iq-and-the-press | journal = The Public Interest | volume = 74 | issue = 2| page = 45 | pmid = 11632811 }}</ref> Gould pushed back against some of Davis' claims in a 1994 revised edition of the book. While Davis characterized the book's reception as negative in the scientific journals, Gould argued that of twenty-four academic book reviews written by experts in psychology, fourteen approved, three were mixed opinions, and seven disapproved of the book.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gould|first=Stephen Jay|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/33276490|title=The mismeasure of man|date=1996|publisher=Norton|isbn=0-393-03972-2|edition=Rev. and expanded|location=New York|pages=45|oclc=33276490}}</ref>

In his review, psychologist [[John B. Carroll]] said that Gould did not understand "the nature and purpose" of [[factor analysis]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Carroll | first1 = J. | year = 1995 | title =  Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's the mismeasure of man (1981): A retrospective review | doi = 10.1016/0160-2896(95)90022-5 | journal = Intelligence | volume = 21 | issue = 2| pages = 121–34 }}</ref> Statistician [[David J. Bartholomew]], of the [[London School of Economics]], said that Gould erred in his use of [[factor analysis]], irrelevantly concentrated upon the fallacy of [[Reification (fallacy)|reification]] (abstract as concrete), and ignored the contemporary scientific consensus about the existence of the [[G factor (psychometrics)|psychometric ''g'']].<ref>{{cite book |title=Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies |url=https://archive.org/details/measuringintelli00bart |url-access=limited |last=Bartholomew |first=David J. |author-link=D. J. Bartholomew |date=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780521544788 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/measuringintelli00bart/page/n88 73], 145–46 }}</ref>

Reviewing the book, [[Steve Blinkhorn|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.<ref>Blinkhorn, Steve (1982). "What Skulduggery?"] ''Nature'' '''296''' (April 8): 506.</ref> Psychologist [[Lloyd Humphreys]], then editor-in-chief of ''[[The American Journal of Psychology]]'' and ''[[Psychological Bulletin]]'', wrote that ''The Mismeasure of Man'' was "science fiction" and "political propaganda", and that Gould had misrepresented the views of [[Alfred Binet]], [[Godfrey Thomson]], and [[Lewis Terman]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Humphreys | first1 = L. | year = 1983 | title = Review of The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould | journal = American Journal of Psychology | volume = 96 | issue = 3| pages = 407–15 | doi=10.2307/1422323| jstor = 1422323 }}</ref>

In his review, psychologist Franz Samelson wrote that Gould was wrong in asserting that the [[Psychometrics|psychometric]] results of the intelligence tests administered to soldier-recruits by the U.S. Army contributed to the legislation of the [[Immigration Act of 1924|Immigration Restriction Act of 1924]].<ref>Samelson, F. (1982). [https://archive.today/20120910152400/http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/215/4533/656 "Intelligence and Some of its Testers"]. ''Science'' '''215''' (Feb. 5): 656–657.</ref> In their study of the [[Congressional Record]] and committee hearings related to the Immigration Act, Mark Snyderman and [[Richard J. Herrnstein]] reported that "the [intelligence] testing community did not generally view its findings as favoring restrictive immigration policies like those in the 1924 Act, and Congress took virtually no notice of intelligence testing".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Snyderman | first1 = M. | last2 = Herrnstein | first2 = R. J. | year = 1983 | title = Intelligence Tests and the Immigration Act of 1924 | journal = [[American Psychologist]] | volume = 38 | issue = 9| pages = 986–95 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.38.9.986}}</ref> Psychologist [[David P. Barash]] wrote that Gould unfairly groups [[sociobiology]] with "racist [[eugenics]] and misguided [[Social Darwinism]]".<ref>{{cite book |author=Barash, David P. |title=The Hare and the Tortoise: Culture, Biology, and Human Nature |publisher=Penguin Books |location=New York |year=1988 |page=329 |isbn=978-0-14-008748-2 }}</ref>

A 2019 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.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Warne | first1 = Russell T. | last2 = Burton | first2 = Jared Z. | last3 = Gibbons | first3 = Aisa | last4 = Melendez | first4 = Daniel A. | year = 2019 | title = Stephen Jay Gould's analysis of the Army Beta test in The Mismeasure of Man: Distortions and misconceptions regarding a pioneering mental test | journal = Journal of Intelligence | volume = 7 | issue = 1| page = 6 | doi = 10.3390/jintelligence7010006 | pmid = 31162385 | pmc = 6526409 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

===Responses by subjects of the book===
In his review of ''The Mismeasure of Man'', [[Arthur Jensen]], a University of California (Berkeley) educational psychologist whom Gould [[Arthur Jensen#Criticism|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. Jensen also criticized Gould for concentrating on long-disproven arguments (noting that 71% of the book's references preceded 1950), rather than addressing "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields", suggesting that drawing conclusions from early human intelligence research is like condemning the contemporary automobile industry based upon the mechanical performance of the [[Ford Model T]].<ref name="jensen">{{cite journal | last1 = Jensen | first1 = Arthur | year = 1982 | title = The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons | url = http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html | journal = Contemporary Education Review | volume = 1 | issue = 2| pages = 121–35 }}</ref>

[[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]], co-author of ''[[The Bell Curve]]'' (1994), said that his views about the distribution of [[Intelligence|human intelligence]], among the [[Race (classification of humans)|races]] and the [[ethnic group]]s who compose the U.S. population, were misrepresented in ''The Mismeasure of Man''.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Miele | first1 = Frank | year = 1995 | title = For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls | url = http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html | journal = Skeptic | volume = 3 | issue = 2 | pages = 34–41 | url-status = bot: unknown | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20041013225203/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html | archive-date = 2004-10-13 }}</ref>

Psychologist [[Hans Eysenck]] wrote that ''The Mismeasure of Man'' is a book that presents "a [[Paleontology|paleontologist]]'s distorted view of what [[psychologist]]s think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science".<ref>Eysenck, Hans (1998). ''Intelligence: A New Look''. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, [https://books.google.com/books?id=r3Gt9MKiNVoC&pg=PA3 p. 3].</ref>

===Responses to the second edition (1996)===
Arthur Jensen and Bernard Davis argued that if the ''g'' factor ([[g factor (psychometrics)|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 test]]s 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.<ref name="jensen" />

[[Jim Flynn (academic)|James R. Flynn]], a researcher critical of [[Racialism|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. Jensen's arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or ten or one hundred factors."<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal | last1 = Flynn | first1 = J. R. | year = 1999 | title = Evidence against Rushton: The Genetic Loading of the Wisc-R Subtests and the Causes of Between-Group IQ Differences | doi = 10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00149-4 | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 26 | issue = 2| pages = 373–93 }}</ref> Rather than defending Jensen and Rushton, however, Flynn concluded that the [[Flynn Effect]], a nongenetic rise in IQ throughout the 20th century, invalidated their core argument because their methods falsely identified even this change as genetic.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

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.<ref>Deary, I. J. (2001). Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BU6PqaBYjeYC&pg=PT125 p. 125].</ref>