Editing The Mismeasure of Man (section)

===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/>