Introduction the mismeasure of man pp51-61

Introduction the mismeasure of man pp51-61 - - ~ * z ~ y ~...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: - ~ * z ~ y ~ , ? ??:7+7l:;>.>;*< .m ,-'::- C I ~ Z L OS REPUBLIC,ocrates a dvised, should b e educated a nd N FTHE S ses:. rulers, a uxiliaries, a n d craftss t hatxhese r anks be h onored and conferred u pon t hem. B ut h ow c an S ocrates, u nable to d evise a logical . With some embarrassment, he tells , , I will speak, although I really know not how to look you in the fa&, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction. . . . They [the citizens] are to be told that their youth was a dream, a nd,the education and training which they received f rom us, an appearance only; in reality during all t hat time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth. . . . ~ laucon,overwhelmed, exclaims: "You h ad good r eason to be ashamed of t h e lie which y ou were going t o tell." " True," r eplied . Socrates, "but there is m ore corning; I h ave only t old you h alf." '. : Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you a re brothers, yet God has .framed you differently. Some of you have the p owerof command, and i n the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have o the greatest honor; others he has made o f silver, r bc auxiliaries: others again who a re to bc husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of.brass and iron: and the species will generally b e'praewed i n the children. . . . f brass or iron guards the State, it will be ere any possibility of making our citizens labc con replies: " Not in t he p resent g eneration; t here is n o way o f accomplishing this; but their s ons may b e m a d e to believe in t he talet'and their son's sons, a nd p osterity a fter t hem." T H E M I S M E A S U R E OF MAN ' c - Glaucon had u ~tereda prophesy. The same tale, in different u pon dogma. For the 'past two centuries, scientific claims have become t he primary agent for validating Plato's myth. f This book is about the scientific version o f Plato's talc. The general argument may be called biolopical d etminimt. It holds that ared behavioral norms, and the social and economic differences $ : m u m a n ~oups-prim.rily races, classes; and sexes-ari;: 1 \ rom i nherited, i nborn distinctions and that society, in this senseLls - n accurate r efiect~on t Dl?. o 'his b09k discusses, in historical perspective, a principal them w i ~ o l o g i c a determinism: the l e claim that worth can be a s m d to i n d i v i u a nd m u p s by m * sunng iniitRcnce as asingle quanti2. Two major sources of data have supported this theme: craniometry (or measurement of the skull) . and certain styles of psychological testing. > ' Metals have ceder; to genes (though we retain an etymological vestige of Plato's t* in speaking of people's worthiness as their , <mettle"). But h e basic argument has not changed: that social and . conomic roles accurately reflect the innate construction of people. d n e aspect of the intellectual strategy has altered, however. Socrates knew that he was telling a lie. Determinists have often invoked the traditional prestige of scio b~ectiveknowledne, f ree from soda1 a nd-politia taint. T hey portray themselves as purveyors of harsh truth and their opponents as sentimentalists, ideologues, and wishful thinkers. %C-Loujs gassiz ( 1 850, p. 1 1 I ), d efending his assignment of blacks to A a separate species, wrote: "Naturalists have a right to consider the questions growing out of men's physical relations as merely scien, tific questions, and to investigate them without reference to either p olitia o r religion." Carl C. Brigham (lgn3),a rguing f the exclusion of s outhen +.; eastern E tlropem immigrants who had scored poorly on sugpbsed tests of lrlrlate ~nrelligencetate!: " The s steps that should be ra&ento preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by poliucal expediency." And Cyril Burt, invoking faked data compiled by the nonexistent Ms. Conway. complained that doubts about the genetic foundation of I Q " appear to be based rather on s I be*. L a- ' - m - :INTRODUCTION the soda1 ideals or the subjective preferences of the critics ~ h a n n o any first-hand examination of h e evidence supporting the opposite view" (in Conway, 1959, p. 15). ... -. s in& biological d etekinism possesses such evident utilltv tor - i.- Dower. one might be excused for suspecting that i t also .n anses m.a-Folt?i&l conte;, despite the denials quoted above. After the status quo is a n extension of nature, then any major at all, must infict a n enormous c o r c p s y c h ~ l o g change. i for individuals, o r ec6nomir f or society-in f aicing people inm d I unnatural a mngements. I n his epochal book,An Anzerican Dil(1944). Swedish sodologist Gunnar Myrdal discussed the thrust of ', biological a n d medical arguments about human nature: "They : have been associated in America, as in the rest of the world, with . conservative and even reactionary ideologies. Under their long hegemony, there has been a tendency to assume biological causadon without question, and to accept social explanauons only under the duress 0 f.a siege of irresistible evidence. In political questions, ! this tendency favored a do-nothing policy." O r, as Condorcet said more succinctly a long time ago: they "make nature herself a n B: accomplice in the crime of political inequality." This book seeks to demonstrate both the saentific weaknesses and political contexts of determinist arguments. Even so, I d o not intend to contrast evil determinists who stray from the path of sci5 entific objectivity with enlightened antideterminists who approach , r d ata with an o pen mind and therefore see truth. .Rather. I criticize t he mvth that science itself is a n ob-jective enter prise, done properly -.-- -- / ---only when $dentists can shuck t he constraints of their culture L d view e w la as lt really is. ~.o m c i o u ideologues have entered these s a debates on either side. Scientists ncedn'r become e:~ plicit pologis~s ~ e s e ervasive aspects p f or their dass o r c ulture in order to reflect tl -. were bad cibf life. ~y message is nor that biological determinists ' believe t s6 t n th 2 e 2 &e c m ust.be.understood as-ocial p henomenon, a g U ~ 9 7 h u m a p 4 n f o n n a t i o n . 1 also f or a noble hope as an upbeat for science, present this view sacrificed on the altar of & f'iliif 1 > ~ -- 0 J~.wv w a n limitations. Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. a , T H E M I S M E A S U R E OF MAN ' c - Glaucon had u ~tereda prophesy. The same tale, in different u pon dogma. For the 'past two centuries, scientific claims have become t he primary agent for validating Plato's myth. f This book is about the scientific version o f Plato's talc. The general argument may be called biolopical d etminimt. It holds that ared behavioral norms, and the social and economic differences $ : m u m a n ~oups-prim.rily races, classes; and sexes-ari;: 1 \ rom i nherited, i nborn distinctions and that society, in this senseLls - n accurate r efiect~on t Dl?. o 'his b09k discusses, in historical perspective, a principal them w i ~ o l o g i c a determinism: the l e claim that worth can be a s m d to i n d i v i u a nd m u p s by m * sunng iniitRcnce as asingle quanti2. Two major sources of data have supported this theme: craniometry (or measurement of the skull) . and certain styles of psychological testing. > ' Metals have ceder; to genes (though we retain an etymological vestige of Plato's t* in speaking of people's worthiness as their , <mettle"). But h e basic argument has not changed: that social and . conomic roles accurately reflect the innate construction of people. d n e aspect of the intellectual strategy has altered, however. Socrates knew that he was telling a lie. Determinists have often invoked the traditional prestige of scio b~ectiveknowledne, f ree from soda1 a nd-politia taint. T hey portray themselves as purveyors of harsh truth and their opponents as sentimentalists, ideologues, and wishful thinkers. %C-Loujs gassiz ( 1 850, p. 1 1 I ), d efending his assignment of blacks to A a separate species, wrote: "Naturalists have a right to consider the questions growing out of men's physical relations as merely scien, tific questions, and to investigate them without reference to either p olitia o r religion." Carl C. Brigham (lgn3),a rguing f the exclusion of s outhen +.; eastern E tlropem immigrants who had scored poorly on sugpbsed tests of lrlrlate ~nrelligencetate!: " The s steps that should be ra&ento preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by poliucal expediency." And Cyril Burt, invoking faked data compiled by the nonexistent Ms. Conway. complained that doubts about the genetic foundation of I Q " appear to be based rather on s I be*. L a- ' - m - :INTRODUCTION the soda1 ideals or the subjective preferences of the critics ~ h a n n o any first-hand examination of h e evidence supporting the opposite view" (in Conway, 1959, p. 15). ... -. s in& biological d etekinism possesses such evident utilltv tor - i.- Dower. one might be excused for suspecting that i t also .n anses m.a-Folt?i&l conte;, despite the denials quoted above. After the status quo is a n extension of nature, then any major at all, must infict a n enormous c o r c p s y c h ~ l o g change. i for individuals, o r ec6nomir f or society-in f aicing people inm d I unnatural a mngements. I n his epochal book,An Anzerican Dil(1944). Swedish sodologist Gunnar Myrdal discussed the thrust of ', biological a n d medical arguments about human nature: "They : have been associated in America, as in the rest of the world, with . conservative and even reactionary ideologies. Under their long hegemony, there has been a tendency to assume biological causadon without question, and to accept social explanauons only under the duress 0 f.a siege of irresistible evidence. In political questions, ! this tendency favored a do-nothing policy." O r, as Condorcet said more succinctly a long time ago: they "make nature herself a n B: accomplice in the crime of political inequality." This book seeks to demonstrate both the saentific weaknesses and political contexts of determinist arguments. Even so, I d o not intend to contrast evil determinists who stray from the path of sci5 entific objectivity with enlightened antideterminists who approach , r d ata with an o pen mind and therefore see truth. .Rather. I criticize t he mvth that science itself is a n ob-jective enter prise, done properly -.-- -- / ---only when $dentists can shuck t he constraints of their culture L d view e w la as lt really is. ~.o m c i o u ideologues have entered these s a debates on either side. Scientists ncedn'r become e:~ plicit pologis~s ~ e s e ervasive aspects p f or their dass o r c ulture in order to reflect tl -. were bad cibf life. ~y message is nor that biological determinists ' believe t s6 t n th 2 e 2 &e c m ust.be.understood as-ocial p henomenon, a g U ~ 9 7 h u m a p 4 n f o n n a t i o n . 1 also f or a noble hope as an upbeat for science, present this view sacrificed on the altar of & f'iliif 1 > ~ -- 0 J~.wv w a n limitations. Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. a , I 54 T H E M I S M E A S U R E O F MA: \ i 1 , INTRODUCTION 55 I t progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its i preference. Much of the debate on racial differences in mental through time does not record a closer approach to I worth, for example, proceeded upon the assumption that inrellibut the alteration of cultural contexts that I. gence is a thing in the head. Until this notion was swept aside, no Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culturei amount of data could dislodge a strong Western tradition for influences what w nd how we see i t. Theories, moreover are i ordering related items into a prog&rive chain of being. n: :i s : from .facts. T he most creative not inexolable::n Saence cannot escape its curious dialectic. Embedded in suri -a re often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of ! rounding culture, it can,nonetheless, be a powerful agent for ques'. strong-ltural. : tioning and even overturning the assumptions that nurture it. i although s till a>athema to many practicing sci, Science can provide .information. to reduce the ratio of data to be accepted by nearly every h social importance: Scientists can struggle to identify the cultural saence. In advancing it, however.\l d o not all+ mvs 1 assumptions of their trade and to ask how answers might be foroverextension now popular in some historical circles: the purely ). : mulated under different assertions. Scientists can propose creative relativistic d aim that scientificchange only reflects the modificatiok r theories that force startled colleagues to confront unquestioned of soda1 contexts, that,truth is a meaningless notion outside cul/ procedures. But science's potential as an instrument for identifying tural assumptions, m d that sdence can therefore provide no , the cultural constraints upon it cannot be fully realized until scis enduring answers. As a p racticin~ aentist. I share the credo of mv i entists give,up the twin myths of objectivity and inexorable march " colleagues: 1 believe that a t anuai m v exrsts and that science'.. i toward truth. One must, indeed, locate the beam in one's own eye . mougn okten in an obtuse and erratic marrner, can learn about it. '. before interpreting correctly the pervasive motes i n everybody Galileo was not shown the instruments of torture in an- a eke's. T he beams can t hen become facilitators, rather than impeddebate about lunar motion. He had threatened the Church's coniments. I - ventional argument for social and doctrinal stability: the static Gunnar Myrdal (1944) captured both sides of' this dialectic' world order with planets circling about a central earth, priests subwhen he wrote: ordinate to the Pope and serfs to their lord. But the Church soon made its peace with Galilee's cosmology. They had no choice; the A handful of social and biological scientists over t he last 50 years h ave earth really does revolve about the sun. gradually forced informed people to give u p some of the more blatant of P our biological errors, But h ere must be still other countless errors of t he Yet the history of many scientific subjects is virtually free from same son that no living man can yet detect, because of t he fog w ithin w hich such constraints of fact for two major reasons. First, some topics : our type of Western culture envelops us. Cultural influences have set u p are invested with enormous social importance but blessed with very about h e mind, the body, a nd t he universe w ith w hich w e htde reliable information. When the ratio of data to social impact w e ask: influence the facts w e s eek; determine is so low, a history of $&:ntific attitudes may be Iittle more than an w e give these facts; a nd direct o ur reaction to oblique record of social change. The history of scientific views on and conclusions. rac es of s oaal movements (Yronne, + times and bad, in peridds of B 3 i c a ldeterismo-d k7 ncE belief in equality and in eras 0 o n e o o k - f o r it touches virtually every as^a of the interaction b of t he old eugenics in America was sounae parbetween biology and sodery since the dawn offi0dEt.n science. 1 1-1 ,/ - "4 $* ' -* # ' - - Second,many questions are formulated by sciehtisq in such a e-m s that any legitimate answer can only validate a social , '. have therefore confined myselt to one central and manageable argument in the edifice of biological d e t e m i n i m n argument in two historical chapters, based on two deep fallacies, and carried forth'in one common style. ' I 54 T H E M I S M E A S U R E O F MA: \ i 1 , INTRODUCTION 55 I t progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its i preference. Much of the debate on racial differences in mental through time does not record a closer approach to I worth, for example, proceeded upon the assumption that inrellibut the alteration of cultural contexts that I. gence is a thing in the head. Until this notion was swept aside, no Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culturei amount of data could dislodge a strong Western tradition for influences what w nd how we see i t. Theories, moreover are i ordering related items into a prog&rive chain of being. n: :i s : from .facts. T he most creative not inexolable::n Saence cannot escape its curious dialectic. Embedded in suri -a re often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of ! rounding culture, it can,nonetheless, be a powerful agent for ques'. strong-ltural. : tioning and even overturning the assumptions that nurture it. i although s till a>athema to many practicing sci, Science can provide .information. to reduce the ratio of data to be accepted by nearly every h social importance: Scientists can struggle to identify the cultural saence. In advancing it, however.\l d o not all+ mvs 1 assumptions of their trade and to ask how answers might be foroverextension now popular in some historical circles: the purely ). : mulated under different assertions. Scientists can propose creative relativistic d aim that scientificchange only reflects the modificatiok r theories that force startled colleagues to confront unquestioned of soda1 contexts, that,truth is a meaningless notion outside cul/ procedures. But science's potential as an instrument for identifying tural assumptions, m d that sdence can therefore provide no , the cultural constraints upon it cannot be fully realized until scis enduring answers. As a p racticin~ aentist. I share the credo of mv i entists give,up the twin myths of objectivity and inexorable march " colleagues: 1 believe that a t anuai m v exrsts and that science'.. i toward truth. One must, indeed, locate the beam in one's own eye . mougn okten in an obtuse and erratic marrner, can learn about it. '. before interpreting correctly the pervasive motes i n everybody Galileo was not shown the instruments of torture in an- a eke's. T he beams can t hen become facilitators, rather than impeddebate about lunar motion. He had threatened the Church's coniments. I - ventional argument for social and doctrinal stability: the static Gunnar Myrdal (1944) captured both sides of' this dialectic' world order with planets circling about a central earth, priests subwhen he wrote: ordinate to the Pope and serfs to their lord. But the Church soon made its peace with Galilee's cosmology. They had no choice; the A handful of social and biological scientists over t he last 50 years h ave earth really does revolve about the sun. gradually forced informed people to give u p some of the more blatant of P our biological errors, But h ere must be still other countless errors of t he Yet the history of many scientific subjects is virtually free from same son that no living man can yet detect, because of t he fog w ithin w hich such constraints of fact for two major reasons. First, some topics : our type of Western culture envelops us. Cultural influences have set u p are invested with enormous social importance but blessed with very about h e mind, the body, a nd t he universe w ith w hich w e htde reliable information. When the ratio of data to social impact w e ask: influence the facts w e s eek; determine is so low, a history of $&:ntific attitudes may be Iittle more than an w e give these facts; a nd direct o ur reaction to oblique record of social change. The history of scientific views on and conclusions. rac es of s oaal movements (Yronne, + times and bad, in peridds of B 3 i c a ldeterismo-d k7 ncE belief in equality and in eras 0 o n e o o k - f o r it touches virtually every as^a of the interaction b of t he old eugenics in America was sounae parbetween biology and sodery since the dawn offi0dEt.n science. 1 1-1 ,/ - "4 $* ' -* # ' - - Second,many questions are formulated by sciehtisq in such a e-m s that any legitimate answer can only validate a social , '. have therefore confined myselt to one central and manageable argument in the edifice of biological d e t e m i n i m n argument in two historical chapters, based on two deep fallacies, and carried forth'in one common style. ' t he divisions a nd distinctions among people that o ur cultural and p o l i t i d systems dictate. We therefore give the word wintel(igencelr this complex a nd multifaceted set of h uman c a p . bilities. This shorthand symbol is then reified and intelligence achieves its dubious sratus as a unitav thing, Once intelligence becomes an entity, standard procedures of science vinually d isate that a location a nd physical substrate be sought f or it. Since the brain is the seat of menmlity, intelligence must reside there. racterized the last *er h e n t he impact of quantified a pproaches " hum anatomy in nineteenth-century biological d eteminism. I t t he theory of r e~apitulation s evolution? a two care primaqriterion f or unilinear ranking of human grouPS1 a nd c aaempt to explain criminal behavior as a biological amvism morphology of rnu-derers and IlrefleCted in h e ( 1 9 3 ~0 1 the g remchain of being or Bury's fanlous treatment ) x (1920) of t he idea of progress. Their social utility should be evident i n h e followjng advice from Booker T. Washington ( lgoq, p . 245) to black America: ' my race, o ne o f its dangers is that i t may grow imparjent and feel [hat can g et but i ts feet by artificial and superficial efforts rather than by surer process which means o ne step at 1 time &mugh and measumble thing. 1&iscuss the KWO COmponenu of this approach to mental testing in Chapter 5 (the hcredirarian version of the IQ s d e as a n American product) and Chapter 6 ( the argument for reifying intelligence as a single enuty by the mathematical of f aaor analysis), Factor analysis is a difficult rnatical subject almost invariably omitted from documenfi for n onprofesrional~Yet 1 believe that i t can be made accessible and explained in a pictorial a nd nonnumcrical way. T he material of Chapter 6 is still not " C a y reading." b ut 1 could not leave it O utfor behistory of intelligence testing cannot be understood without grasping the factor analytic argument and understanding i fi deep grades o f industrial, menral, moral and social develop. merit which all races h ave h ad t o f ollow &at h ave become independent and strong. g u t ranking requires a criterion for assigning all individuals to their P roper status in the single series. And what better criterion than a n n umber? T hus, t he common style embodying both fallacies of thought has been quantification, o r the measure- .&* r -B *h' % : * F ~ st,iourrre a~ ~ ~ uthned above. 1 do not treat ail t harier 0 t u ~ ofh rgument o ~ craniomehcfphrcno~ogy,or eorgans wbecausebtrain)nLikewise.ntelligence (1 om;t f xample, ith the i did ot r&fy i I exclude ling]. atin but smght often quantified styles of determinism chat did nor seek imp0-t ,mu,.e i n t + g ~ c e as a propof t h b A r r f o r m p l e . 1-1105t o fagmics. ~ t he divisions a nd distinctions among people that o ur cultural and p o l i t i d systems dictate. We therefore give the word wintel(igencelr this complex a nd multifaceted set of h uman c a p . bilities. This shorthand symbol is then reified and intelligence achieves its dubious sratus as a unitav thing, Once intelligence becomes an entity, standard procedures of science vinually d isate that a location a nd physical substrate be sought f or it. Since the brain is the seat of menmlity, intelligence must reside there. racterized the last *er h e n t he impact of quantified a pproaches " hum anatomy in nineteenth-century biological d eteminism. I t t he theory of r e~apitulation s evolution? a two care primaqriterion f or unilinear ranking of human grouPS1 a nd c aaempt to explain criminal behavior as a biological amvism morphology of rnu-derers and IlrefleCted in h e ( 1 9 3 ~0 1 the g remchain of being or Bury's fanlous treatment ) x (1920) of t he idea of progress. Their social utility should be evident i n h e followjng advice from Booker T. Washington ( lgoq, p . 245) to black America: ' my race, o ne o f its dangers is that i t may grow imparjent and feel [hat can g et but i ts feet by artificial and superficial efforts rather than by surer process which means o ne step at 1 time &mugh and measumble thing. 1&iscuss the KWO COmponenu of this approach to mental testing in Chapter 5 (the hcredirarian version of the IQ s d e as a n American product) and Chapter 6 ( the argument for reifying intelligence as a single enuty by the mathematical of f aaor analysis), Factor analysis is a difficult rnatical subject almost invariably omitted from documenfi for n onprofesrional~Yet 1 believe that i t can be made accessible and explained in a pictorial a nd nonnumcrical way. T he material of Chapter 6 is still not " C a y reading." b ut 1 could not leave it O utfor behistory of intelligence testing cannot be understood without grasping the factor analytic argument and understanding i fi deep grades o f industrial, menral, moral and social develop. merit which all races h ave h ad t o f ollow &at h ave become independent and strong. g u t ranking requires a criterion for assigning all individuals to their P roper status in the single series. And what better criterion than a n n umber? T hus, t he common style embodying both fallacies of thought has been quantification, o r the measure- .&* r -B *h' % : * F ~ st,iourrre a~ ~ ~ uthned above. 1 do not treat ail t harier 0 t u ~ ofh rgument o ~ craniomehcfphrcno~ogy,or eorgans wbecausebtrain)nLikewise.ntelligence (1 om;t f xample, ith the i did ot r&fy i I exclude ling]. atin but smght often quantified styles of determinism chat did nor seek imp0-t ,mu,.e i n t + g ~ c e as a propof t h b A r r f o r m p l e . 1-1105t o fagmics. ~ 5* 7 '. INTRODUCTION THE M I S M E A S U R E OF M A N conceptual fallacy. The great I debate makes no sense without Q this conventionally missing subject. I have tried to treat these subjects in an unconventional way by using a m ethod that falls outside the traditional purview of either a scientist o r historian operatingalone. ,Historians rarely treat the quantitative details insets of primary data. They write, as I cannot adequately, about social context, biography, o r general intellectual history. Scientists are used to analyzing the data of their peers, but few are sufficiently interested in history to apply the method to their predecessors. Thus, many scholars have written about Broca's impact, b ut no one has recalculated his sums. I have focused upon the reanalysis bf classical data sets in cran iometry a nd i ntelligqce testing for two reasons beyond my incompetence to proceed h any other fruitful way and my desire to do something a bit different. I believe, first of all, that Satan also dwells with God in the details. If the cultural influences upon science can be detected in the humdrum minutiae of a supposedly objective, almost automatic quantification, then the status of biological determinism as a social prejudice reflected by scientists in t heir own particular medium seems secure. T h e second reason for analyzing quantitative data arises from the special status that numbers enjoy. T h e mystique of science proclaims that numbers are the ultimate test of objectivity. Surely we can weigh a brain or score an intelligence test without recording our social preferences.' I f ranks are displayed in hard numbers o bdned by rigorous and standardized procedures, then they must reflect reality, even if. they c onfim what we wanted to believe from the start. Antideterminists have understood the particular prestige of numbers and t he~tpecial ifficulty that their refutation entails. d Lkonce Manouvrier ('1403, p. 406), t he nondeterminist black sheep of Broca's fold, and a fine statistician himself, wrote of Broca's data on the small brains of women: Women displayed their talents and their diplomas. T hey also invoked philosophical authorities. But they were opposed by numbers unknown to Condorcet or to John Stuart Mill. T h a e numbers fell upon pobr women like a sledge hammer, and they were accompanied by commentaries and sarcasms more ferocious than the mast misogynist imprecations of c cran church fathers. The theologians had asktd if women had a $ 0~1.everal S centuries later, some scientists were ready to refuse them a human intenigence. 1 believe I .have shown-quantitative data are as subject to cultural constraint as any other aspect of science, then they have no special claim upon final t ruth* I n reanalyzing these classical data sets, I have continually located a priori prejudice, leading scientist^ to invalid conclusions from adequate data, or distorting the gathering of data itself. In a few caseGCyri1 Burt's documented fabrication of data-on I Q of identical twins, and my discovery that Goddard altered photographs to suggest mental retardation in the Kallikaks-we can specify conscious fraud as the cause of inserted social prejudice. But f raudis not historically interesting except as gossip-because the perpetrators know what they are doing and t he u l r c m c i m biases that record subtle and inescapable constraints of culture are not illustrated. I n most cases discussed in this book, we can be fairly certain that biases-though often expressed as e gregious1y.a~n i cases of consaous fraud-were unknowingly influential and that saentists believed they were pursuing unsullied truth. .Since many of the cases presented here are so p atent, even risible, by today's standards, I wish to emphasize that I have not taken cheap shots at marginal figures (with the possible exceptions of Mr. Bean in Chapter 3 , whom I use as a curtain-raiser to illustrate a general point, and Mr. Cartwright in Chapter 2 , whose statemencs are' too precious to exclude). Cheap shots come in thick catalogues-from a eugeniast named W. D. McKim, Ph.D. ( 1 goo), who thought that all .nocturnal housebreakers should be dispatched with carbonic acid gas, to a certain English professor who toured the United States d uring t he late nineteenth century, offering the unsoliated advice that we might solve our racial problems if every Irishman killed a Negro and got hanged for it.* Cheap shots arc 'also gossip, not history; they are ephemeral and uninfluential, however amusing, I have focused upon the leading and most influential scientists of their times and have anal.yzed their major works. I have enjoyed playing detective in most of the case studies that expurgated without comment make u p this book: finding If-as ' . I . ; : 'Also to0 precious to exdudc is my favorite modem invocation of biological dctcrm inim z an excuse for dubious behavior. Bill Lee, baseball's self-styled philosopher,judfying the beanball VJnu York Timu, nqJuly 1976):"I read a book in college called T q ~ i t o r i a Imperative.' A fellow always has ro protea his master's home l . much stronger than anything down the street; My territory is down and away from the hittm. I f they're going out there and getting the ball, I 'll have to come in close." 5* 7 '. INTRODUCTION THE M I S M E A S U R E OF M A N conceptual fallacy. The great I debate makes no sense without Q this conventionally missing subject. I have tried to treat these subjects in an unconventional way by using a m ethod that falls outside the traditional purview of either a scientist o r historian operatingalone. ,Historians rarely treat the quantitative details insets of primary data. They write, as I cannot adequately, about social context, biography, o r general intellectual history. Scientists are used to analyzing the data of their peers, but few are sufficiently interested in history to apply the method to their predecessors. Thus, many scholars have written about Broca's impact, b ut no one has recalculated his sums. I have focused upon the reanalysis bf classical data sets in cran iometry a nd i ntelligqce testing for two reasons beyond my incompetence to proceed h any other fruitful way and my desire to do something a bit different. I believe, first of all, that Satan also dwells with God in the details. If the cultural influences upon science can be detected in the humdrum minutiae of a supposedly objective, almost automatic quantification, then the status of biological determinism as a social prejudice reflected by scientists in t heir own particular medium seems secure. T h e second reason for analyzing quantitative data arises from the special status that numbers enjoy. T h e mystique of science proclaims that numbers are the ultimate test of objectivity. Surely we can weigh a brain or score an intelligence test without recording our social preferences.' I f ranks are displayed in hard numbers o bdned by rigorous and standardized procedures, then they must reflect reality, even if. they c onfim what we wanted to believe from the start. Antideterminists have understood the particular prestige of numbers and t he~tpecial ifficulty that their refutation entails. d Lkonce Manouvrier ('1403, p. 406), t he nondeterminist black sheep of Broca's fold, and a fine statistician himself, wrote of Broca's data on the small brains of women: Women displayed their talents and their diplomas. T hey also invoked philosophical authorities. But they were opposed by numbers unknown to Condorcet or to John Stuart Mill. T h a e numbers fell upon pobr women like a sledge hammer, and they were accompanied by commentaries and sarcasms more ferocious than the mast misogynist imprecations of c cran church fathers. The theologians had asktd if women had a $ 0~1.everal S centuries later, some scientists were ready to refuse them a human intenigence. 1 believe I .have shown-quantitative data are as subject to cultural constraint as any other aspect of science, then they have no special claim upon final t ruth* I n reanalyzing these classical data sets, I have continually located a priori prejudice, leading scientist^ to invalid conclusions from adequate data, or distorting the gathering of data itself. In a few caseGCyri1 Burt's documented fabrication of data-on I Q of identical twins, and my discovery that Goddard altered photographs to suggest mental retardation in the Kallikaks-we can specify conscious fraud as the cause of inserted social prejudice. But f raudis not historically interesting except as gossip-because the perpetrators know what they are doing and t he u l r c m c i m biases that record subtle and inescapable constraints of culture are not illustrated. I n most cases discussed in this book, we can be fairly certain that biases-though often expressed as e gregious1y.a~n i cases of consaous fraud-were unknowingly influential and that saentists believed they were pursuing unsullied truth. .Since many of the cases presented here are so p atent, even risible, by today's standards, I wish to emphasize that I have not taken cheap shots at marginal figures (with the possible exceptions of Mr. Bean in Chapter 3 , whom I use as a curtain-raiser to illustrate a general point, and Mr. Cartwright in Chapter 2 , whose statemencs are' too precious to exclude). Cheap shots come in thick catalogues-from a eugeniast named W. D. McKim, Ph.D. ( 1 goo), who thought that all .nocturnal housebreakers should be dispatched with carbonic acid gas, to a certain English professor who toured the United States d uring t he late nineteenth century, offering the unsoliated advice that we might solve our racial problems if every Irishman killed a Negro and got hanged for it.* Cheap shots arc 'also gossip, not history; they are ephemeral and uninfluential, however amusing, I have focused upon the leading and most influential scientists of their times and have anal.yzed their major works. I have enjoyed playing detective in most of the case studies that expurgated without comment make u p this book: finding If-as ' . I . ; : 'Also to0 precious to exdudc is my favorite modem invocation of biological dctcrm inim z an excuse for dubious behavior. Bill Lee, baseball's self-styled philosopher,judfying the beanball VJnu York Timu, nqJuly 1976):"I read a book in college called T q ~ i t o r i a Imperative.' A fellow always has ro protea his master's home l . much stronger than anything down the street; My territory is down and away from the hittm. I f they're going out there and getting the ball, I 'll have to come in close." :,~ 6I , ' t %%+ *' ;* , ? ,.. *F, ;+ " ;: have had a m ore direct influence upon millions of lives. Biological determinism is, in its essence, a l heoy o l m t . I t takes the current f iis status of groups as a measure of where they should and must be (even while it allows sspmer are individuals to rise as a consequence of their fortunate &iogy), I have said little about the current resurgence of biological determinism because its individual claims are usually so ephemeral that their refutation belongs in a magazine article or newspaper story. W ho even remembers the hot topics of ten years ago: Shockley's proposals for reimbursing voluntarily sterilized individuals according to their number of I Q points below l oo, the great XYY d ebate, or the attempt to explain urban riots by diseased neurology of rioters. I t hought that i t would be more valuable and interesting to examine the original sources of the arguments that still surround us. These, at least, display great and enlightening errors. But I was inspired to write this book because biological determinism is rising in popularity again, as it always does in times of political retrenchment. The cocktail party circuit has been buzzing with its usual profundity about innate aggression, sex roles, and the naked ape. Millions df people are now suspecting that their social prejudices are saentific facts after all. Yet these latent prejudices themselves, not fresh data, are the primary source of renewed attention. We pass through this world'but once. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, f ew injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within. Cicero tells + e story of Zopyrus, who claimed that Socrates had inborn vices tivident i n his physiognomy. His disciples rejected the claim, but Socrates d efended Zopyrus and stated that he did indeed possess the vices, but had cancelled their effects through the exercise of reason. We inhabit a world of human differences and ~ redilections, bat the extrapolation of these facts to theories of rigid limiu I George Eliot well appreciated the special tragedy that biological labeling imposed upon members of disadvantaged groups. She expressed it for people like herself-women of extraordinary t aient. I would apply it more widely-not only to those whose dreams ver realize that they may (from the prelude to Middle- Some have felt t hat these blundering lives are due to the inconvenient indefiniteness with which the S upreme Power has fashioned t he natures of women: if there were one level of feminine incompetence as scrict as the ability.10 c ount three and no more, the social iot of women might be treated with scientificcertitude. T h e limits of variation are really much .. wider than anyone would imagine from the sameness of women's coi ff'u re and the favorite love stories in prose and verse. Here and there a cygnet is reared uneasily,a mong the duckiings in the brown pond, and never finds oary-footed kind. H ere and n othing, whose loving h earttremble off and are dispersed . some long-recognizable deed. ' . :,~ 6I , ' t %%+ *' ;* , ? ,.. *F, ;+ " ;: have had a m ore direct influence upon millions of lives. Biological determinism is, in its essence, a l heoy o l m t . I t takes the current f iis status of groups as a measure of where they should and must be (even while it allows sspmer are individuals to rise as a consequence of their fortunate &iogy), I have said little about the current resurgence of biological determinism because its individual claims are usually so ephemeral that their refutation belongs in a magazine article or newspaper story. W ho even remembers the hot topics of ten years ago: Shockley's proposals for reimbursing voluntarily sterilized individuals according to their number of I Q points below l oo, the great XYY d ebate, or the attempt to explain urban riots by diseased neurology of rioters. I t hought that i t would be more valuable and interesting to examine the original sources of the arguments that still surround us. These, at least, display great and enlightening errors. But I was inspired to write this book because biological determinism is rising in popularity again, as it always does in times of political retrenchment. The cocktail party circuit has been buzzing with its usual profundity about innate aggression, sex roles, and the naked ape. Millions df people are now suspecting that their social prejudices are saentific facts after all. Yet these latent prejudices themselves, not fresh data, are the primary source of renewed attention. We pass through this world'but once. Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, f ew injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within. Cicero tells + e story of Zopyrus, who claimed that Socrates had inborn vices tivident i n his physiognomy. His disciples rejected the claim, but Socrates d efended Zopyrus and stated that he did indeed possess the vices, but had cancelled their effects through the exercise of reason. We inhabit a world of human differences and ~ redilections, bat the extrapolation of these facts to theories of rigid limiu I George Eliot well appreciated the special tragedy that biological labeling imposed upon members of disadvantaged groups. She expressed it for people like herself-women of extraordinary t aient. I would apply it more widely-not only to those whose dreams ver realize that they may (from the prelude to Middle- Some have felt t hat these blundering lives are due to the inconvenient indefiniteness with which the S upreme Power has fashioned t he natures of women: if there were one level of feminine incompetence as scrict as the ability.10 c ount three and no more, the social iot of women might be treated with scientificcertitude. T h e limits of variation are really much .. wider than anyone would imagine from the sameness of women's coi ff'u re and the favorite love stories in prose and verse. Here and there a cygnet is reared uneasily,a mong the duckiings in the brown pond, and never finds oary-footed kind. H ere and n othing, whose loving h earttremble off and are dispersed . some long-recognizable deed. ' . ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/09/2011 for the course ANTHRO 194 taught by Professor Kailakuban during the Fall '09 term at UMass (Amherst).

Ask a homework question - tutors are online