The Mismeasure of Man (Revised & Expanded) (original 1981; edition 1996)

by Stephen Jay Gould (Author)

Members	Reviews	Popularity	Average rating	Mentions
1,833	17	9,229	(4.09)	3

DarthDeverell's review

In The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould examines the manner in which scientists described intelligence as “unitary, linearly rankable, [and] innate” in order to argue for social programs or against aiding the disadvantaged (pg. 23). He combines his knowledge as a paleontologist with that of a social historian in exploring how these ideas developed and changed over time. Gould’s book “discusses, in historical perspective, a principal theme within biological determinism: the claim that worth can be assigned to individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity. Two major sources of data have supported this theme: craniometry (or measurement of the skull) and certain styles of psychological testing” (pg. 52). He works to “criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is” (pg. 53). Indeed, beyond summarizing the scientific concepts, he spends a great deal of time demonstrating how scientists could not be truly objective and always reflected the concerns of their time.
Gould begins with an examination of those who focused on physical differences in their quest for biological determinism. He writes, “Racial prejudice may be as old as recorded human history, but its biological justification imposed the additional burden of intrinsic inferiority upon despised groups, and precluded redemption by conversion or assimilation. The ‘scientific’ argument has formed a primary line of attack for more than a century” (pg. 63). Those performing scientific measurements of the differences in skull size, like Samuel George Morton, presented all of their data in order to prove that they hadn’t altered it. Gould finds their flaw, writing, “The prevalence of unconscious finagling, on the other hand, suggests a general conclusion about the social context of science. For if scientists can be honestly self-deluded to Morton’s extent, then prior prejudice may be found anywhere, even in the basics of measuring bones and toting sums” (pg. 88). These biological determinists later merged their work with the worldview Darwin presented. Gould writes, “Evolution and quantification formed an unholy alliance; in a sense, their union forged the first powerful theory of ‘scientific’ racism – if we define ‘science’ as many do who misunderstand it most profoundly: as any claim apparently backed by copious numbers” (pg. 106). This led “any investigator, convinced beforehand of a group’s inferiority, can select a small set of measures to illustrate its greater affinity with apes” (pg. 118). Their own biases critically shaped their results.
Of IQ tests, Gould writes, “The hereditarian interpretation of IQ arose in America, largely through prosetylization of the three psychologists – H. H. Goddard, L. M. Terman, and R. M. Yerkes – who translated and popularized the tests in this country” (pg. 29). The founder, Alfred Binet, sought to create a system whereby schoolchildren could receive a diagnosis and necessary assistance, but American social scientists used it to differentiate people into hierarchies based on an assumption of innate intelligence. E.G. Boring, working with the Army under Yerkes, tried to prove the hereditary hypothesis of intelligence using 160,000 cases. Of his effort, Gould writes, “Boring began with the same hereditarian assumption that invalidated all the results: that the tests, by definition, measure innate intelligence” (pg. 246). While his results were invalid, they still had an impact, shaping ideas that supported Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s decision in Buck v. Bell (1927), which justified forced sterilization.
Looking forward, Gould writes of biological determinism, “Resurgences of biological determinism correlate with episodes of political retrenchment, particularly with campaigns for reduced government spending on social programs, or at times of fear among ruling elites, when disadvantaged groups sow serious social unrest or even threaten to usurp power” (pg. 28). He does, however see worth in debunking these old theories. Gould writes, “If it is to have any enduring value, sound debunking must do more than replace one social prejudice with another. It must use more adequate biology to drive out fallacious ideas” (pg. 352). He continues, “I believe that modern biology provides a model standing between the despairing claim that biology has nothing to teach us about human behavior and the deterministic theory that specific items of behavior are genetically programed [sic] by the action of natural selection” (pg. 357). (

)

DarthDeverell | Jul 20, 2017 |

All member reviews

date ▼ | votes

Showing 17 of 17

This book is frustratingly hard to rate.

On the one hand it disturbingly documents the history of "scientific" racism/prejudice re: temperament/intelligence/etc.

On the other hand it is frustratingly out of date, even as a historical source; pages and pages are used to 'disprove' e.g. craniology or the validity/goodness of forced sterilization which presumably no one believes in anymore, outside of some kooks who are not going to read this book.

On the one hand it documents the invalid attempts to 'prove' the existence and measurement of g by factor analysis and testing done in the 1910's, and the role of this proof of the supposed racial inferiority of e.g. blacks to justify the... racial inferiority of blacks.

On the other hand, the book doesn't address more recent research on the heritability of g (than the early 1900's!) or non-racial/racist dimensions of this (e.g. Gould leaves the unwary reader with the impression that all research on heritability is race/racism or class based.)

On the one hand a questioning of (some aspects of) g, heritability of g, evolutionary/social psychology/biology is given (this is the argument/question of the existence of modules/a multitude of evolved behaviors, for those who are at least somewhat familiar with these debates.)

On the other hand, Gould's answer is literally that the mind is like a general purpose computer (he uses this as an analogy at one point, but then also states twice that the mind is a 'general' thinking device, which is how it can so adaptably implement different cultures.) But this is problematic, to say the least, if there is no such thing as general intelligence.

All in all, a passionate argument against racism, including the (highly, highly likely to be) invalid claim that races are separable by intelligence/IQ/g/etc. But far from perfect and showing its age quite a bit. (

)

dcunning11235 | Aug 12, 2023 |

I started reading this book based a friend's recommendation after a discussion about science and politics. Going into it, I understood it to be two things:

An argument against the use of science to "prove" preconceived notions, in particular about the supposedly innate cognitive abilities of different races

A larger look at how it's possible to "fight science with science" (my phrase)

Given the binary option of saying whether I think Gould is successful in achieving his stated goals, I'd have to say yes. I think that, overall, he compellingly argues that some scientists are disingenuous, or even at times outright deceptive, and use scientific knowledge and techniques to draw unwarranted conclusions that bolster their biases and prejudices. He also shows how a scientist who relies on "good" methodology to gather "objective" data can still suffer bias, but that such data can, at least, be re-examined later. ("Objectivity must be defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference." [p. 36])

My general criticism of Gould is that as much as he points at other people, he doesn't point at himself. Time after time, he lambastes various scientists for failing to see "obvious" problems with their data, techniques, hypotheses, etc. However, Gould has several planks in his own eye.

Political Bias: Gould is unequivocally leftist, and it shows. That would be fine, in and of itself, if he followed the same advice that he gives to all the dead scientists he pillories...but alas. In the Introduction to the Revised Edition, Gould says he would respect Charles Murray more if he admitted his conservative bias in [b:The Bell Curve|223556|The Bell Curve Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life |Richard J. Herrnstein|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348155395s/223556.jpg|216508] (p. 37-38). To his credit, Gould does discuss his own (politically) liberal history and leanings. However, throughout the book, Gould pokes at political conservatism, making various claims about their motives and intentions with regard to furthering arguments about hereditary intelligence, while completely ignoring similar criticisms of the left. The frequent jibes and potshots at conservatism give the reader a sense of a broad, historical arc in which conservatives, and only conservatives, have tried to foist their ideas on a broader public using (capital-S) Science! There are many places where Gould could equally recriminate leftist ideas, such as when referring to the evils of eugenics or discussing the desire to create a sort of workers' caste system based on "intelligence." Whether he disregards such opportunities intentionally or because he is blind to them seems irrelevant, but the fact of his disregard is, ironically, very telling.

Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, but I grew up in a (very) conservative home. Perhaps, because of my background, I am more attuned to criticism against conservatism than other political ideas. If I am misstating Gould's lack of criticism of the left, I am happy to be corrected in the comments to my review.

Factual squishiness: Gould is a good story teller, but after reading some others' critiques about his book, I'm not sure if "good story" equals "good history." That said, in a 1983 review of the first edition of Mismeasure, Bernard Davis points to some problems with Gould's analysis of various scientific studies — problems like completely ignoring things that would refute Gould's arguments. Other reviews point out problems not just with Gould's history, but with his science as well, such as John B. Carroll's contradiction of Gould's claims related to factor analysis, g and "reification." Furthermore is the recent study by Jason E. Lewis et al claiming that Gould was largely wrong in his derision of Morton's skull analysis.

Now, I admit that I don't have the scientific or historical chops to know whether Gould or his critics are right. However, I do think there is enough evidence to show that Gould's claims are, at best, overstated. (At worst, they're straw men.) Ultimately, I can't take Gould at his word any more than the other scientists.

Final thoughts:The problems outlined above notwithstanding, I do think Gould is somewhat successful in his point about the nature of scientific inquiry. That others can go back and review his claims (and correct them where necessary), despite his biases, seems quite obvious, in fact.

However, I disagree with others who have said that this "larger" point supersedes the issues prevalent throughout the book. If Gould makes his point, it is ironically, and not intentionally, so. (

)

octoberdad | Dec 16, 2020 |

In the updated version of The mismeasure of man, Stephen Jay Gould debunks race science, beginning with measurement of skulls and body types to IQ tests and finally to a discussion of The bell curve (which I must admit I have not read). As a Darwin scholar and professor, he uses the mathematics of factor analysis to show fallacies in each of the subjects along with many illustrations. He also defends the original intent of the Binet IQ test, which was to point out children that could be helped by teachers. All of Gould's conclusions are obvious - the scientist/sociologist/psychologist sees what he wants to see and comes to the conclusions that best fit his own world view. Gould himself believes the "out of Africa" theory that life began there since the genetic diversity is greatest on that continent. But he has the firm belief that there is no difference in intelligence between races, no one race superior or inferior.

Gould does not use footnotes to cite his works, but instead uses the scientific style of intext notes. Footnotes are for clarification or for additional material. There is an exhaustive bibliography and an excellent index. And, if your eyes glaze over in the mathematical sections, they can easily be skipped without losing the continuity of the book.

An important book on scientific racism and its roots which will be on reading lists for years to come. (

)

fdholt | Jul 8, 2019 |

)

DarthDeverell | Jul 20, 2017 |

unfortunately a largely discredited work. (

)

clarkland | May 9, 2017 |

In this book, first published in 1981, Gould argues that understandings about the intrinsic intelligence and human worth drawn from mental testing (IQ testing) based on theories of biological determinism are absolutely morally indefensible, but also just scientifically wrong. Nevertheless, he argues that the scientists that found data to support this idea were not acting maliciously, but rather reproducing deeply held cultural beliefs about the social and biological inferiority of non-white peoples. According to Gould, biological determinism, despite being wrong, is an enormously powerful idea that never quite goes away. In fact, it resurfaces typically in times of socio-economic upheaval and stress. Biological determinism has political consequences as well. When groups of people can be shown to be inherently inferior and incapable of change, governments have little or no responsibility to provide these people with any sort of social safety net or support.
In his words, "the Mismeasure of Man is a critique of a specific theory of intelligence often supported by particular interpretation of a certain style of mental testing: the theory of unitary, genetically based, unchangeable intelligence." Gould sets out to re-evaluate the scientific findings of two generations of mental testers and re-calculate their data.
The first group involves nineteenth century physical anthropologists and scientists who relied on physical methods to provide evidence about the mental capabilities of African-Americans. This group of scientists promoted craniometry, phrenology, and physical measurements of skulls in order to make their arguments about black inferiority. Gould is able to show that by selectively but unconsciously skewing the data, these scientists were able to definitely "prove" that whites were smarter and had more innate intelligence.
The second group of scientists moved beyond the scientific limitations of the craniometrists and declared that intelligence could not be measured physically, but rather mentally. They drew on the work on Binet, who created the first set of IQ tests to identify mentally handicapped children to provide them with help. Binet's ideas became the basis of widespread IQ tests that reached popularity during the 1920s during a period of national hysteria about the effects of Eastern European immigration. Because the tests were in English and had a heavily cultural bias to them, they showed that Eastern Europeans had very low IQs. Things like this led to immigration restrictions and generated eugenic ideas about "feebleminded-ness".
Gould also investigates the mathematical proof involved in proving that a measurable general intelligence even exists. Using factor analysis, a common scientific technique to search for general explanations among disparate sets of data, Gould attempts to re-evaluate the mathematical proof that demonstrated that general intelligence is real. This part of the book got very complex and although I applaud Gould's attempts to bring factor analysis to an understandable level for general audiences, I confess that I didn't understand much of it outside of a very basic grip on the idea that mathematicians have not been able to prove this.
The bit about factor analysis is important to understanding Gould's attacks on the 1994 book, The Bell Curve, which relies heavily on this technique and assumptions about its validity for intelligence as its central theme. Included in the book are a few essays, including one pointed critique of The Bell Curve. Additionally, Gould includes an essay about Darwin, which is good reading.
The writing style is very accessible, especially considering Gould's professional training as a paleontologist. He does tend to use long excerpts from books, which I suppose could be considered telling rather than showing, but some paraphrasing would have done better in certain parts. I got a bit lost in the factor analysis part, (I'm a historian, not a scientist!) but I appreciate his attempts to make it understandable. Although written prior to more recent histories of science that use gender as a category of analysis, it would have been interesting to see an analysis of the ways that racial understandings of IQ intersected with popular and scientific (also erroneous) ideas about the limited intellectual capacities of women.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of mental testing and race. (

)

lisamunro | Jan 25, 2015 |

I found the Introduction to the Revised and Expanded Edition: "Thoughts at Age Fifteen" to be perhaps the most useful section of the book. In it, in addition to recapitulating his aims and his primary claims (see below), Gould lays down guidelines for honest scholarly (especially scientific)work, in proposing that "the best form of objectivity lies in explicitly identifying preferences so that their influence can be recognized and countermanded."

"The Mismeasure of Man therefore focuses upon the analysis of great data sets in the history of biological determinism. This book is a chronicle of deep and instructive fallacies . . . in the origin and defense of the theory of unitary, linearly ranked, innate, and minimally alterable intelligence."

Gould debunks the strict heritability of intelligence as proposed by those such as the authors of The Bell Curve by claiming that "we commit a classic category mistake if we equate the causes of normal variations with the reasons for pathologies (just as we make a category error in arguing that because IQ has moderate heritability within groups, the causes for average differences between groups must be genetic . . .)."

In short "This book . . . is about 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" and "the primary theme of this book--the tenacity of unconscious bias and the surprising malleability of "objective," quantitative data in the interests of a preconceived idea." (

)

Paulagraph | May 25, 2014 |

Stephen Jay Gould takes on everyone who's ever tried to quantify human intelligence with a simple numerical value, be it measuring skull capacities or the Stanford-Binet "intelligence quotient." It's an illuminating look at how easy it is to blind yourself. It's a nuanced critique of objectivity from someone who (unlike many who critique objectivity) is sympathetic to the overall epistemology of science. As he states it, "I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is" (53). His gist is that science will always be a culturally embedded enterprise, so rather than deny that fact, scientists should work to understand their biases, because, ideally, science can "be a powerful agent for questioning and even overturning the assumptions that nurture it" (55).

His discussion of Samuel George Morton, who measured over one thousand skulls in order to prove black mental inferiority, is fascinating (see pp. 83-104). Morton was an adherent to polygeny, the theory that the races of man have separate origins, which allows one to ethically endorse all sorts of racist practices. He fudged his analysis to prove his point, but could not have done so consciously, because he published his raw data along with his work, easily allowing anyone to discover the fudging. Whenever he miscalculated in favor of his own theories, he never double-checked, because he "knew" that he was right.

Gould shows how this kind of thing happens again and again-- but offers the promise that good science, well conducted, will root out this kind of bias, hopefully sooner rather than later. It's easy to laugh at some of the ridiculous judgments made in the name of "science"... until you realize that this kind of science has informed the slavery debate, immigration policy, school reform, and many other things with massively real consequences for real people. Hopefully we can console ourselves with the belief that most of these people probably would have been racists anyway (!); science was just a convenient crutch to lean on.

Stevil2001 | May 17, 2014 |

A great book about the history of pseudo-scientific ideas relating to innate intelligence, from cranial measurements to the Bell Curve. The author's main point with regard to modern IQ tests is that normal variation within a population and differences in average values between populations are two entirely separate phenomena. Attempts to rank races by any measure are therefore misguided. Along the way he convincingly exposes the fraudulent methods of intelligence research, showing that experts who tout their social agendas by appeal to "objective" numbers should be distrusted. I particularly liked the way this book weaves together biology, statistics, the history of science and social policy in an informative manner.

thcson | Dec 21, 2011 |

By using the various attempts through time of craniology and IQ testing to measure man, The Mismeasure of Man illustrates how science is a product of its times. Scientists often unconsciously collect and interpret data to fit their preconceived theory. Any hope of objectivity must first acknowledge this characteristic of man. The book shows this in a convincing readable manner. (

)

snash | May 27, 2011 |

The author details the history of IQ testing and its weaknesses as a tool in deciding public policy. As always, the author writes with a witty, conversational style that makes the book accessible to non-scientists. Updated with a new forward to address the recently released book, The Bell Curve. (

)

Devil_llama | Apr 16, 2011 |

In this book, Gould is taking on a body of research broadly centered around the idea of an innate, heritable, quantifiable ability or disposition for general intelligence. The book is organized historically, as Gould looks through craniometric analyses (measuring intelligence via skull size), IQ tests, factor analysis and other steps in between.

In the introduction to this revised edition, Gould states that his hope is to bring his scientific training together with a historical interest. In this vein, he does not fully contextualize the research he is studying but instead looks back to the actual data and methods that this scientific work was built on. This is not to say that the book is historically naive. Far from it, Gould does a nice job tracing out real political consequences of the scientific work he discusses.

On one hand, this book is an effective demolition of arguments for the reification of intelligence, in its historic forms, and its modern revivals (e.g., "The Bell Curve"). Gould's grasp of tools for statistical analysis and their correct interpretation empowers him to show the fallacious reasoning underlying these arguments.

On the other, I think the real value in this book is what it illustrates about science. There are a few cases of fraud discussed here, but Gould notes that fraud is uninteresting. Sometimes they reveal that our standards for detecting fraud are inadequate, but fraud stands as an outlier in scientific practice. Our methods are designed to detect and punish it. What interests Gould far more is the way in which expectations and a priori beliefs can subtly and invisibly affect the scientific process itself. Gould ably illustrates through historical case the theory-laden nature of observation and reminds us of the care we must take to control for it. At the same time, we see how rigorous analysis of the methods and data can reveal these errors.

I use this book as a supplementary reading for courses which deal with the scientific method, and I highly recommend it for this use. It is also an engaging and interesting read for anyone interested in IQ (and its relatives) and its social implications. (

)

jeff.maynes | Jan 18, 2011 |

One reason why I love science is that it's self-correcting; unfortunately, the corrections take centuries because cultural institutions profit from inventions like "irrational" women and "sub-primate" racial groups. Rest in peace, Stephen Jay Gould: a great writer who takes the reader by the hand through a difficult path. (

)

irisiris | Sep 9, 2008 |

One thing I grasp from this book is that even if I cannot understand statistical analysis, it is not because I’m innately stupid. The book can be depressing in the fact that so many do so much to defend they’re prejudices and so many are willing to take it for truth.

“Interestingly, most of the men who built biodeterminism in the 1920s recanted their own conclusions during the liberal swing of the 1930s when Ph.D.’s walked depression breadlines and poverty could no longer be explained by innate stupidity.” (p. 29)

“The difference between strict hereditarians and their opponents is not, as some caricatures suggest, the belief that a child’s performance is all inborn or all a function of environment and learning. I doubt that the most committed antihereditarians have ever denied the existence of innate variation among children. The differences are more a matter of social policy and educational practice. Hereditarians view their measures of intelligence as markers of permanent, inborn limits. Children, so labeled, should be sorted, trained according to their inheritance and channeled into professions appropriate for their biology … Antihereditarians … test in order to identify and help. … Mental testing becomes a theory for enhancing potential through proper education.” (p. 183)

“Evolution forms a copiously branching bush, not a unilinear progressive sequence. … Modern earthworms and crabs are descendants of lineages that have evolved separately from vertebrates for more than 500 million years… They are not our ancestors; they are not even ‘lower’ or less complicated than humans in any meaningful sense. They represent good solutions for their own way of life; they must not be judged by the hubristic notion that one peculiar primate forms a standard for all of life.” (p. 348) (

)

Othemts | Jun 25, 2008 |

This is one of my most recommended reads to folks doing psychological assessments. It tells you what they don't teach you in grad school!
Life changing! (

)

lakesidequeen | May 15, 2008 |

The Mismeasure of Man is a work of the most admirable and thorough intellectual integrity. It is an introduction to the dangers of societal bias in socially-responsible science; to the importance of clear statistical thinking; to the scientific process itself, both short-term and historical; to the history of racism and classism; to the problem of reification. This is science firmly rooted in its historical and societal context.

The following is an introduction to some of the main ideas of the book, which I wrote while commenting on an article--entitled 'Why are intelligent women such fools in love?'--which used IQ-related jargon in a ridiculous attempt to give scientific credence to the idea that intelligent women fail in relationships (you can see my comment in full here):

If anyone is looking for a reading challenge I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (sexism in title for ironic purposes). It's a revisionist scientific history of the different ways in which scientists in the 19th and 20th centuries have tried to measure 'intelligence' as a single unified factor by which all persons/ethnic groups can be linearly ranked--first by measuring brain/skull size, then by developing IQ tests to produce a single score.

Not only did these scientists' methods and conclusions fall prey to their racism, classism and sexism, despite their intended objectivity, but most of them succumbed to the philosophical error of reification: assuming that because an idea (like 'intelligence') can be named and even defined, it actually *exists*.

The brain performs innumerable different activities and has all sorts of different, fluctuating capacities. These are affected in a complex way by genetics, social background, education, what you ate for breakfast, etc. There is no central 'intelligence' function that governs the operations of the brain. Applying a single number to a collection of mental processes is almost completely meaningless.

While, as Gould points out, IQ tests are helpful in their original function as diagnostic tests of modes of thinking in which an intellectually-impaired individual has difficulty, their use in ranking and comparing large masses of people is mathematically unsound, even meaningless. Yet IQ tests have been used for decades: forms of them (the SAT in America and the 11 exam in Britain, for example) have been used to decide the fate of students; at one point they were proposed as a means to prevent undesirable (and, coincidentally, low-IQ'd) Southern European immigrants from entering the US; as recently as 1994 a large book called The Bell Curve perpetuated the concept in order to affirm the hereditary intellectual superiority of affluent white persons. (The new edition of The Mismeasure of Man includes another chapter that debunks The Bell Curve: not hard since it simply reiterates old mathematical fallacies). (

)

dorothean | Aug 8, 2007 |

This should be mandatory reading. It's a combination of that good and that informative. (

)

Daedalus | Feb 9, 2006 |

date ▼ | votes

Showing 17 of 17