Gould’s book, The Mismeaure of Man, is a history of the practice of biological determinism, focusing on the implementation of a naturally inherent intellectual hierarchy.
Two major themes that I think are important in The Mismeasure of Man are:
1: Research is always conducted within a social context.
2: Making the case against “the argument that intelligence can be meaningfully abstracted as a single number capable of ranking all people on a linear scale and unalterable worth.” Gould also makes a point to how that Biological Determinism is alive and well in modern America, whether we acknowledge it or not.
The first theme that I find important to mention is that Gould acknowledges that all science is practiced within some form of social framework. Gould even states “science must be understood as a social phenomenon” (pp53). By accepting that science is inherently social activity, then one must also identify the given social context within which the research is situated. Gould gives many examples of this, for example the brain mass calculations suggesting that European males were the superior specimen in all cases. This example is socially situated within western imperialism, and more specifically in the case of Native Americans, the westward expansion and settlement of the United States. In these scenarios science is used to justify western cultural dominance. The circumstances under which research is conducted will ultimately affect the way in which the results are utilized as well.
Gould suggests that a researcher’s background will always influence the types of questions asked, or even that the researcher may have a preference for the results, however, in science “objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data” (pp36) what implications does this have for research and do you think this is a justifiable way of looking at the question of subjectivity versus objectivity?
Gould states that “you have to sneak up on generalities not assault them head-on” (pp20). While the first point discussed seems to be the underlying emphasis of the book, this statement speaks directly to one of the reasons for presenting the case against the hierarchical ranking of intelligence based on biology. By using biological determinism Gould is essentially moving from the specific to the general, to address the issue of socially situated research.
The second theme I would like to discuss is Gould’s make focus of the book, making the case against “the argument that intelligence can be meaningfully abstracted as a single number capable of ranking all people on a linear scale and unalterable worth”. Gould makes a point to state that he has divided his book into two sections, one set of case studies pertaining to the past uses of biological determinism, and the second section of case studies dealing with more modern times. The first set of cases studies includes examples such as brain mass measurements, while the second set includes a discussion on the IQ tests. It is also interesting to note that not all science developed is used in its intended fashion, again referring to IQ tests, and how they were originally designed to identify children in need of additional assistance in school. However, while craniometry of the Native Americans was used to justify the western expansion, by hierarchically ordering peoples relative to one another, and to his surprise European men turned out to be on top. IQ tests and the bell curve are used as a way to examine intelligence in such a way as to literally assign a number to it and essentially the tests privilege a western European knowledge base. In this way IQ tests may not explicitly express a racial prejudice or a class structure inherent in the western world’s value of certain kinds of knowledge, but it is apparent that there is one present.
While IQ tests are just one form of standardized tests that produce a score meant to discern relative intelligence, the GRE and SAT are two others can you think of any other tests that function on the same basis?
Do you think that privileging standardized tests scores is justified, and why do you think that some institutions are moving away from utilizing these scores (WMU’s Anthropology application does not require the GRE for example while other graduate programs do)?
In these examples Gould has placed Biological determinism within it larger social context and has discussed the how social context can affect the way in which intelligence is abstracted in such a way as to order it linearly and hierarchically, ultimately ending at western European upper class dominance.
There seems to be a Marxist undertone to the way that Gould discusses these issues. To me it appears that Gould is equating Scientific research with the means of production (in this cases the means of producing knowledge), and in Marxist theory those who control the means of production also have the means to produce their same social class. Or in other words the use of biological determinism functions ideologically to reproduce the social relations (ultimately justifying them) and therefore reproduce the Capitalist society as a whole. Even the use of a scalar analysis, moving from a specific set of phenomena to explain a larger pattern is reminiscent of Marxist theory.Any comments on that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-What implications does this have for research and do you think this is a justifiable way of looking at the question of subjectivity versus objectivity?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe that this is a justifiable way to look at scientific objectivity. Gould made many excellent points while discussing this in the book. The most relevant point, especially to us graduate students, is Gould’s statement that “life is short, and potential studies infinite.” Why should someone be expected to spend years of research dedicated to a focus that is completely uninteresting to the researcher? This would seem to increase the chances of burnout and feelings of apathy in the researcher which would most likely generate bad science. True passion held by the investigator for the subject should only further encourage the production of the most accurate of results. There is a historically efficient system of checks and balances within academia, so when bad science is published it rarely takes too long of a time before someone corrects it and, most often, also chides the original author. All of which takes place in a public forum, typically in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. This process exists to correct both errors that are above suspicion, as well as, and more importantly, to discourage subjective reports guised as objective results. Furthermore, the individual that should be most concerned about the objectivity of a project should be the one that is the most passionate about it. Years can be spent correcting misguided specifics of the overall research that could be better spent focused on the original question.
-While IQ tests are just one form of standardized tests that produce a score meant to discern relative intelligence, the GRE and SAT are two others can you think of any other tests that function on the same basis?
The ASVAB (Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery) comes to mind. This test is designed to best assign a soldier with their occupation during the enlistment process. I remember taking it in high school and thinking that it seemed to encompass more types of material, and if I remember correctly more areas of intelligence when compared to SATs. I actually remember taking it in my high school cafeteria and thinking that my classmates who did not typically test well on tests of the more characteristic academic tests would have an opportunity to do better on the ASVAB. I would be curious to read evaluations of the ASVAB by psychologists trained in intelligence testing.
I find it absolutely imperative that a scientist fully acknowledge and publicly admit to any bias that may be present as is evident in Gould’s book. While striving for objectivity is the goal, it is impossible to erase or leave at the door all subjectivity. Different people ask different questions and thus understand different answers. These differences come from a range of cultural backgrounds which directly influence the scientist’s worldview. For instance, no one realized until the women’s movement of the 1980’s how sexist science was. Until more women started entering fields of biology, anthropology, etc was this even addressed, because old white Euro-american men did not see how their position in society affected the outcomes of their research, from androcentric projects to even the terminology used in reports. Only by stating one’s bias can others fully understand the nature behind the research and fairly address the implications the research has on the community as a whole. After all, science is always put on a pedestal and when it makes “objective” claims (like biological determinism) it can produce grave consequences for those who ultimately believe in it.
ReplyDeleteWhile IQ tests are just one form of standardized tests that produce a score meant to discern relative intelligence, the GRE and SAT are two others can you think of any other tests that function on the same basis
ReplyDeleteThe first test that I can think of is the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III). The WPPSI -III is administrated to children from 2 to 7 years of age; which is composted of several subtest such as: block design, matrix reasoning, vocabulary, picture concepts, and picture comprehension. The second IQ test is the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). There are two main reasons why the military uses the ASVAB. First, by knowing the aptitude of a candidate helps the military determine what jobs best suit the new candidate. Second, to see if the candidate can meet the minimum level of qualifications to enlist in the military. There are ten sections that make up the exam which are: word knowledge, arithmetic reasoning, mechanical comprehension, shop information, automotive information, electronics information, mathematics knowledge, general science, paragraph comprehension, assembling objects, verbal expression coding speed, numerical operations, space perception, general information, and tool knowledge. Other non-traditional test can be found on the Internet ranging from emotional intelligence test to risk-taking test.
Do you think that privileging standardized tests scores is justified, and why do you think that some institutions are moving away from utilizing these scores?
What to include in a test, the correct answer, and use of results are all decisions made by a subjective human, and therefore can not be justifiable. Institutions are moving away from utilizing test scores, because there are better ways to properly evaluate a candidate than an standardized test. Some examples are: letters of recommendation, a college transcript, or a letter of intent.
Greetings from an airport in Oregon...
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious to the reader one-hundred years later after Broca and Morton's (to name a few) theories and conclusions have been exposed as flawed and biased. The fair treatment of data is crucial to any methodological question. By having sound data, any position argued becomes more diffficult to negate. Researchers such as Morton were using inductive reseach in addition to conscious or unconscious "mistakes" in their data collection and analysis. Through the use of techniques such as blind study, data collection has improved over the years although it is still vulnerable to manipulation. The interpretation of the data is still paramount to the end result. One can, and still does, use data sets to generate an argument or thesis that may be faulty.
I found Le Bon's and E.D. Cope's (pp.137) predictions of women's liberation and equality intriguing. Did anyone else?
The first standardized test that popped into my my mind is the ASVAB. It seems that is a lasting impression for anyone that joined the military. Standardized test are privileging, but would you have wanted me in charge of a nuclear arsenal? Standardized test are no more accurate than the measurements of cranial capacity or brain size. All of them operate an a basis created by a small group that authoritatively determined what defines intelligence on paper. Somehow the scores on the paper would reflect real life situations. Intelligence does not determine behavior nor ability. One may assume that it would, but in many cases it does not correlate. If it did, we wouldn't have the Darwin Awards.
To comment on the relation of Gould's argument to Marxism:
ReplyDeleteI think Gould is subconsciously using Marxism in showing how scientific subjectivity can be used to imply superiority and dominance by those in power. I think Dustin is right on in his analysis of the means of production being equated to scientists deductively studying superiority/inferiority based on the models they create. Whatever the case may be, from cranial size to skin color to other bases of measurement, someone can use deductive logic based on their own biases in determining hierarchical social relationships in the name of 'science.' But, as Anthony brings up, this has given way to a fine-tuned system of checks and balances within academia to fight deductive logic. However, Gould does warn in the intro to the revised edition how books like The Bell Curve are born out of cyclical changes in social thought always retreading the same disproved argument, always coming up in new forms. Glenn Beck's arguments on TV and radio are a good example of a new cycle arising (however completely non-scientific and ridiculous his arguments may be).