Talk:The Mismeasure of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for The Mismeasure of Man:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Edit quotations of praise and criticism into standard encyclopaedic tone (with references if necessary). Find some more positive reviews Find all awards that this book has received Clean up the references

The Mismeasure of Man is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Polar discussion 2 Rushton and the Pioneer Fund 3 Revert of 213.78.161.139's edits 4 Misrepresenting other people's views 5 Article Bias Removed 6 Technical Capility Limitation Exposed In This Article 7 Bell Curve 8 Gould vs. Murray 9 NPOV please 10 Brevity 11 Why isn't The Mismeasure of Man a controversial book?

[edit] Polar discussion

It seems as though criticisms of Goulds work are being discussed in the article by two authors, where one arguement will immediately be followed up by an explanation. Im not sure if this is against wiki's ideals or not, but it seems like the article would read better if those comments were fused into one sentence, so it seems more like it was written by 1 author. tskaze 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

that would definitely be an improvement. --Rikurzhen 21:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton and the Pioneer Fund

Original line from Criticisms section:

J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund (which supported some research cited in The Bell Curve), and whose own work has been widely criticized as scientific racism, has charged Gould with scholarly malfeasance for misrepresenting or ignoring relevant scientific research.

I'm removing the parenthetical statement because it implies an ideological link between The Bell Curve and the Pioneer Fund. The Bell Curve cites hundreds of sources, and given the amount of research funded by the Pioneer Fund I'd bet money that they've supported a fair amount of research cited in The Mismeasure of Man as well, so this fact alone is not worth noting. I'm also removing the weasel statement accusing Rushton of scientific racism. What other people think of the guy is better noted in the article J. Philippe Rushton, not here. If anyone knows of any specific criticisms Gould himself has made against Rushton, perhaps those should be included here. -- Schaefer 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not necessary or relevant to denigrate Rushton in a parenthetical statement. It is necessary and relevant to note that the criticisms come from people whose work Gould has attacked, as opposed to uninvolved referees. I've put in a few words which I hope will make it clear that Rushton is an interested party. -Willmcw 22:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of 213.78.161.139's edits

An anonymous user revised the article, changing present-tense verbs to past-tense verbs (because Gould is dead, presumably.)

I have reverted back to the present tense, because the present tense is used when discussing literary works. -Grick(^{talk to me}) 02:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresenting other people's views

In an interview in The Skeptic, Murray claimed that Gould misrepresented his views. For what it is worth, Gould has done this on a regular basis in many of his essays on evolutionary biology. He would regularly subtly misrepresent the views of other evolutionary biologists, and then skewer them as ignorant, and then explain why his own views were revolutionary. He got something of a bad reputation in the Evo. Biol. community because of this. Interestingly, people he criticised often agreed with many of his ideas; they just lament the fact that (in their view) they could have come to more agreement had he spoken to them. RK 23:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, there are a number of other claims in response to Gould's Mismeasure of Man that he also misrepresented the views of those he went on to criticize in his book.

Are you crazy? Or have you get all your evolutionary biology from Dan Dennet? — Miguel Chavez 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias Removed

I have removed 2 items of bias from the article.

1. The statement, in the summary, with no background or justification, that Gould was "flogging a dead horse" in his criticism of the Bell Curve. Also, the statement, cited without sources, that there is a correlation of 0.4 between cranial capacity and IQ. This is not scientifically demonstrated by a trustworthy source.

2. The statement that the Pioneer Fund does scientific research. They are partisan, and they do not do any quality research.

Peter Johnson, 15-Apr-05 16:13

The Pioneer Fund does fund research, and that is one of the problems. The fact that they do not, in the view of Gould and other, do quality research is part of the theme of the book. With all due respect, I'm going to re-insert that item. There may be a better way of wording it. Please feel free to re-write it. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Capility Limitation Exposed In This Article

There seems to be a technical limitation within Wikipedia exposed in this article under the heading "Claims of bias and falsification". The hyperlink letter "g" (followed by [factor]) should rather be the hyperlink "g factor". I attempted to correct it but was not able to due to the technical capabilities of wikipedia.

[edit] Bell Curve

Cut from intro:

Gould later revised and expanded the book in reply to arguments from The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, also a controversial book.

None of this is mentioned further down in the article.

The tendency is for people to review the Bell Curve without reading it, and I wouldn't want our readers to think Gould had done this too.

Please, someone summarize Gould's critique of the Bell Curve and then put this sentence back in the article. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You can actually see The Bell Curve mentioned on the picture of the cover! Removing that sentence makes later references to Herrnstein and Murray meaningless. I have re-added it. Noisy | Talk 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gould ascribes various opinions to Herrnstein and Murray which Murray and others say are not expressed or asserted in The Bell Curve.

Gould also disagrees with these opinions.

So I propose changing the text to clarify the fact that:

1. Gould says The Bell Curve asserts X
2. Gould disagrees with X
3. Bell Curve authors (and others) dispute Gould's claim that the Bell Curve asserts X

In other words, Gould disagrees with certain ideas and says why (good so far). Gould also attributes those ideas to others, but those others deny endorsing those ideas. Uncle Ed 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gould vs. Murray

In a New Yorker article, Gould wrote that The Bell Curve contains:

"...claims and supposed documentation that race and class differences are largely caused by genetic factors and are therefore essentially immutable." [1]

Now I have not read the Bell Curve, but it ought to be pretty clear to anyone whether it does or does not claim either of the following:

1. that race and class differences are largely caused by genetic factors
2. that race and class differences are therefore essentially immutable

Probably the easiest way to determine who's right about what the book says, would be a direct quote from the book. I'm looking for something in this form:

• Murray and Herrnstein wrote (on page 368): "Race and class differences are immutable. They are coused by genetic factors. No amount of education or coddling can ever change this." (invented for Wikipedia talk)

My question to my fellow Wikipedians is whether The Bell Curve contains any such quotation.

Until one of us reads the book and finds a quotation anything like the invented bullet point above, I think the article should leave as an open question whether the book contains the points Gould says it does. The article should not say he is wrong, but it should not assume he is right either.

Noisy, do you agree? --Uncle Ed 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have an unused book token that I was given as a Christmas present: The Bell Curve is a little outside my general reading area, and my pile of unread books has been growing since I started contributing to Wikipedia, but it is one of those books that you "should" own. Frankly, having read a couple of Gould's books, I'd go for The Bell Curve anyway.

However, given the controversies around both books, I'd have thought that the internet would provide enough to-ing and fro-ing to support any demonstration of disputed claims. Such references would also avoid having to pick and choose individual sentences or paragraphs ... around which cherry-picking or POV arguments could be made. (Not to mention OR.) Safer just to point at other web articles, I'd have thought. As an encyclopaedia we should be just reporting the controversy - not adding to it. Noisy | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking around on the Internet and found the following "review of a review":

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sarle.html

Apparently Gould disagrees with a lot of pre-1950 beliefs (which Murray and Herrnstein also disgree with). If I have time over the weekend, I'll quote from this review (which in turn quotes from The Bell Curve) to show what the book said about the points which get Gould so exercised.

Or if you have time, would you please go ahead and do that? --Uncle Ed 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV please

I am the one who put up the disputed tag on the article page. I find it most unencyclopedic to have sentences starting right in the intro such as Gould's revised and expanded text is touted as supposedly refuting arguments purportedly made in another controversial book, The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Please compare this page and its editorial view with that of the possibly opposing viewpoint, The Bell Curve. Overall, the tone of this page seems to take issue with not only the book, but also the writer (also brings up the point - we should refrain from ad hominems in the talk page, but should we really quote ad hominems when somebody else says it? I think it's just as inappropriate). Sorry for yesterday, for some reason my edits to the talk page didn't stick. --Ramdrake 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started by adding Leon Kamin's positive review. I have also copied all the negative reviews to Wikiquote, so that we can weed out what we have here without losing information. Ideally, both sections should be summarised so as to achieve a descriptive tone of voice instead of concatenating quotations. Arbor 07:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, this is already much better. Thanks for your input! --Ramdrake 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brevity

It seems that a large portion of the criticism section was just out of control quotation. I understand that wikipedia wants contents, not links, but completely restating, verbatim, large portions of the argument seems like the wrong direction to go in. Certainly, this tit-for-tat could go both ways and become unmanageable. There's also a lot of work left to do in toning down the editorializing in describing the arguments. --JereKrischel 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You JereKrischel went too far with the Bartholomew edit. I've read the book and MMoM is at the center of many of the discussions, as the quotes the anon provided would indicate. Better to restore what was there and let the paraphrasing be done over time. --Rikurzhen 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly has gone "too far" with the addition of Bartholomew? Your objection isn't that clear IMO.

I'm not sure who left this last message. The removal of the quotes and their replacment with a single sentence of criticism, instead of an enumartion of the many criticisms found in the many quotes, is objectionable. The lengthy quotes in themselves could be seen as a problem b/c WP should use paraphrasing instead of quotes were possible. --Rikurzhen 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, Rikurzhen, that it ends up degenerating into the same kind of OR that goes on in Race and Intelligence. As an article on the book itself, it seems odd to have such an overwhelming amount of detail in the criticism, but only a passing mention of the books details itself. The same sort of thing happened in the Rushton article, where one side wanted to make his bio article a strong defense of his books and work, and the other side took up the challenge to poke holes in his theories. The level of detail really is excessive. I'll be removing them again, if you can paraphrase lightly, and find some balance on both sides, feel free to put stuff back in. --JereKrischel 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to put it back because what you removed is arguably notable. Then you or anyone else can summarize for brevity. Given the massive number of citations MMoM has, it's no wonder that a lot of this article focuses on what others have said about it. Also given the high percentage of negative scholarly reviews, it's no wonder that criticism is extensive. This isn't R&I -- it isn't a summary style article -- there's not yet a size problem with this article. --Rikurzhen 07:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where we hash out the detailed arguments and counter-arguments of everyone regarding an issue. The loop ends up being infinite, with what is arguably on the border of original research, collating and presenting POV arguments in the most persuasive way possible. It should be sufficient to state some small sampling of the various points of view, without dissecting them as if the article were some dissertation. I think R&I is a particularly egregious example of what happens when this kind of detail gets out of hand and slanted in a POV manner. We should limit this article to a summary of MMoM, not a detailed, point by point, blow by blow, defense and attack of its merits. --JereKrischel 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The argument you just presented leads to ridiculous conclusions if generalized -- we would only summarize books, but not present any discussion of their reception. Setting that notion aside -- brevity is great, but you can't simply substitute the detailed contribution the anon made with a single sentence that only mentions one of several topics that were originally covered. There's no good exuse for simply removing it given that it is notable. --Rikurzhen 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had suggested we simply list the names of critics and praisers, without any indication of their position at all, that would be a ridiculous conclusion. Similarly, deciding that the 10 point rebuttal of someone is sufficiently "notable" as to demand inclusion is a ridiculous conclusion. The problem we run into, Rikurzhen, is the poison of R&I - after you find your "notable" details, I go out and find my "notable" details, then you go and find more "notable" details, and it never ends. The tit-for-tat POV pushing under the guise of simply adding more detail seems to be a familiar and disturbing pattern I've seen. --JereKrischel 07:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How many books are there that discuss MMoM in more than 1 chapter? Common sense is an excellent guide here. A paragraph about MIFF would be sufficient, but it needs to be a good strong summary, not a half sentence. --Rikurzhen 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In case I didn't mention before, I've read MIFF and the anon's edits were on spot and not taken out of context as far as I remember. Bartholomew, who AFAIK has never written anything about intelligence before, has some strong criticisms of MMoM. --Rikurzhen 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is just a guideline, but I take it as good sense that WP can be infinite in its depth while keeping each page short and readable. If "Criticisms of MMoM" grows too long with good content, it can be split out via WP:SS. A list of quotes is not appropriate, but that can be fixed. --Rikurzhen 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that my original problem still stands - turning Wikipedia into a platform for original research regarding detailed refutations and defenses of positions isn't desirable. It invites and provides a superficial safe harbor for POV wars. --JereKrischel 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the list of quotations consititues [[[WP:NOR|original research]]. It is a list of quotes, which itself is undesirable, but not OR. --Rikurzhen 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, in the intertest of "brevity" -- why did you delete the entire cite to the journal Nature? Other deletions aside for now --

I trimmed the quotes down to essentially the overview and first paragraph. Is there a particular snippet you think should be reintroduced? --JereKrischel 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to start at the beginning JereKrischel, before we get into the details, of which there are many. First, why do you feel it's appropriate to unilaterally make substantial changes, without any discussion beforehand, to a controversial topic?

[edit] Why isn't The Mismeasure of Man a controversial book?

It appears that the book is highly controversial and is considered controversial. That should be clear enough from the article itself and from the qualifications of those cited. Why exactly is this an issue?