Talk:Raymond Cattell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Overview Section

This article (as of the end of 2007) is still limited. I have expanded the introduction to provide a more complete overview of Cattell's work. I propose that the next sections needed now are (a) a biography, and (b) an explanation of Cattell's most important work. Actually, these might be multiple sections each. Anyone interested in collaborating on these, please contact me and post here. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is unbalanced and incomplete. I think the biography subsections should be the Early Years and Later Years and the work section should include subsections on Multivariate Research, Personality, Intelligence, and Motivation. I volunteer to work on these. Do you or anyone else have any input before I do that? Cattellbiographer (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their input. See discussion of the new sections below.Cattellbiographer (talk)

[edit] Biography and Innovations Sections

I've revised the Innovations and Accomplishments section, to put the most important accomplishments first and provide explanations more readable to the layman. However, I mostly left alone the accomplishments relative to factor analysis (e.g. Scree Test, Procrustes, P-technique, Taxonome), they are difficult to put in simple terms. I plan more work here... or would someone else like to jump in? I'd like to put all of the factor analysis innovations under one bullet... but that makes for an awfully long bullet, yes? I also think we need a bullet on Cattell's work on Motivation. Comments?

We still need a section on biographical background, as well. Anyone want to help on this? I'm thinking that the ordering of sections in the article should be:

  • Overview (existing text at the top)
  • Innovations and Accomplishments
  • Biographical background (one or two sections?)
  • Sections on work (Multivariate Research, Personality, etc.)
  • The remaining sections of the article

Does this sound good? Or perhaps the biography should go before the Innovations and Accomplishments list? Comments? WikiRepairGuy (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some biography sections. The Biographical Background Hawaii is brief. When I have more time I'll extend it. Meanwhile it might be merged with the Continental USA section. MetaMax (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This looks great, MetaMax! The article is now filled in nicely. I went ahead and merged the USA sections for now, I agree that the Hawaii bio is too brief to merit a section by itself. I also made a dozen minor edits. There is still a little redundancy left with later text, e.g. about founding IPAT and SMEP, but these both seem important to mention in the bio. It's a pain that the same reference appears multiple times in the footnotes when you need to cite a source in multiple places (e.g. Cattell's autobiography in Lindsey's book). Can anyone tell me a way around this? WikiRepairGuy (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Orientation, Multivariate Research, Factor Analysis, Personality Sections

I've gone ahead and inserted 4 sections describing Cattell's work. We still need something on Ability and Motivation, if someone wants to work on those. My Factor Analysis section could also use more work, I haven't explained all of the factor analysis contributions that WikiRepairGuy mentions above. The Scientific Orientation section seemed important to include, because Cattell's application of scientific methods he learned from the physical sciences was an overall theme in his major contributions to psychology.

There is a long list of references from researchers around the world in the Personality section, validating the existence of 16 personality factors. Despite its length, this list seemed important to include because the extensive scientific validation of Cattell's personality factors is what distinguished his work. In contrast, other personality tests (including some still popular today, like the MMPI) were based on factors that were "invented" (by psychologists) rather than "discovered" (by factor analysis of data). Perhaps this long list of references should be moved the wikipedia article on the 16PF?

Suggestions welcomed. Please send me email and post here. Cattellbiographer (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work! I agree that the Scientific Orientation section is important. I also agree that the extensive validation of the 16PF work is important, but stylistically I don't like the 14 consecutive reference footnotes, so I've combined these into one, is that OK? These footnotes might better be moved into the wikipedia article on the 16 Personality Factors, when someone has time to work on that. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Criticism Section and Reversion of Edits

I just happened to notice the statement in these notes that Bill Tucker "acknowledges Mehler as a source for his material" in a book published in 1994. Well, I'm Bill Tucker, and I can tell you with some certainty that I never met or spoke to Barry Mehler until 1997. Some years later, in connection with an entirely different book having nothing to do with Cattell, Barry was kind enough to give me access to the files of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, of which he is the director. But quite apart from the factual inaccuracy of the material in the note, I have no idea what it means to "acknowledge... Mehler as a source." For the book published in 2002, I did indeed cite documents from the ISAR files, but unless someone wishes to argue that Mehler has engaged in fabrication, the *document* is the source. To claim otherwise is to confuse the archivist with the archives. One other piece of information: My book length treatment of "The Cattell Controversy" will be published in 7 or 8 months. I'll be curious at that point whether you folks will still insist that there is no merit to the criticisms.Wmhtucker (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you went ahead and deleted the comment about your acknowledgement. I deleted that whole sentence, now, since the reference to you is no longer relevant in the Mehler footnote.
I don’t believe Hitssquad intended to misrepresent you, or confused the archiver and archivist. I might have written the same thing given your later acknowledgment to Mehler for “opening his files and his home" to you, together with the striking overlap of your Cattell quotes and his, and the fact that both your quotes and his have been attacked as having the same kind of misrepresentations, taken out of context and interspersed with words that extrapolate or change the meaning of Cattell’s text [1].
I’m not saying I agree with Cattell’s political positions, and I know that you don’t, but I went through copies of his books myself and I have to agree, you have seriously distorted his words, apparently to strengthen your arguments. I believe you accomplish the opposite: it leaves all your arguments open to question. I hope you get someone to review your new book and give feedback as the “devil's advocate” before you publish. I’d be happy to do that, you can send me email via my wikipedia handle. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


The folks at the Hoover Institution also opened its home and its files to me--does that make me a conservative? As my book will show, it's Cattell's supporters on the page you cite who have distorted the truth. And they're weenies: afforded the opportunity to debate the issues with me, they declined, insisting that I wasn't a fit opponent. BTW, many of the points made on the "Analysis of Accusations" page that is part of your citation are just silly. I am accused, for example, of having distorted the record when I mentioned Cattell's praise in 1937 for the sterilization policy and the "emphasis on racial improvement" adopted by the Third Reich, because, in fact, he had praised "Germany" and never mentioned the "Reich." Indeed, although the issues are trivial in comparison, the style of argument on this page reminds me of holocaust deniers, who claim to have found some minute error and then offer it as the linchpin of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Here's a typical quote from Cattell--one of many similar observations--that is never addressed by his defenders, who prefer to focus on which term he used to denote the nation ruled by National Socialists:

"Yet there are bound to be instances where interference is called for. There are bound to be leading groups and groups falling behind. There are bound to be cases where it is time to call a halt to a certain line of evolution. In uncivilized ages that surgical operation of lopping off the backward branches of the tree of mankind was done violently and without an anesthetic. The American Indians, the Maoris, the Negroes were driven with bloodshed from their lands, as blindly unconscious of the biological rationality of that destiny as were their oppressors.

In such clearly established cases, where it is obvious that the races concerned cannot hope to catch up in innate capacity (and therefore in cultural capacity) to other groups, the leading nations may attempt to reduce the numbers of the backward people by birth control regulation, segregation, or humane sterilization. Repeopling, by more intelligent and alert peoples, of parts of the earth possessed by backward people is merely following the highest moral considerations when it is done with humane feeling for the happiness of the backward people then existing. Clearly the reverse process--i.e., the giving up of territory by an advanced people to a people with a lower standard of living and denser population--is highly undesirable." ("Psychology and Social Progress," p. 360).

Cattell's writing is filled with such observations. Perhaps you could tell me whether the above quote is a "misrepresentation" or "taken out of context" or whether, in this case, I have "seriously distorted his words, apparently [what a weasel adverb] to strengthen [my] arguments."Wmhtucker (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)



This section became a wikipedia forum for Cattell's critics. I have to support Nectarflowed’s reversions of Tviund’s narrative and opinions (see below). Tviund, it sounds like you’re simply taking as fact the claims made by Cattell’s radical critic Barry Mehler, or claims by others who have taken Mehler’s statements as fact. I urge you to read the references yourself and interpret in context. In any case, please don’t write contemptuous and derisive attacks in wikipedia just because you disagree with Cattell’s more controversial writings. If you are going to use words like "genocidal" and "Nazi", you need to support these with something Cattell actual said. I don't believe that is possible. Mehler’s attacks on Cattell were never supported by the American Psychological Association or any other professional source; in fact psychologists demonstrated how Mehler takes Cattell quotes misleadingly out of context [2]. Mehler managed to get himself in the limelight with his claims at the time of the APA award. Since Cattell’s early books are hard to find and hard to read, the average reader naively assumes that Mehler’s quotations are representative. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cattell egunetics and early racist ideas

I was shocked that this page on the controversial but important pshychologist had gone unnoticed so that there was no mention of his extreme genocidal nature. It follows from this page that he something of a Saint; to his family and and close collaborators maybe, but to all leading psys. today he is somewhat of an embarrassment when it comes to his political views. However scientific, psychology is a social science, and the nature/nurture debate is intimately connected with the atrocities of 20th century politics. Leaving out Cattells strong views on eugenetics is at least irresponsible, at worst a form of colonial and holocaust apologism so common among the extremist of neo-eugenetists. That man should have be brought to justice much earlier than the APA controversy, for his hate-speech and instigation to murder and genocide. But that's my personal view, shared by many others. In this Wiki article, howeverm a temperate but accurate quotes of his wievs are needed, and further sources of the of research into his race and genocide politics. His writing speak for themselves AND he wrote much more than only on factoranalysis, in fact many question that his contribution even there can be considered as innocent and unrelated to his ideas of 'final solutions'. I guess the first contributors to this article are sympatizer of Cattell, and even worse, eugenics - so I call for people putting up the gloves and watch the devolopment of this article.

I can’t see that Nectarfloweds total reversion of the changes is warranted without justification. The older version contained no information on Cattells political statements other than his official remarks after the APA affair. But if there is no reference to the nature of his ideas on race in earlier years you get the impression that he was the innocent victim of smearing campaign. One only has to look at what Cattell him self said. Also the older version contained POV and repetitive praise on how he brought 'rigorous' science to a soft psychology - This is a matter of philosophy of science, the demarcation problem in social sciences, which is itself a debatable issue, and could have been rephrased. My changes might need some editing but I call for the ‘principle of charity’ so people don’t go and delete it whole-sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tviund (talk • contribs)

Hi Tviund. It's not other Wikipedians' job to make your essay conform reasonably to Wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view, as well as formatting. In this case, that means represent your pov as a pov rather than the truth, and don't try to turn it into a moralistic narrative* or prioritize it over the other mainstream povs. Substituting 'notorious' for 'famous' is emblematic of that approach. Overall, keep in mind that he's still regarded as prominent for the work in his field that made him famous, and Mehler achieves his argument by omitting the other side of the debate. The principle of charity means represent the other side of the debate in its best form so that your argument can refute it fairly and the discussion can be progressive. The principle of humanity means regard people on the other side of the debate as also having humanity, rather than being malicious straw men.
  • ("Even though Cattell did not recommend genocide as means of 'killing off' of a whole group of people...")
--Nectar 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly concur with WikiRepairGuy and Nectarflowed. Mehler and his friend Tucker have been discredited in their attacks, they've twisted Cattell's quotes for their purposes. Cattell is certainly not an "embarrassment" to most psychologists. With the exception of readers of this wikipedia article, most psychologists only know him as a prolific contributor to personality and intelligence theory; they are not even aware of the political attacks. Cattell's political writings are not even mentioned in existing biographies: they have not proven to be important nor even referenced, except by critics who used them for misrepresentation. Cattellbiographer (talk)