(1) On Burt, Jensen, factor analysis, and indeed the critical reviews, were any of these issues addressed or responded to in the second edition? The second edition as I recall came out in the late 90s.

(2) I’m not certain how Gould’s leaving out Sanger (who wasn’t conducting eugenics research, but arguing for birth control based in part on eugenics arguments) and “other eugenicists of the left” undermines his central thesis, which, as I understand it, is that research has been frequently misinterpreted (as opposed to merely deliberately distorted) to support researchers’ social prejudices.

(3) My takeaway from TMOM on “G” was that (a) the problems with defining “general intelligence” are numerous; (b) the methods by which we have sought to test and quantify it are as subject (and perhaps more subject) to bias as other fields of science; (c) the motives and beliefs of researchers within the field have often been unquestionably biased by racism, sexism, and classism, and (d) in light of the foregoing, one should examine closely and not accept at face value any claims made in reliance on “IQ tests” (a measure of “G”).

It doesn’t seem to me that your points, for the most part, affect my takeaway from TMOM.

About the specific points — I am not qualified to comment on the specific cited issues without a lot more research, and I’m not likely to get to it in the near future, but I definitely will go through your cites when I can.

Laura , I doubt this will convince you, but, sadly, The Mismeasure of Man is one of Gould’s worst books. It’s filled with straw-man arguments, ignores the existing evidence, and picks & chooses who he will argue against. For example, Gould omits any mention of the eugenicists of the left, such as Margaret Sanger.

I would recommend Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate instead.

While the nonscientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical (Davis, Bernard D. (1983). Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press. The Public Interest, 74, 41-59).

- Gould also makes some misleading comments about the early performance of Jewish migrants on psychometric tests. Goddard never found that Jews as a group did poorly, and there is no evidence the tests were used in passing the 1924 Immigration Act (see, Franz Samelson (1975, 1982), Snyderman & Herrnstein 1983).

- Gould overlooks identical twin studies.

- Gould’s factor analysis is incorrect (also see John Carroll’s review Intelligence 21, 121-134 (1995), (also, Jensen Contemporary Education Review Summer 1982, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 121- 135.) David J. Bartholomew, from London School of Economics, who has writtena textbook on factor analysis, also explains in “Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies” where Gould goes wrong in this area.

-Gould states that Morton “doctored” his collection of results on cranial size, but J. S. Michael (1988) remeasured a random sample of the Morton collection he found that very few errors had been made, and that these were not in the direction that Gould had asserted.

- The Army actually still uses IQ tests, and more generally, the tests have been shown to strongly predict academic performance.

- Gould largely attacks old tests. Jensen responded to a large amount of Gould’s criticism in Contemporary Education Review
Summer 1982, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 121- 135.) I don’t think Gould ever replied.

-He attacks Cyril Burt for fabricating his twin studies, but books since Gould’s first edition came out have vindicated Burt (Joynson (1988) and the other by Ronald Fletcher (1991). Further, twin studies since show average heritability from these studies of 75%, almost the same as Burts supposedly ‘faked’ heritability of 77%.

I notice you forgot to comment on the part where they measured their production staff’s testosterone levels. The embarrassment of the high-testosterone woman and the (dare I say) impotent frustration of the low-testosterone guy certainly reinforce your arguments.