Weird how many people will unfollow you for saying Gould had meaningful contributions to evolutionary theory. Is this controversial or something now? I get he didn't like hereditarianism, but why overextend the argument so far against him?
Gould's book 'The mismeasure of man' is the most intellectually dishonest book I've ever read (which is saying a lot). Ideologically biased to an catastrophic degree. It misled generations of students to reject IQ research, and caused massive harm to the educational system.
-
-
please extrapolate "intellectually dishonest"? For curiosities sake, wondering if it means to you what it means to me.
-
He lied about the research from start to finish. Misrepresented it in almost every possible way to sell his political bias.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I know plenty of extremely smart people in other fields (programming, architecture, law) that read that book and got hooked on the "IQ is bullshit" idea.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't understand this statement. A good deal of the book covered the history of early efforts at craniometry and IQ determinsima and of its assorted racialist theories. Are you saying that Gould made that stuff up or misrepresented the history?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ive heard of him a while back when nature and nurture debate was still going on. Weird how this politically motivated social constructionism is popping back up again to a generation who were not familiar with the nature vs nature debate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.