<p>I stand by my words. Gould’s masterpiece on the subject, “The Mismeasure of Man” was loved by the media but severely criticized by his peers. I remember showing it to a friend (undergrad degree in physics, and a PHD in statistics) and asked for his comments. His answer was that the book is “polemic” and that Gould did not understand factor analysis. This opinion seems consistent with that of Bernard Davis, Adele Lehman Professor of Bacterial Physiology at Harvard Medical School, and numerous others:</p>
<p>[Article…[/url</a>]</p>
<p>One of the scientists he criticized in the book is Arthur Jensen, who did not respond quite as nicely as Dr. Davis:</p>
<p>More work still needs to be done, of course, but unless somebody can come up with research data that can be replicated and that run counter to existent evidence, the results as expressed must stay for now.</p>
<p>Unfortunately Prof Gould is not alive to respond. Prof Davis review notes several reviews of Gould, one of which is positive, but then dismisses the positive review because the editors of the review in question are said to have an agenda. </p>
<p>OTOH he does not mention Prof Lewontin (I had to find reference to him on wiki) who apparently did criticize Gould on methodology, but still rejected Jensen’s results.</p>
<p>I found a nice piece on Gardner responding to critics of MI. </p>
<p>From all I can gather, there is quite enough disagreement about Jensen’s work and Murray’s policy recommendations based on it, that I would be reluctant to make public policy (for example about whom college benefits and does not benefit) based on it.</p>
<p>I always thought college would mean being around intelligent people on an atmosphere that professors would encourage students to be open minded and objective. Man was I wrong. I am shocked at how narrow minded people are and how biased some professors are. I’ve had professors who refuse to assign any authors that oppose their personal views, and who openly demean other political beliefs. There are a couple who challeneg students to support their views, but i think if you’re looking for an atmosphere of intellecual growth, college can be overrated. There is too much bias in my field, and students tend to overwhelmingly fall on one side of the political spectrum. I have become better at defending my positions, but I’ve found myself becoming more close minded because just aren’t with it. As in, they just don’t know how to make and defend arguments and have trouble understanding what writers are arguing. I thought there would be more intelligent people. I think it’s overrated in terms of intellectual growth, because a lot of times you rely on yourself to explore ideas. Maybe that’s just because my two majors are heavily biased. I was hoping for more intellectual diversity.</p>
<p>^^Gould’s book was published in 1981 and he passed away in 2002. I think he had plenty time to respond.</p>
<p>If one of seven reviews is positive, that means 85% of reviews is negative. Furthermore, who wrote the positive review. Is the person a member of the “radical science movement”?</p>
<p>It is important to know that Gould, Lewonton, Rose, Kamin and the like are associated with this movement and oppose disciplines such as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. More recently, Rose was involved in the academic boycott of Israeli scientists.</p>
<p>I personally have no problem with their political activities, but I do resent the mixing of person beliefs and science. It is for this reason that I ask for empirical data to support their position. I have not seen any thus far.</p>
<p>The article posted is more of the same. When you see an author use terms like “psychometric supremacist” or “methodological wizardry” you know you are dealing with an advocate, and probably one that is suffering from math envy. Furthermore, the fact that teachers like multiple intelligence is not much of an endorsement, as the graph here clearly illustrates:</p>
<p>Jensen’s work is a lot more robust than the public thinks. My friend, who is a Canadian liberal (leftist by American standards) was trying to debunk his work and came away impressed with Jensen’s masterful application of statistics and experimental design. Over the years, he answered his critics one by one with additional empirical studies. I have not seen any serious criticism of his work in a long time. Opinions do not count; I want to see hard data.</p>
<p>Murray’s policy recommendations are also politically driven. Whether politicians want to adopt them is also a political decision. My experience with politicians is that they will not make a hard decision if they can kick the can down the road a little longer. Maybe the deficit will make the decision for them real soon.</p>