Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man
Reading from the “Intro” and “Conclusion” (Ch. 7) to SJG’s The Mismeasure of Man (1996 edition).
The group began, as per usual, with questions (grouped loosely as follows):
In discussing the two fallacies of intelligence testing (p. 56) SJG says his book is “about the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity”. What in/about abstraction does SJG object to? Or does he object to abstraction as such?
In discussing intelligence, SJG identifies “two components” – the IQ scale and factor analysis. What do we take these to be?
Are there newer iterations of racism that SJG’s discussion doesn’t speak to? What would his analysis say to these kinds of iterations?
If there are newer such iterations, what would the basis be for these newer iterations of racism? And could Gould’s analyses be used to interrogate these iterations?
In discussing cultural evolution and biological evolution, SJG discusses cultural forms that speed up forms of evolution (ca. p. 355). Are these relevant to these newer iterations?
In discussing the insights of biology for human behavior (which overall SJG finds well overstated), there is an argument that biology offers “fruitful analogies” for human behavior (p. 357), but the force (and sense) of these analogies is not quite clear.
In SJG’s arg. against biological determinism, there is a move away from the idea that behaviors are coded (or determined). Where does this lead? Does this motivate the importance of education? If so, what kind of education does it prefer/motivate/justify?
One good locus for discussion for this would be discussion of “generating rules” and their role in determining behavior (ca. p. 360).
We then moved to discussion:
How would SJG draw the line between permissible and impermissible abstraction?
Are there two forms of abstraction involved here? One focused on quantification of “intelligence” and the other focused on quantification across all persons (“each person”)? So one simplifies multiple complex qualities for a person. The other simplifies the complexity across persons. Is the one of these “reification” and the other “ranking”? Are these both forms of “abstraction” in Gould’s sense? What makes these abstractions pernicious? The argument on p. 56 seems to rely on the idea that abstractions are pernicious when they reify and rank. Could one, then, for instance measure intelligence without reifying or ranking?
What exactly are the problems with reifying and ranking?
The problems with ranking are clear.
Is the problem with reifying that it is reductive? “This wondrously complex and multifaceted set of human capabilities” (p. 56). SJG is concerned about being reductive about this. What is the philosophical posit here? Is there a posit about that there is a complexity?
What do we understand by IQ scale and factor analysis?
SJG emphasizes the “hereditarian” qualify of IQ scaling in the U.S..
Factor analysis is what achieves the “reification” of intelligence as a single quality by way of mathematical analyses.
Is SJG’s argument that IQ scales are what “ranks” and factor analysis is what reifies? Or is it that SJG holds that both IQ scales and factor analysis each rank and reify?
Discussion of generating rules and their products.
A “generating rule” is something like what codes “biology” to set limits on “behavior”.
SJG distinguishes between:
“products of generating rules” (e.g., behaviors or phenotypes)
“generating rules” such as “genetic deep structures”
Does SJG’s argument have traction against newer forms of white supremacy or racism that would fully accept the cultural contingencies of the development of intelligence testing?
The idea of forms of racism that depend not on biological determinism but on supremacist historiography.
This is related to why SJG’s implicit (explicit?) scientific realism is not going to actually take on the political/moral issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment