Gould Mismeasure pages 204-222

 Initial questions:

1. Can we speak about human pathology without reifying and thingifying humanity (e.g. without constructing an ideal conception of persons upon which pathologies are a deviation).

2. Was Lippmann’s debate with Terman formative for the genesis of what would be called neoliberalism?

3. How do we distinguish between within-group and between-group differences?

4. What do we do once Gould has destroyed the common ‘knowledge’ about IQ tests?

5. What kind of history is Gould writing? Is it genealogy? What kinds of objects is Gould surveying? Does he help us problematize the selection, use, and mobilization of data? 

6. What is and is not being tested for by Terman? 

Discussion:

What is the origin of a true pathology, and how is that differentiated from an arbitrary ideology which determines norms? How can we distinguish between the two? This question arises in response to page 218, in which Gould speaks of people with Down’s Syndrome as possessing a “true pathology.” But does this imply an understanding of a human norm?

Not necessarily, because the structure of his argument tells us that the importance of “Down Syndrome” in this scenario is not a supposed ‘lack of intelligence’ possessed by those with three chromosomes, but rather that, if they score low on an IQ test (and the belief is that this is related to their genetic trait of possessing an extra chromosome), we are not warranted to say that all people who score low on IQ tests do so because they are genetic. 

This paragraph can probably be salvaged, using less controversial examples of pathologies, like cancer. If a heavy smoker develops cancer, we cannot presume that all people with cancer have it on account of their behavior. This is the form of the error made by Terman. 

Regarding this obsession with IQ, the Foucaldean concern with knowing oneself, can we extrapolate for a second to the “ancestry” industry? It capitalizes upon our desire to know ourselves, and to understand our potential pathologies. On page 207, Gould examines how much money is to be made regarding these standardized tests. 

On 209 Gould writes about a mother who is excited because her boy is learning how to read, though Terman is skeptical of this excitement, as the child received a low IQ test, meaning that no matter how much energy he puts into reading, he will never be able to achieve what a reasonable parent might expect. The IQ test is meant to realize a disinterested, exacting measurement of human intelligence which is not subject to (say, motherly) intuition. 

Back to the question of the difference between within-group and between-group hereditability. Gould’s point is that he doesn’t know whether there exists any within-group heritability of traits (say, within a family), but even if you do find it, there would be no evidence to extrapolate that finding into a between-group situation, like a neighborhood. 

Let’s all remember, on a different note, that Lippmann has an early and late period. While his late period may have been neoliberal, his early period seems more radical (using the state to impose good). 

Let’s end off on the question of what we do once the IQ test is destroyed as faulty. How do we justify or standardize universal education without acknowledging intelligence as that which is fostered, and without a way of measuring the success of that fostering.