There can only be one proper answer for the Mandarin Class

From The Mismeasurements of Stephen Jay Gould by Russell T. Warne.

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous 20th century paleontologist, published his most celebrated work, The Mismeasure of Man, in 1981. Gould’s thesis is that throughout the history of science, prejudiced scientists studying human beings allowed their social beliefs to color their data collection and analysis. Gould believed that this confirmation bias was particularly powerful when a scientists’ beliefs were socially important to them.

Gould believed this bias was rampant in particular scholarly fields, and the most prominent target for his criticism in The Mismeasure of Man was the study of intelligence, especially IQ testing and the genetics of mental ability. And his analysis was not kind. Gould believed that there was a direct connection between the discredited study of skull measurements and the dawn of intelligence testing in the following generation. “But the IQ…relies upon assumptions…as unsupportable as those underpinning the old hierarchies of skull sizes proposed by nineteenth-century participants.” (Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, p. 210)

It may be surprising to readers to learn that I—a psychologist who researches human intelligence—agree with Gould’s principal thesis. Scientists’ pre-conceived notions about the things they study do guide their data collection and analysis. These beliefs guide scientists in choosing variables to measure, theories to test, statistical methods to employ, and more. This connection between beliefs and methods is a strong one. After all, if you believe that the universe is made of cheese, you’re going to build a cosmic cheese whiz detector.

And though I wish Gould had not targeted my field, The Mismeasure of Man provides a great deal of evidence that scientists’ pre-existing beliefs color their judgment—but not in the way he intended. Rather, the book is a perfect example of the sin it purports to expose in others. Gould’s Marxist political beliefs made him attack intelligence research because he saw it as a threat to his egalitarian social goals. Ironically, it was this allegiance to ideology over data that made Gould himself a classic examplar of a biased scientist.

I discussed the disappointment arising from the fall of Stephen Jay Gould's reputation in These results falsify the claim that Morton physically mismeasured crania based on his a priori biases.

Many people attempt to create a moral linkage between the behavior or beliefs of an individual and the products of their thinking. Wagner is the archetype - how could music be beautiful if it was written by a Nazi? This is an example of the genetic fallacy.

a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a fact is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

I regard the effort to somehow create dependence between the moral quality of the individual and the value of their work as misplaced. They are independent variables and should be treated as such otherwise we lose all knowledge and art as they are all products (to a degree) of fallible/dysfunctional/dangerous people.

Whether Gould was a Marxist or not (and it does appear he was a cultural Marxist) is moot as to the quality of his ideas. Warner is making a very specific argument - That Gould's Marxism caused him to reject intelligence research. It is a plausible argument but Warner spends more of his time arguing 1) that Gould practiced biased and deceptive writing and that 2) Gould was a Marxist than he does showing how his Marxism shaped his arguments. As I say, it is a plausible argument, just not one much argued in this article.

But the whole piece does resurrect the discussion of the fallibility of the scientific method. The scientific method is one of the greatest developments in human history and a marvelous tool for advancing the frontiers of knowledge. But like all tools, it is subject to human error. The problem lies not with the method but with the person's use of it.

And indeed Gould could be both savage and manipulative in his arguments. As Warner points out, he did not practice what he preached. He was motivated in his arguments and writings based on his emotions and feelings and often set the goal of winning an argument above the goal of pursuing the truth. It is an important reminder that while the scientific method is an excellent tool, it is also a tool used by flawed people.

AGW, cholesterol, acid rain, skepticism of IQ, UBI, inequality, value of preschool to shape life outcomes, gender is socially constructed, systemic racism - all are topics of passionate conviction (at either end of the argument) with only the thinnest veneer of actual science supporting them. In all these cases, my suspicion is that there is often an element of truth to the position of the advocates but that the pragmatic skepticism of the man-in-the-street is probably closer to the overall truth.

It is notable that all the above intellectual fads have enormous support within the academy and among those who are fans of centralized state power, i.e. among the Mandarin Class. I think much of the confusion and rancor is that the pursuit of truth gets conflated with the need for freedom.

In other words, often times people are actually against the solution rather than the nature of the problem. AGW is a plausible argument. There are good reasons to suspect there is merit to at least some aspects of the argument. There are also good reasons to be skeptical of AGW. But the argument about the validity of the hypothesis is entirely independent from what should be done about it if it is true. Problem cause and problem solution are independent but they end up being conflated.

The fact that virtually all advocates for an extreme position on AGW are also vocal advocates for highly centralized governmental decision-making by "experts" without deference to citizens confuses the argument.

I can be concerned about the possibility of manmade air pollution (whether CO2, methane, particulates, etc.) affecting the environment and possibly climate change and yet at the same time also be convinced that centralized decision-making by beholden "experts" without the consent of the governed is a recipe for disaster.

The incapacity to decouple the problem definition from the solution identification is at the heart of most of our most contentious public debates.

Gould probably did fear that IQ testing could have detrimental impacts on both racial politics as well as class politics. It is a valid concern. But the solution is not to discredit intelligence research or attack those researchers or to suppress knowledge. The solution is to understand the problem and then formulate alternative choices of solutions and ultimately reach community consensus on what to do. You should not use fear mongering to induce panics or seek to do an end-run around the citizenry.

But that is another characteristic of the above list of fads. For all of them, there is an almost uniform effort to engender a panic about the problem. Rather than investigate to the point of consensus, morally charged advocates attempt to create fear.

"We only have 12 years to reverse climate change." "Cholesterol causes heart attacks." "Inadequate education causes social misfits." "IQ testing will lead to a caste society." "Acknowledging differences between men and women automatically leads to the Handmaid's Tale." Fear, fear, fear.

Once the fear is stoked, the solution is always imposed orders from "experts" beholden to the Mandarin Class. That and a loss of freedom, choice, and prosperity for everyone else.

Given that all the above named fads only have one solution (more centralized decision-making without consent of the governed), skeptics are actually answering two different arguments. First is about the nature of the problem itself. The second is a refutation of the proposed solution.

We end up with a cacophonous uproar with everyone speaking at cross purposes, taking shortcuts, and descending to ad hominem arguments simply to win.

If Gould was a cultural Marxist (as it seems he viewed himself to be) then of course the response was to suppress research on IQ and to attack those who researched it. Independent of the truth of the matter. Because the objective is not to solve problems but to impose an ideology of central control and planning (by the Mandarin Class).

It is too easy to gloss over the consequences. Variability in individual cognitive capacity is a demonstrated reality, however one might wish to parse it or define it. Ignoring that variability in pursuit of a power is reprehensible. If there is variability, we need to understand it sufficiently that we can either fix it, or, if that is not possible, mitigate that variability so that everyones life chances are optimized without damaging those of others.

One either has faith in man's capacity to generate improvement through Classical Liberal ideals, pursuit of truth and knowledge, and emergent order from signals and incentives in a free market of ideas and commerce or one has faith in the capacity of a Mandarin Class to improve things through planning and coercion. All the evidence supports the former approach. Academics and the Mandarin Class are committed to the latter.