Annotated Web Site Compilation
Links
to sites containing reviews of The Mismeasure of Man
and Myths
of Gender
Compiled
and Reviewed by Alicia Chang:
http://educ.queensu.ca/~science/books/PDBRKM.htm
This
is a positive review of Gould's [The Mismeasure of Man]book, stating that he is
an excellent writer who uses interesting quotes, data tables and a challenging
vocabulary. Karen Murphy praises
Gould's acknowledgement of the misuse of science and recommends the book for
students.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Book%20Reviews/gould%20-%20mismeasure.htm
This
is a mixed review that provides a nice detailed summary of Gould's main points
such as factor analysis, the drawbacks of IQ and intelligence testing, and the
eugenic equation. This review,
however, does present a few kinks in Gould's book. For example, "He dismisses contrary evidence or
arguments so fast that one gets the impression of seeing a magician performing
a trick. One cannot avoid the feeling of having being duped by the quickness of
the magicianÕs movement, instead of having observed a genuine
phenomenon. In this particular instance, I can vouch for Gould as a biologist,
but IÕm not so sure that the general public is willing to trust him on
his word." Still, Gould is
praised highly for his explanation of factor analysis: "Gould plunges into one of the
best explanations I have ever come across of the multivariate statistical
technique of factor analysis, fundamental to both SpearmanÕs and
BurtÕs work." I found
this review to be very objective, presenting both the positive and negative
aspects of Gould's work.
http://www.xenith.com/articles/gould03.html
This
is a lengthy, but clearly negative review. The writer openly attacks Gould's book in it's entirety,
dividing the comments by the chapters of Mismeasure, including the
introduction. For example, one
section of this review is entitled, "Brain-Size/IQ Relations: Where Was
Gould During The Decade Of The Brain?" This review claims that Gould leaves out pertinent
contradictory evidence for his arguments and he quotes facts that have been proven
false. This review rips Gould's
arguments apart piece by piece in a very detailed refutation.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kmcguinn/kdoc/mom-review.htm
This
one is a very negative review of mismeasure of man, saying that the whole book
is fundamentally flawed. The basis for his argument is that Gould's biases get
the better of him and he cannot even attempt to make an unbiased argument. Also,
he states that Gould's main problem is the fact that he contradicts himself
several times (given in examples in the article). I question the reliability of
this source, as the author admits none of his own biases. The article is on a
site for gifted/talented students, most of whom were identified through IQ
testing, so I find it hard to believe that they could be completely unbiased in
their review of this book. Also,
the reviewer refuses to pay for the revised edition to aid in the review
process, because they believe it could not possibly contain anything new (due
to the work of another reviewer that they apparently have no trouble
believing).
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/bookrv19.html
This
is a brief but positive review of Mismeasure of Man. This review focuses on the
dedication as showing Gould's true motivation, which I thought was
interesting. The review is
accompanied with the full contact information of the author, but as this is a
fairly innocuous review, it's reliability is just a question of whether or not
you liked the book.
The
Mismeasure of Man:
Positive
Review:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-mismeasure.html
Rather
than being a completely positive review, this article attempts to take a
somewhat unbiased stance towards the subject. The article actually says that the interesting part of the
book is not what lies behind the idea of intelligence, but rather watching
"the author's intelligence at play." He states that Gould read in completion an 800 page
statistical monograph that describes the procedures of R.M. Yerkes's Psychological
Examining in the U.S. Army to uncover the negative aspects of the project. Many of the people against Gould used
statistics from this monograph as a basis for their arguement and Gould was
determined enough to plough through 800 pages to find out how he could respond
to his attacks.
Negative
Review:
http://web.missouri.edu/~psycmm/bgnews/1996/msg00097.html
This
review was written by Bernard D. Davis, a professor of Bacterial Physiology at
Harvard. Davis brought up an
interesting point in that all of the articles that praised Mismeasure where
nonscientific. In contrast, the
articles that were critical of Gould's work were from magazines such as Science
and Nature. Davis quotes a Nature
article and sates that Gould "has nothign to say which is both accurate
and at issue when it comes to substantive or methodological points." Davis points out that Gould criticized
outdated nineteenth-century techniques used measure intelligence but that he
really doesn't talk about advancements today.
Myths
of Gender:
Positive
Review: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/march2000bronski.htm
Rather
than a review of her book, I found an article with an interview of Anne
Fausto-Sterling about her book Myths of Gender. The interviewer asked about the details to her arguement and
what non-scientists can do to change the misconceptions created by researchers
in a particular field.
Compiled and Reviewed by
Hugo Aparicio:
Here
are some negative reviews of Gould by different authors, including Jensen,
Snyderman and Dawkins :
http://home.att.net/~dysgenics/gou.htm
Compiled and Reviewed by
Kathleen Bandt and Bella Parekh:
http://www.xenith.com/articles/gould02.html
We
found this website to be particulary interesting because it does a good job of
showing different perspectives on Gould's book, first from the perspective of
scientists, and then from the perspective of the literary press. The scientists in their reviews of the
book were very critical of Gould on a number of accounts, while he was praised
by the press. The actual reviewer,
who is affiliated with UNC Chapell HIll,
found Gould's research of the history of craniometry to be valid; a good
resource for scientific historians.
However, he feels that Gould is biased against mental testing, and
therefore tries to persuade his audience against such forms of intelligence
testing.
http://www.sciencebookguide.com/book.html?book=26
We
thought this site was interesting because the reviewer was in accordance with
Gould and his ideas on mass intelligence testing and the misuse of factor
analysis. The reviewer feels as if
Gould avoided some issues in his work.
"While I can understand why he took this low-key, professional
approach, I wonder if his argument are often too subtle for their intended
audience." He did seem to
find the information to be relevant and entertaining for the general audience.
http://www.brown.edu/faculty/wayland_collegium/AFS/afs.html
This
is a very interesting website because it has a quote from Stephen Jay Gould on
Myths of Gender. This site has a
link to a more in depth review of the book which makes it look like it is going
to spend a lot of time addressing female issues. This site did not see that as a bad thing and was fully
supportive of Fausto-Sterling's work.
http://www.artsweb.bham.ac.uk/49thparallel/backissues/issue5/embry.htm
This
site brings in a quote form a late cahpeter of Myths of Gender that really
intrigues us: "the scientific
process and scientists themselves are social and political beings (i.e. therefore an objective project is
impossible, 207)." This site
questions Fausto-Sterling's motives in writing the book, were they directed
towards remedying the problems she addresses in the introduction or were they
more aimed at remedying her interpreted problems with the scientific research
system itself?
Compiled
and Reviewed by Matthew Mathias:
con:
http://www.xenith.com/articles/gould02.html
this
site exposured gould as incorrect on his hypothesis about factor analysis. the author felt gould's ideas were
completely false, and that factor analysis is a valid method. he also accused gould of being
extremely biased. he felt gould's
cultural beliefs came in conflict with the real truth.
pro:
http://www.autcom.org/think.html
I
believe this to be a site in favor of gould.
Compiled
and Reviewed by Ashley Cimino:
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology/archive/september-1996/0147.html
This
site is "anti"Fausto-Sterling; in particular, one chapter called
"Putting Woman in Her (Evolutionary) Place," which discusses rape,
among other sexual issues--it looks as though the author from a university
("@unm.edu"). Interestingly, the author is a male.
http://members.nbci.com/serenova/books.html
This
next site offers a different perspective on the "myths of gender." It's
an elaborate site constructed by a woman--and I would take it to be a younger
woman. She reviews books she has read, as well as posts very....not
conservative poetry, etc. Her analysis is not particularly scholarly, but it is
interesting to read what a random sample woman thinks of Fausto-Sterling's work
(especially because Fausto-Sterling's denunciations of some of
"science" can be shocking or somewhat of a revelation for people who
have never before thought to question the status-quo).
Compiled
and Reviewd by Cecelia Jung:
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
The
Mismeasure of Man: Jensen's against it!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/2785/book_mismeasure_man.html
this
sounds like a student wrote a general summary on the book
http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/49thparallel/backissues/issue5/embry.htm
Myths
of Gender: " I see little in Fausto-Sterling's work to critique. Based on
the goals she states for her work and the evidence she examines, she
successfully demonstrates the need for much, much more research to be
accomplished before any conclusive statements can be made about gender and sex
differences. By demonstrating the impossibility of extracting the social from
the biological, the author convincingly (if frustratingly) notes the
impossibility of delineating definitive gender or sex difference. In comparison
with the other works on gender differences to which I have been exposed, this
work is truly a breath of fresh air. Rather than denying biology as a factor,
the demonstration of its limited effects without many other influences
intricately involved, allows both my materialist and my post-structuralist
instincts to co-exist."
http://www.webworqs.com/g3/apartheid.html
It
sounds like Fausto-Sterling really likes this book "The Apartheid of
Sex." This is the review given by Fausto-Sterling: "The Apartheid of
Sex is a groundbreaking book. Rothblatt makes a reasoned call to dismantle a
two-sex system. She would replace it with one of multiple sexes and sexuality.
Both her biological and her sociological analyses are sound. Read this book and
you will glimpse a possible future in which
people
place themselves on a continuum of sex and gender. Some will find this vision
threatening, but others will experience it as liberating and
exhilarating." Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Medical Science, Brown
University, and author of Myths of Gender
The
Apartheid of Sex is about:
It
reveals that traditional male and female roles are dictated neither by
genetics, genitals, nor reproductive biology, but rather by social attitudes
that originated in early patriachal cultures and that have been
institutionalized in modern law. In the name of the countless people of unique
gender who continue to suffer on the procrustean bed of sexual duality,
Rothblatt calls for a new acceptance of human sexuality in all its prismatic
variety.
Site designed
and compiled by: