RE: [tips] HH Goddard

[Aubyn Fulton]

Christopher wrote… That said, I think that Gould's book is a good read for students, especially if it is tempered by a more knowledgeable, or at least more cautious, lecturer who can use it to teach the difficulties of doing good history *as well as* teaching about the history of intelligence testing.   Dave wrote… I would think twice before encouraging my students to read Gould.  As I recall, he made the same mistake Asimov made when venturing into psychology to pass judgment--he criticized topics that he barely understood.  For example, I believe both authors came down hard on intelligence testing while displaying nearly complete ignorance of the research on test theory and measurement validity.  And it bothers me when these authors attack psychologists of the past without being clear that psychology today follows much more rigorous research standards and ethical guidelines. (SNIP) Separately, we should consider a thread on why students are so quick to put down the psychology major as useless.  Even our graduating seniors do this.  (And they are quick to argue that intelligence tests are totally worthless and biased--primarily tools supporting prejudice.  The suggestion that a test is a tool with appropriate and inappropriate uses seems to go nowhere.) Aubyn writes… I don’t want to take on the role of chief apologist for Gould, there is plenty of room to criticize. I try to be the more cautious (and wish I were the more knowledgeable) teacher that Christopher alludes to above when using his text.  But I do think some psychologists are overly defensive regarding him. The big names of early 20th century Psychology who come in for a beating from Gould get more than enough uncritical praise in most other Psychology texts to have their reputations survive. I don’t think it is fair to characterize Gould as being dismissive of contemporary psychometrics, even as applied to the measurement of intelligence. See this from p. 40 of his “revised and expanded” 1996 edition: “My book, by the way, has been commonly portrayed, even (to my chagrin) often praised as a general attack on mental testing. The *Mismeasurement of Man* is no such thing…”.  Somewhere in the text he notes that he has a son with a Learning Disability, and that he is grateful for the IQ tests that helped diagnose him. The book is not an attack on psychometrics or IQ testing; it is an attack on the idea of biological determinism and a radical Spearmanian view of intelligence. I suppose if you are an adherent of either of those positions you would not much like the book, which is fair enough, but there is plenty of room in rigorous, contemporary psychometrics for Spearmanians and non-Spearmanians alike. An attack on Spearman is not an attack on IQ testing, psychometrics or rigorous psychology.   I do agree with the observation that many college students have internalized a dismissive attitude towards IQ testing, but I think this is combined paradoxically with an overly reverent view of IQ as well. I give 2 – 4 IQ tests a month to college students and most of them simultaneously report that they think IQ are garbage, and that they are terrified that a low score will prove that they are really stupid. I find this same strange mix in many Psychology Majors as well. For what it is worth, I find that, after a quarter of the Psychometrics course (which includes a fairly close reading of Gould and H&M) most of my students come away with what I think is a more balanced view (which I suppose is simply saying they leave my class verbalizing views closer to my own).         *************************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department 1 Angwin Ave Angwin, CA 94508   707-965-6536 (office) 707-965-6538 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************   --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]