[lutusp]

> We do have concrete ways to measure intelligence, and have had them for over a hundred years.

Concrete, yes. Accurate, absolutely not. Any number of people have exploited the systematic errors in I.Q. testing for purely racist and political objectives.

> The literature on this subject is quite extensive.

Indeed it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

[nitrogen]

The fact that something has been exploited for evil or trivial ends does not mean that the thing exploited is itself evil or trivial.

[lutusp]

No, but it tells us that it's not rigorous enough to resist such exploitation. There's nothing inherently evil or morally wrong about sloppy measurements. That comes from its uses, not the thing itself.

[Kudzu_Bob]

Gould has been exposed as a fraud.

[lutusp]

Citation needed.

[clarkm]

Interesting how you never bothered to ask that while reading the fraudulent book itself.

It's like skimming a poorly-researched paper on vaccines, taking it as gospel, proceeding to claim that they cause autism, and yet reflexively responding with "citation needed" to anyone that dare call into question your insane ideas.

[lutusp]

> Interesting how you never bothered to ask that while reading the fraudulent book itself.

This is your evidence that Gould is a fraud? Nice dodge, but scientists and educated people will notice you avoided your responsibility to back up your words with evidence.

[gwern]

And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics.

Here, since you apparently are completely inept and mind-killed: in Google, punch in 'Gould fraud'. The very first link is to a Nature.com page: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_f...

[lutusp]

> And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics.

The basics of IQ testing and its many misuses? Gould didn't invent this topic, and he doesn't define it. You remarks about Gould and IQ testing remind me of the creationists who think evolution was Darwin's private fantasy. If you take away Gould entirely, you still have any number of terrible examples of misuse of IQ testing for racist and other deplorable objectives.

Obviously psychologists are defensive about IQ testing (they should be), and Gould made himself an easy target. But this substitutes substance with ad hominem, a mode of argument you appear to prefer.

[gwern]

That's pretty big talk from a dude who couldn't find the first link in Google, and tried to wave off any discussion of Gould's fraud as equivalent to all the crackpots talking about Einstein.

[Kudzu_Bob]

Simply Google "gould" and "fraud" and you will have hours of fascinating reading.

[lutusp]

Yep. That works for "Einstein" and "fraud" also. In fact, it works for any well-known name in any field.

Gould missed things that happened after the writing of Mismeasure, and ignored some later developments that challenged aspects of his original work, but he made a number of important and legitimate points about IQ testing and its abuses, points that have stood the test of time.