"G. Marc Turner" wrote:
Was this based on the beliefs of the psychometricians, or was it based onHi Marc and Tipsters,
how non-psychometricians interpreted the differences? As a psychometrician,
one of the greatest problems I see is the misuse of tests in situations
similar to this. No matter how many times I try to explain to people that
there are other factors that could be causing a difference in scores (the
ever present error in measurement), some people will always ignore what I
say. I guess the case could be made that I am encouraging this
misinterpretations since I continue to support the PROPER use of the tests,
even though I know some will use the tests in an improper way.
Unfortunately, there have been folks who were either directly and indirectly involved with psychometrics who did use their work towards what we might consider racist agendas today. For example, Goddard as well as Thorndike were actively involved in the eugenics movement - both core members of the Eugenics Section (the human section) of the American Breeders Association. Goddard also retouched the photographs to make the Kallikaks appear mentally retarded for his book The Kallikak Family.
Karl Pearson wrote: The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain, Illustrated by an Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children. He argues against the admission of Jewish Immigrants into England on the basis of his data.
Certainly, psychologists played a role in the administration of tests and interpretation of their results at Ellis Island - most notably Goddard's work in 1913. Based in part on their recommendations, immigration quotas were instituted in the United States (1924 & 1929 - who says government is slow to act!).
Cattell's 1980 book called Beyondism argues for the introduction of creative eugenics into all phases of society. For example, gifted children should receive better schooling and their parents larger tax breaks so that they can invest more on that child. Also, the human race should seek to split along genetic lines and potentially work to create more than one species - possibly through the use of genetic engineering. This should be supported by segregation and migration controls. War and competition between groups is to be valued. Religion is viewed as undermining these basic biological imperatives and thus destructive.
I found Cattell's thoughts below most interesting (from Virtue in "Racism" - Mankind Quarterly).
This is a matter for investigation, which will remain uninvestigated until social psychologists wake up to the existence of aWhile he argues racism is a gift that "gave tremendous power to the anti-Nazi attack", most who fought the Nazis shared a similar European, even Aryan, background. However, racism clearly played a powerful role in the "final solution" as well as the genocidal actions against Roma and Sinti.
natural, innate racism. Like all instinctive forces, it has its virtues and its vices. There are situations in which it can
advantageously be cultivated, and others where it is a source of trouble. But even when, in the latter circumstances, it appears
necessary to suppress it, we should recognize the consequences of suppressing innate drives and the need to respect what is, in
other circumstances, a virtuous gift. It was such in the Second World War, when it gave tremendous power to the anti-Nazi
attack. It plays an unspoken part, among most Africans, in the attitude of the public to the Negro and the Hispanic. It is time for
social scientists openly to recognize it as something other than a perversion, to measure it, and to understand how best to shape
society to adjust to it.
Many of Cattell's later writing can be found in Mankind Quarterly (http://www.mankind.org)
While not related to psychometrics, Lorenz was intimately involved with eugenics. He wrote: "It must be the duty of racial hygiene to be attentive to a more severe elimination of morally inferior human beings than is the case today. We should literally replace all factors responsible for selection in a natural and free life . . . In prehistoric times of humanity, selection for endurance, heroism, social usefulness, etc. was made solely by hostile outside factors. This role must be assumed by a human organization, other wise, humanity will, for lack of selective factors, be annihilated by the degenerative phenomena that accompany domestication:" - Konrad Lorenz (1940) during his years as an SS officer. Written clearly after the euthanasia (T4) program had started and immediately before the massive selections that began in relation to the final solution.
My assumption (without any hard core data) is that most psychometricians are fine human beings and scientists guided by both a desire for methodological rigor and basic ethical principles. They are not primarily individuals who are motivated by racist or biased agendas.
In response to Marc's last comment, we could ask the following question - What responsibility do scientists have regarding the use of their works. Certainly, this question has been raised regarding physicists and biologists - could we raise the same questions regarding the misuse or destructive use of behavioral science?
Finally, I don't have my copy of Anastasi handy - however, I must say
that I don't remember any of her work being racist.
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
