Hi Tipsters,
"John W. Kulig" wrote:
> Other tipsters quoting Gould may be right about Goddard's beliefs. All I know
> about him is what I read second hand. But what's the point? Why do we give a
> darn about what Goddard _really_ believed.
The issue was raised in response to the following pattern of posts (loosely
characterized): First, an encompassing charge that psychometricians and their work was
racist. Second, a post responding back that the psychometricians were not racist or
biased but that their work had been misused. Third, a post outlining a few instances
historically where racism/bias may have been an underlying factor in some
psychometricians (and others) works. Fourth, the current discussion of Goddard.
> Are we upset that Slavs were incorrectly stereotypes based on ill defined sampling
> and suspect psychometric practices?. I suspect not.
This probably depends on who you ask. Certainly, in response to the practices
described
above, national origin immigration quotas were put into effect in 1925 and expanded in
1929. These quotes played a devastating role during pre-WWII and the Holocaust. Many
who would have been previously admitted to the U.S. were denied entrance on the basis
of
these quotas (there was a massive scramble to immigrate anywhere but particularly, the
U.S.). So, yes - there are those who are still upset and continue to feel loss and
grief concerning the deaths/murder of their friends, family, and community.
Individuals
who might have been saved if U.S. policies had been different. Of course, the most
egregious of events was the S.S. St. Louis packed with over 900 Jewish refugees which
was met by gunboats off the coast of Miami.
>
> Therefore, any topic even remotely related evokes highly
> charged reactions. Jumping all over Goodard is a diversion. If we convince
> ourselves he was a WASP racist, and a bad psychometrician, _we_ are off the
> hook. He was probably no more racist that other people, then or now. The fact
> that Goddard used interpreters and used multiple sources of opinions means he
> was sensitive to "norming" issues in testing. But again, I am puzzled over the
> furor, and can only conclude, as an amateur psychoanalyst :) that we are
> dealing with displaced psychic energy.
I don't think the issue being discussed is a diversion or an attempt to avoid looking
at
our own biases and assumptions. Rather, I see it as an attempt to explore and
understand the many complex dimensions underlying the history of our discipline. These
complexities include (but are not limited to) the Zeitgeist, and political/scientific
factors.
>
> I don't want to get too anecdotal about the Ellis Island experience, but I
> knew my Ellis Island relatives quite well, and, at the risk of putting too
> many words in their mouths, let me propose that basing immigration policy on
> mental tests that cut across racial and religious lines is an improvement over
> basing in on the color of your skin or the sound of your last name. It's the
> direction we want to keep pushing toward, because the other direction, imho,
> is Kosovo.
Hmmmm . . . you argue against a bad policy (basing it on problematic mental testing) by
arguing that it could be worse? And then use the atrocities in Kosovo to support this
argument? If anything, considering the refugee situation, the argument would appear to
be for increased humanitarian efforts which could include a relaxation of immigration
standards. Obviously, this is an oversimplification. I am just unclear as to how your
argument for the use of mental tests equates with a reduction in ethnic cleansing
(today's euphemism for genocide and the murdering of an entire people).
>
> So, in place of the usual treatment of Goddard as protrayed in our texts, let
> me make a modest proposal to remove the horns from his head, applaud his early
> efforts to utilize racial-free standards, and train future generations of
> psychologists to make continued progress in the fair and objective treatment
> of fellow humans.
I certainly agree with your statement concerning the fair treatment of human beings.
I'm just not so sure that I agree with your assumptions concerning Goddard's
motivations.
Best wishes to all Tipsters,
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
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
