'The Mismeasure of Man' (by
Stephen Jay Gould) is about two main topics - one of which is the
hereditarian theory of IQ. The other is the fallacy of measuring skull volume and assuming that this tells you something about intelligence. In any case, the logical flaw attacked in the book is that of
reification - '
thingifying' an abstract notion like
IQ. There is nothing intrinsically wrong (
IMHO) with 'measuring' intelligence by standardised tests. The problem occurs, as Gould points out, when this measurement is 'made real'.
This fallacy can lead to some bizarre conclusions; take the case of a child in America who (it is claimed) has an IQ of 2501. It is undoubtedly true that he is very intelligent - but does this single value (250ish) mean that he is twice as intelligent as, say, me2. Does this mean he does things twice as fast, or twice as well? Of course, I am being ridiculous - but the spectre of reified intelligence still haunts us.
Apart from such hero worship of current 'genius' there is also the idiocy of designer babies and intelligence. Just as the hereditarians of old said "You can't be intelligent if you're black or female or we don't like you" (i'm paraphrasing), so the new genetics says "You can't be intelligent if we haven't given you the right genes". I even saw some random scientist on TV saying "Several genes control intelligence" 'several'? what kind of fisher-price genetics are you playing at?!
*Ahem* So, it's clear that we haven't yet learned the lessons of the 19th and early 20th centuries when it comes to thinking about intelligence. It's a good book, if a little weighty.
1 : Or some other such foolish value.
2 : From a £1 sale "Test Your Own I.Q." book, average of maybe 6 tests (out of 10 in the book - I got bored).