In the name of skepticism please reconsider including the mismeasure of man. This work has been ignored by scientists in the field. It's an incredible strawman and irrelevant to anything modern psychology is doing re the study of intelligence (irrelevant even when it was first published).
This is not my opinion. The leading journal in the field is Intelligence. Try citing mismeasure and see the reaction you get from the blind reviewers.
A much fairer treatment of IQ can be had in the APA task force article on the subject (published in response to the bell curve):
Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Authors:
Ulric Neisser, PhD, Chair; Emory University
Gwyneth Boodoo, PhD, Educational Testing Service
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., PhD, University of Minnesota
A. Wade Boykin, PhD, Howard University
Nathan Brody, PhD, Wesleyan University
Stephen J. Ceci, PhD, Cornell University
Diane F. Halpern, PhD, California State University, San Bernadino
John C. Loehlin, PhD, University of Texas, Austin
Robert Perloff, PhD, University of Pittsburgh
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Yale University
Susana Urbina, PhD, University of North Florida
article:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
In thinking this through, note that the American Psychological Association commissioned this work (and put its seal of approval on it) as the state of the art (1996) summary of what the science has discovered. It speaks volumes that Mismeasure is not referenced.
These are facts; the field is a science. Mismeasure is not.
So, please reconsider.
My intent is not to derail this into a debate on Mismeasure, but as a soon to be member of the publishing community in this field (and someone who hopes to devout the rest of his research life to the area), this book simply does not fit in your list.
TIA.
), the first attachment is the summary view and the second the full review.
