20 THE MISMEASURE OF MANbookstore clerk: "I want a copy of that book whose title I can't pro-
nounce by the author whose name I can't remember."
I eventually decided on The Mismeasure of Man because the es-
sence of my book, in a paradoxical way that conferred staying power
over these fifteen years since initial publication, lies in its limitation
of scope. The Mismeasure of Man is not fundamentally about the
general moral turpitude of fallacious biological arguments in social
settings (as my original and broader title from Darwin would have
implied). It is not even about the full range of phony arguments for
the genetic basis of human inequalities. The Mismeasure of Man treats
one particular form of quantified claim about the ranking of human
groups: the argument that intelligence can be meaningfully ab-
stracted as a single number capable of ranking all people on a linear
scale of intrinsic and unalterable mental worth. Fortunately—and I
made my decision on purpose—this limited subject embodies the
deepest (and most common) philosophical error, with the most fun-
damental and far-ranging social impact, for the entire troubling
subject of nature and nurture, or the genetic contribution to human
social organization.
If I have learned one thing as a monthly essayist for more than
twenty years, I have come to understand the power of treating gen-
eralities by particulars. It is no use writing a book on "the meaning of
life" (though we all long to know the answers to such great questions,
while rightly suspecting that true solutions do not exist!). But an
essay on "the meaning of 0.400 hitting in baseball" can reach a
genuine conclusion with surprisingly extensive relevance to such
broad topics as the nature of trends, the meaning of excellence, and
even (believe it nor not) the constitution of natural reality. You have
to sneak up on generalities, not assault them head-on. One of my
favorite lines, from G. K. Chesterton, proclaims: "Art is limitation;
the essence of every picture is the frame."
(My chosen title did get me into some trouble, but I make no
apologies and relished all the discussion. The Mismeasure of Man is
an intended double entendre, not a vestige of unthinking sexism.
My title parodies Protagoras's famous aphorism about all people,
and also notes the reality of a truly sexist past that regarded males as
standards for humanity and therefore tended to mismeasure men,
while ignoring women. I stated this rationale up front, in the origi-
nal preface—so I could always use unthinking criticism as a test to