I didn't say anything about his work one way or another. You're changing the subject, perhaps to try to avoid having to either try to support or retract that slander you posted about him.
If you disagree with his work, then feel free to critique it. But to try to smear him as a "Marxist", when he was not, is just tacky beyond words.
I've never found his obsession with equality to be founded on anything more than his ideology.
And I challenge you to demonstrate that he was actually "obsessed with equality" in the way you describe.
What I've seen in his writings is instead an analysis of how science (and also pseudoscience) has been too often misused so as to "support" people's racial, ethnic, or cultural prejudices. On this topic, and on more neutral topics as well, Gould points out that the lesson of history's mistakes is clear: It's too easy for some people to convince themselves that they're being "objective" and "scientific" when in fact they're just rationalizing what they want to believe. So a) when you find "results" supporting what you want to believe, double and triple check them (and get a second opinion) before you rush to judgment on their validity, and b) countless times people have "found" support for their racist notions which later turned out to be invalid (i.e. further work revealed that they were finding "differences" that weren't really there), so just how likely is it that the next "we were right after all" discovery is going to be the one that finally pans out instead of fizzles out?
Gould was saying that we must learn from history (including the history of the use and misuse of science/pseudoscience), lest we keep repeating it.
Races of people are simply different.
In visual ways, yes, since we base our "race" classifications on looks, primarily. But in other fundamental ways?
Some excel at some things, others at other things. I don't particularly care to go around dwelling on superiority or inferiority.
And yet, you seem to be talking about it here for some reason.
But the idea that with all the observable physical differences between the races, they would somehow manage to be absolutely equal in intelligence seems to me to be nothing more than an ideology.
So is the idea that they must be significantly different. Furthermore, please support your claim that anyone holds the idea that they must be "absolutely equal" in that regard.
No one has any problem admitting that some individuals have greater intelligence than others,
Because intelligence is an individual trait, and does differ from person to person.
but it's considered mandatory that we all recite as a mantra that, collectively, the individual members of each race added up would have the exact same group IQ.
Again, please support this apparent straw man -- who, specifically, says that a "group IQ" (whatever that is) must be "exactly the same", and when/where did they "mandate" it?
Given the huge gaps we observe everyday between individuals in many different areas (intelligence, initiative, personal conduct, strength, etc.)
Hold that thought, we'll come back to it shortly.
it would stretch credulity to think that each racial and ethnic group is collectively precisely equal to every other such group in all those categories.
First, it's rather unclear what it might mean to speak of "group equality" when talking about traits that are measured individually. What is a "group height", for example? Do we stack everyone vertically? That right there indicates you may be heading out of the realm of concrete concepts (i.e., how tall is George) and into some universe of fuzzily-defined, poorly-thought-out notions.
But secondly, since you've already admitted that there are "huge gaps" (i.e. variations) among individuals (presumably of the same "race"), what use is it then to discuss a "group trait" where the group median (to use one possible type of measure) will necessarily vary less between arbitrary groups than it statistically will between any two individuals? When individual differences are so large as to swamp any "group differences", so what?
Put another way, if the alleged average IQ difference between Asians and Caucasians is, say, 10 points, but the expected difference of the IQs of any two Caucasians (or Asians, or pick one from each) is 20 points, do we really care about the alleged "group difference"? In practice, if we're looking for someone smart for a job, won't we have to examine the candidates individually to find which one tops the pack instead of just randomly picking an Asian and hoping to get lucky thanks to that 10 point average "lead"? After all, by chance we might have ended up with a pool of candidates consisting of slightly above-average whites and slightly below average Asians, making it quite possible that *all* the white candidates were smarter than *all* of the Asian ones, even though "on average" there's a small difference between the "group" statistic.
In short, even as a practical matter (aside from the ethical ones) don't we have to take people as individuals anyway, without regard to some arbitrary "group", precisely *because* of the wide variation among individuals?
It's like arguing that while some football players are better than others, every football team is of exactly equal skill with every other football team.
And who exactly has argued such a thing? Be specific, name names, and quote them.
I don't pretend to have all the answers on this issue, but it's worth noting that it's the egalitarian side (Gould, etc.) who seem to want to stifle research into these issues.
Horse manure. Quote anywhere that you believe Gould has tried to "stifle" research. Instead, he has cautioned against the (many) mistakes of the past. He's saying a) if you're going to do it, learn from the past and do it damned carefully for a change, and b) for several reasons, like the one I present above, even if we find some sort of difference, how exactly does it really matter in real terms (other than to give racists an excuse to "confirm" their beliefs)?
People should be judged as individuals, but that doesn't mean we should expect just as many whites or East Asians to be in the NBA as blacks.
Of course we shouldn't. But neither should we presume without proper study and good evidence that the reasons are exclusively or even partially *racial*. For example it's well known that one reason there are so many blacks in sports is because of socioeconomic factors which more often give them an incentive to take sports seriously as a career (especially from a younger age) than whites do.
In a different culture, basketball may have been more the province of white athletes.
And it may be possible (shudder) that whites are simply better at some things as a group than other races.
And it may be possible that they are not. Possibilities are one thing -- presumptions are another.
That doesn't give whites the right to lord it over other people, or mean that other people are inferior as human beings.
It's... interesting that you would think about putting it that way.
But in all likelihood, there are things in this world which whites, on average, do better, which is a more logical explanation for what we see when we look outside at the real world than some theory that climate and terrain are responsible
...you say, without having read the book, or looked into historical differences and causes yourself...
So given your lack of background here, I think you should really explain exactly why you find innate white superiority "a more logical explanation" for the flow of history than some thesis you haven't even bothered to learn about.
Your move.
(though in our Politically Correct world the latter would be the one to earn a Pulitzer Prize).
Ah, yet another presumption based on your preconceptions, and not your research. Or is it your crystal ball which tells you that the book was not worthy to win such an award on its contents?