The article is quite clear about how lack of scientific rigour lead to inaccurate conclusions.
Unless you don't want people to read the article?
The article is quite clear about how lack of scientific rigour lead to inaccurate conclusions.
And so was my comment, but I did it in one sentence instead of several pages.
My feelings about wasted time aside, the arguments that Morton and Gould made in their respective work are moot. Cranial volume as a factor of intelligence has long since been shown secondary to the surface area of the brain. Even putting that aside, there's still the fundamental problem of categorizing and quantifying levels of meaningful intelligence, which our brightest researchers have categorically failed to do.
So despite the article being objectively correct, it was subjectively 500 words too long, and left me feeling that my time had been wasted. But that's just my opinion.
In summary: insufficient sample size, missing controls, and lack of double-blind practices in experimentation all lead to questionable conclusions.
I hope I saved someone 15 minutes of reading.