-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
galton-disciple.html
73 lines (69 loc) · 7.5 KB
/
galton-disciple.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Karl Pearson: Galton’s Disciple</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="galton-disciple.css">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>Karl Pearson: Galton’s Disciple</h1>
</header>
<div class="content-wrapper">
<!-- Pearson's Contributions -->
<section id="pearson-contributions">
<p>
While Francis Galton laid the foundations of eugenic thought and early statistical methods, his intellectual successor, Karl Pearson, transformed these ideas into a formal mathematical framework. Pearson expanded Galton’s conceptual explorations of human populations, creating tools like correlation coefficients and regression analysis that remain central to modern data science. Yet these tools, far from neutral, were deeply shaped by the biases and values of Pearson’s own social class. The traits he chose to measure—intelligence, physical health, moral character, and reproductive success—were not rooted in universal truths but reflected a worldview designed to reinforce the status and power of those like himself.
</p>
<p>
Pearson’s contributions to statistics were undeniably transformative, advancing fields as diverse as biometrics, economics, and experimental design. Yet the very act of assigning importance to certain traits reveals the deeply subjective nature of his work. The radar chart below demonstrates how statistical tools transform such assumptions into seemingly objective conclusions. Using entirely random data, the chart highlights attributes like IQ, physical health, economic productivity, moral character, and reproductive success—metrics favored by eugenicists like Pearson. Though the data is random, the chart illustrates how categories and weightings create narratives that appear scientific but are, in fact, products of human judgment.
</p>
<!-- Radar Chart Visualization -->
<div class="radar-chart-container">
<img src="radar_chart.pdf" alt="Radar Chart Visualization" class="radar-chart-image">
<p class="image-caption">
Figure: Example radar chart illustrating how arbitrary categories can lead to misleading interpretations.
</p>
</div>
<p>
Imagine Group A scoring highly on IQ and moral character but poorly on reproductive success. A viewer predisposed to link intelligence with morality might unconsciously interpret this as evidence of a trade-off between intelligence and reproduction—an entirely fabricated narrative born from the act of assigning weights to variables. Conversely, Group B, with lower scores in IQ and moral character but higher reproductive success, could be unfairly associated with societal burdens. These interpretations do not exist in the data itself; they are artifacts of the biases embedded in the creation of categories and variables.
</p>
<p>
This example reveals a critical reality: statistical tools, when applied to human categorization, become a tool of dehumanization. For Pearson, the traits that mattered most were dictated by his belief in eugenic hierarchies—beliefs shaped by the elite social class he represented. The authority to define what traits were “valuable” rested entirely with Pearson and his contemporaries, granting their biases the appearance of objectivity.
</p>
<p>
Pearson’s methods were not confined to theoretical abstraction; they directly shaped policies and reinforced discriminatory narratives. In his statistical analysis of Jewish immigrants in Britain, he wrote:
</p>
<blockquote>
“[They] will develop into a parasitic race. [...] Taken on the average, and regarding both sexes, this alien Jewish population is somewhat inferior physically and mentally to the native population.”
</blockquote>
<p>
Such statements expose the chilling logic of Pearson’s methods. His tools reduced individuals to mere data points, stripping them of their humanity and framing entire groups as threats to society. Even the term “native population,” left undefined, reveals the arbitrary nature of his benchmarks. These measures were always bound to serve the interests of his own class, creating a system where any deviation from their perceived norms could be judged as inferior. Ultimately, even those who felt safely within the boundaries of the “native population” risked being subjected to the same reductive lens.
</p>
<p>
These methods, designed to categorize and control, were destined to lead to disaster. Pearson’s frameworks were later weaponized by Nazi Germany to justify genocide, framing atrocities as scientifically legitimate. Pearson’s detached commentary on Hitler’s regime reflects the dangerous ease with which statistical methods, stripped of ethical scrutiny, can rationalize atrocities:
</p>
<blockquote>
“Did I say ‘culmination’? No, that lies rather in the future, perhaps with Reichskanzler Hitler and his proposals to regenerate the German people. In Germany, a vast experiment is in hand, and some of you may live to see its results. If it fails, it will not be for want of enthusiasm but rather because the Germans are only just starting the study of mathematical statistics in the modern sense.”
</blockquote>
<p>
This chilling statement demonstrates how reducing people to categorized masses enables systems to strip away humanity and label entire populations as expendable. By framing human lives as data points, Pearson’s work created the conditions for exclusion, division, and violence under the guise of science.
</p>
<p>
Far from fading into obscurity, Pearson’s methods endure in the structures of modern data analysis. The frameworks he helped develop continue to shape how societies measure success, productivity, and value—often in ways that privilege the powerful and marginalize dissent. Metrics used in economic policy, healthcare, and education frequently reflect the biases of those who define them, embedding hierarchies into the very systems they claim to objectively assess.
</p>
<p>
Pearson’s work also shows us that data is never neutral when applied to human populations. The traits we measure, the weights we assign, and the categories we create all carry the imprint of human assumptions, biases, and power structures. Without scrutiny, these tools perpetuate the same systems of exclusion that Pearson sought to entrench, reinforcing hierarchies under the guise of scientific progress.
</p>
<p>
The evolution of these methods took another step with Ronald Fisher, whose work further refined statistical techniques while remaining rooted in the same ideological biases. Fisher’s focus on population control and resource management carried these frameworks into the mid-20th century, shaping policies that continue to influence societal structures today.
<a href="fisher.html">Continue reading: Fisher Doubles Down</a>
</p>
</section>
</div>
<footer>
<p>© 2024 Colin Geraghty. All rights reserved.</p>
</footer>
</body>
</html>