¹ Terman, Lewis M., The Measurement of Intelligence: An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet–Simon Intelligence Scale (Boston, 1916)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Yerkes, Robert M., ed., Psychological Examining in the United States Army (Washington, DC, 1921), 785Google Scholar.

³ For example: Irving Gerdy, letter to the editor, New Republic, 17 Jan. 1923, 202.

⁴ Lippmann, Walter, Public Opinion (New York, 1922), Part 8.Google Scholar

⁵ Schudson, Michael, “The ‘Lippmann–Dewey Debate’ and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-democrat, 1986–1996” International Journal of Communication 2 (2008), 1031–42Google Scholar; Curry Jansen, Sue, “Phantom Conflict: Lippmann, Dewey, and the Fate of the Public in Modern Society,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6/3 (2009), 221–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Examples include Westbrook, Robert B., John Dewey and American Democracy (Ithaca, 1991), 293–318Google Scholar; Lasch, Christopher, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York, 1995), 167–73Google Scholar; Mattson, Kevin, Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy during the Progressive Era (University Park, PA, 1997), 118–20Google Scholar; Fink, Leon, Progressive Intellectuals and the Dilemmas of Democratic Commitment (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 30–37Google Scholar; Gary, Brett, The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold War (New York, 1999), 26–37Google Scholar; Rogers, Melvin L., The Undiscovered Dewey: Religion, Morality, and the Ethos of Democracy (New York, 2009), 191–202Google Scholar; Stears, Marc, Demanding Democracy: American Radicals in Search of a New Politics (Princeton, 2010), 87–93Google Scholar; Auerbach, Jonathan, Weapons of Democracy: Propaganda, Progressivism, and American Public Opinion (Baltimore, 2015), 93–129Google Scholar; and Lebovic, Sam, Free Speech and Unfree News: The Paradox of Press Freedom in America (Cambridge, MA, 2016), 25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Samelson, Franz, “Putting Psychology on the Map: Ideology and Intelligence Testing,” in Buss, Allan R., ed., Psychology in Social Context (New York, 1979), 103–68Google Scholar; Degler, Carl N., In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York, 1991), 168–9Google Scholar; Zenderland, Leila, Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing (Cambridge, 1998), 312–15Google Scholar; Carson, John, The Measure of Merit: Talents, Intelligence, and Inequality in the French and American Republics, 1750–1940 (Princeton, 2007), 249–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The controversy also features glancingly in scholarship specifically on Lippmann and Terman: Steel, Ronald, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston, 1980), 207–8Google Scholar; Minton, Henry L., Lewis M. Terman: Pioneer in Psychological Testing (New York, 1988), 102–4Google Scholar; Davis Chapman, Paul, Schools as Sorters: Lewis M. Terman, Applied Psychology, and the Intelligence Testing Movement, 1890–1930 (New York, 1988), 135–9Google Scholar; Riccio, Barry D., Walter Lippmann: Odyssey of a Liberal (New Brunswick, 1994), 77–8Google Scholar.

⁸ Thus the best recent history of intelligence testing relegates Public Opinion to a footnote (Carson, The Measure of Merit, 374 n. 80), where readers are referred to Lippmann's text “for a more jaundiced appreciation of mass democracy produced at almost the same time.”

⁹ Furner, Mary O., Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science (Lexington, 1975)Google Scholar; Haskell, Thomas L., The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana, 1977)Google Scholar; Haskell, ed., The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory (Bloomington, 1984); Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar; Hollinger, David A., Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth-Century American Intellectual History (Princeton, 1996)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Igo, Sarah E., The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public (Cambridge, MA, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mandler, Peter, Return from the Natives: How Margaret Mead Won the Second World War and Lost the Cold War (New Haven, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen-Cole, Jamie, The Open Mind: Cold War Politics and the Sciences of Human Nature (Chicago, 2014)Google Scholar; Freddy Foks, “Bronislaw Malinowski, ‘Indirect Rule,’ and the Colonial Politics of Functionalist Anthropology,” Comparative Studies in Society and History (forthcoming). See also Porter, Theodore M., Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar; Daston, Lorraine and Otto Sibum, H., “Introduction: Scientific Personae and Their Histories,” Science in Context 16/1 (2003), 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity (New York, 2007)Google Scholar; Jasanoff, Sheila, Science and Public Reason (London, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Isaac, Joel, “Tangled Loops: Theory, History, and the Human Sciences in Modern America,” Modern Intellectual History 6/2 (2009), 397–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 416.

¹² Jewett, Andrew, Science, Democracy, and the American University: From the Civil War to the Cold War (Cambridge, 2012), 172–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ McDougall, William, Is America Safe for Democracy? (New York, 1921), 42–50Google Scholar. On him see Rose, Anne C., “William McDougall, American Psychologist: A Reconsideration of Nature–Nurture Debates in the Interwar United States,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 52/4 (2016), 325–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Stoddard, Lothrop, The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man (New York, 1922), 57–74Google Scholar, 263.

¹⁵ Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925, 2nd edn (New Brunswick, 1983), 270–77Google Scholar; Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Hereditary (New York, 1985), 74–83Google Scholar; Minna Stern, Alexandra, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, 2nd edn (Berkeley, 2016), 50–51Google Scholar. For the global intellectual context see Bashford, Alison, Global Population: History, Geopolitics, and Life on Earth (New York, 2014), 107–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Ross, Dorothy, G. Stanley Hall: The Psychologist as Prophet (Chicago, 1972), 169–85Google Scholar; Morawski, Jill G. and Hornstein, Gail A., “Quandary of the Quacks: The Struggle for Expert Knowledge in American Psychology, 1890–1940,” in Brown, JoAnne and van Keuren, David K., eds. The Estate of Social Knowledge (Baltimore, 1991), 106–10Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Brown, JoAnne, “Mental Measurements and the Rhetorical Force of Numbers,” in Brown and Van Keuren, The Estate of Social Knowledge, 134–52; Brown, The Definition of a Profession: The Authority of Metaphor in the History of Intelligence Testing (Princeton, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 91–100; Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 83–106.

¹⁹ Bagley, William C., “Educational Determinism: Or Democracy and the I.Q.,” School and Society 15 (1922), 373–84Google Scholar; reprinted in Bagley, Determinism in Education (Baltimore, 1925), 11–32, at 17.

²⁰ Terman, Lewis M., “The Psychological Determinist; or Democracy and the I.Q.,” Journal of Educational Research 6/1 (1922), 57–62Google Scholar, at 60, 62. See also Bagley, William C., “Professor Terman's Determinism: A Rejoinder,” Journal of Educational Research 6/5 (1922), 371–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ On Terman and eugenics, see Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 143–50; and Stern, Eugenic Nation, 92–9. On Bagley and his context see Fallace, Thomas D., “Educators Confront the ‘Science’ of Racism, 1898–1925,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 48/2 (2016), 252–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Minton, Henry L., “Lewis M. Terman and Mental Testing: In Search of the Democratic Ideal,” in Sokal, Michael M., ed., Psychological Testing and American Society (New Brunswick, 1987), 95–112Google Scholar, at 103–4; Carson, The Measure of Merit, 248–9.

²³ Mann Bond, Horace, “Intelligence Tests and Propaganda,” The Crisis, June 1924, 61–4Google Scholar; Urban, Wayne J., “The Black Scholar and Intelligence Testing: The Case of Horace Mann Bond,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 25/4 (1989), 323–343.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Thomas, William B., “Black Intellectuals’ Critique of Early Mental Testing: A Little-Known Saga of the 1920s,” American Journal of Education 90/3 (1982), 258–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and cf. Linstrum, Erik, Ruling Minds: Psychology in the British Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2016), 83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ William C. Bagley to Lewis M. Terman, 26 Oct. 1923, Lewis Madison Terman Papers, Department of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University, Box 14, Folder 28; Terman, “The Possibilities and Limitations of Training,” Journal of Educational Research 10/5 (1924), 335–43.

²⁵ Whipple, Guy M., ed., The Twenty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Nature and Nurture, 2 vols. (Bloomington, 1928)Google Scholar; Terman, Lewis M., “The Influence of Nature and Nurture upon Intelligence Scores: An Evaluation of the Evidence in Part I of the 1928 Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,” Journal of Educational Psychology 19/6 (1928), 362–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pastore, Nicholas, The Nature–Nurture Controversy (New York, 1949)Google Scholar. Recent analyses include Fraser, Steven, ed., The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; and Lemann, Nicholas, The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy (New York, 1999)Google Scholar.

²⁶ For his earliest notes, see “Notes on Public Opinion—Sebasco, Maine, June 1914,” Walter Lippmann Papers, Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University, Box 219, Folder 305.

²⁷ Lippmann, Public Opinion, 93.

²⁸ Mencken, H. L., H. L. Mencken's Smart Set Criticism, ed. Nolte, William H. (Ithaca, 1968), 121–30, at 124, 130Google Scholar. The word “moron,” much used by Mencken, had been invented in 1910 as a technical term for classifying intelligence. See Zenderland, Measuring Minds, 102–3.

²⁹ Goodrich, Carter L., The Frontier of Control: A Study of British Workshop Politics (New York, 1920)Google Scholar; Walter Lippmann to Goodrich, 20 Feb. 1920, Lippmann Papers, Box 11, Folder 465.

³⁰ Carter L. Goodrich to Walter Lippmann, 10 July 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 11, Folder 465.

³¹ Wallas, Graham, The Great Society: A Psychological Analysis (London, 1914)Google Scholar, v.

³² Kloppenberg, James T., Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought (New York, 1986), 267–77Google Scholar; Thompson, John A., Reformers and War: American Progressive Publicists and the First World War (Cambridge, 1987), 64–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rodgers, Daniel T., Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, MA, 1998), 25–8Google Scholar.

³³ Goodrich to Lippmann, 10 July 1922.

³⁴ Carter L. Goodrich, “Introduction: The Demand for Control,” in Goodrich, The Frontier of Control, n.p.

³⁵ Ibid., 36–8, at 37 n. 35. Goodrich distinguished between “political” in “the wide sense” of authority relationships and in “the narrow sense of relating to the authority of the State of territorial unit.” He was interested in the former.

³⁶ See John Dewey, “Public Opinion,” New Republic, 3 May 1922, 286–8; and, for a strikingly similar criticism, Ernest Gruening, “Public Opinion and Democracy,” Nation, 26 July 1922, 97-8.

³⁷ Wallas, The Great Society, 371; Goodrich to Lippmann, 10 July 1922.

³⁸ Goodrich to Lippmann, 10 July 1922.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Walter Lippmann to Carter L. Goodrich, 14 July 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 11, Folder 465.

⁴¹ Carter L. Goodrich to Walter Lippmann, 2 Aug. 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 11, Folder 465.

⁴² Walter Lippmann, “The End of Democratic Optimism,” 7–9 Aug. 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 219, Folder 308, 11. Lippmann also cited Public Opinion to argue that democratic citizens struggled to comprehend “the very complex problems of the Great Society.”

⁴³ Walter Lippmann, “The Mental Age of Americans,” New Republic, 25 Oct. 1922, 212–15, at 215. Emphasis added for the title of Stoddard's text, but the emphasis on “average” is in Stoddard, Revolt, 69.

⁴⁴ This had a complex relationship to his Jewishness. See Steel, Walter Lippmann, 186–96.

⁴⁵ Lippmann, “Mental Age,” 213, 215.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 213.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Carson, The Measure of Merit, 183–93; O'Donnell, John M., The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870–1920 (New York, 1985), 230–40Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Steel, Walter Lippmann, 12–22. On James's ambivalent professional identity see Bordogna, Francesca, William James at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Science, and the Geography of Knowledge (Chicago, 2008)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Walter Lippmann, “The Group Mind,” New Republic, 15 Dec. 1920, 82–6; Lippmann, “An Outline of Psychology,” New Republic, 22 Dec. 1920, 112–13; Lippmann, “The Behavior of Crowds,” 2 March 1921, 22–4.

⁵¹ Wallas, The Great Society, 227.

⁵² Lippmann, “Mental Age,” 214.

⁵³ Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence, 61.

⁵⁴ Lippmann, “Mental Age,” 213.

⁵⁵ Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence, 53.

⁵⁶ Carson, The Measure of Merit, 205–8.

⁵⁷ Walter Lippmann, “The Mystery of the ‘A’ Men,” New Republic, 1 Nov. 1922, 246–8, at 248.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 246.

⁵⁹ Walter Lippmann, “A Future for the Tests,” New Republic, 29 Nov. 1922, 9–10, at 10.

⁶⁰ Lippmann, “Mystery,” 248, quoting Yoakum, Clarence S. and Yerkes, Robert M., Army Mental Tests (New York, 1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 2, emphasis added.

⁶¹ On these intricacies see Carson, The Measure of Merit, 201–19.

⁶² Lippmann, “Mental Age,” 214–15.

⁶³ Walter Lippmann, “The Reliability of Intelligence Tests,” New Republic, 8 Nov. 1922, 275–6, at 276.

⁶⁴ Terman, Lewis M., Dickinson, Virgil E., Sutherland, D. N., Franzen, Raymond, Tupper, C. R., and Grace Fernald, Intelligence Tests and School Reorganization (Yonkers, 1922), 1–29Google Scholar; Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 97–8. See also Terman's introduction to Dickinson, Virgil E., Mental Tests and the Classroom Teacher (Yonkers, 1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Lippmann, “Future,” 9–10.

⁶⁶ John Dewey to Herbert Croly, c. Nov. 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 8, Folder 339.

⁶⁷ Herbert Croly to Walter Lippmann, 21 Nov. 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 7, Folder 303.

⁶⁸ John Dewey, “Mediocrity and Individuality,” New Republic, 6 Dec. 1922, 35–7, at 35. Dewey's particular target was Cutten, George B., “The Reconstruction of Democracy,” School and Society 16 (1922), 477–89Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Dewey, John, Human Nature and Conduct (New York, 1922), 172–80Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Dewey, John, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York, 1916)Google Scholar, 101, 256–9.

⁷¹ Westbrook, John Dewey, 141–5, 169–72; Jewett, Science, 94–8.

⁷² Westhoff, Laura M., “The Popularization of Knowledge: John Dewey on Experts and American Democracy,” History of Education Quarterly 35/1 (1995), 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 27–37; John Dewey, “The American Intellectual Frontier,” New Republic, 10 May 1922, 303–5.

⁷³ Dewey, “Mediocrity,” 35.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 36.

⁷⁵ Dewey, “Public Opinion,” 288.

⁷⁶ Dewey, “Mediocrity,” 37.

⁷⁷ John Dewey, “Individuality[,] Equality and Superiority,” New Republic, 13 Dec. 1922, 61–3.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 62–3.

⁷⁹ Westbrook, John Dewey, 179; Westhoff, “Popularization of Knowledge,” 45–7; Ryan, Alan, John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism (New York, 1995), 185–7Google Scholar; Bernstein, Richard J., “Dewey's Vision of Radical Democracy,” in Cochran, Molly, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Dewey (Cambridge, 2010), 288–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 301–3. For an ambitious attempt to “recast” Dewey's democratic theory “as a preoccupation with power and domination,” which aligns him with “a defense of freedom understood as nondomination,” see Rogers, Undiscovered Dewey, 208–35 (quotations at 195 and 209).

⁸⁰ Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 286 n. 79.

⁸¹ Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 122–3; Chapman, Schools as Sorters, 103–6.

⁸² Lewis M. Terman, “The Great Conspiracy: Or the Impulse Imperious of Intelligence Testers, Psychoanalyzed and Exposed by Mr. Lippmann,” New Republic, 27 Dec. 1922, 116–20.

⁸³ Yerkes, Psychological Examining, 417.

⁸⁴ Walter Lippmann, “Tests of Hereditary Intelligence,” New Republic, 22 Nov. 1922, 328–30, at 328–9.

⁸⁵ Terman, “Great Conspiracy,” 118–19.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 119.

⁸⁷ Carson, The Measure of Merit, 172–3.

⁸⁸ McKeen Cattell, James, “Mental Tests and Measurements,” Mind 15/59 (1890), 373–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sokal, Michael M., “James McKeen Cattell and the Failure of Anthropometric Testing,” in Woodward, William R. and Ash, Mitchell G., eds., The Problematic Science: Psychology in Nineteenth-Century Thought (New York, 1982), 322–44Google Scholar; Ross, G. Stanley Hall, 351; Carson, The Measure of Merit, 176.

⁸⁹ Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 19, 26, 119. Cattell does not appear in Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence; nor in Alfred Binet and Theodore M. Simon, with marginal notes by Terman, Lewis M., The Development of Intelligence in Children (Nashville, 1980)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ James McKeen Cattell to Lewis M. Terman, 3 Jan. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 15, Folder 20.

⁹¹ Lewis M. Terman to James McKeen Cattell, 16 Jan. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 15, Folder 20.

⁹² “A.W.,” letter to the editor, New Republic, 17 Jan. 1923, 202.

⁹³ Gerdy, letter to the editor, 202.

⁹⁴ Howard C. Warren to Lewis M. Terman, 5 Feb. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 16, Folder 3.

⁹⁵ Charles E. Merriam to Robert M. Yerkes, 1 Feb. 1923, Charles E. Merriam Papers, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago, Box 43, Folder 16. See also Merriam's influential manifesto, “The Significance of Psychology for the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review 18/3 (1924), 469–88, which at 476 argued that “the acrimonious controversy between Mr. Terman and Mr. Lippmann” had neither explained intelligence testing's implications for democracy nor resolved the relationship between psychology and political science.

⁹⁶ Robert M. Yerkes to Walter Lippmann, 26 Nov. 1922, Lippmann Papers, Box 35, Folder 1314.

⁹⁷ Robert M. Yerkes to Lewis M. Terman, 2 Jan. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 17, Folder 2. Others had more sinister doubts: E. G. Conklin, in a letter to Terman (6 Feb. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 16, Folder 3), found it “almost incredible that the ‘New Republic’ or the ‘Jew Republic’ should really believe what some of its writers profess to believe, that all men are essentially equal.”

⁹⁸ Walter Lippmann, “The Great Confusion: A Reply to Mr. Terman,” New Republic, 3 Jan. 1923, 145–6.

⁹⁹ Arthur S. Otis to Lewis M. Terman, 4 Jan. 1923, Terman Papers, Box 20, Folder 19.

¹⁰⁰ Lewis M. Terman, letter to the editor, New Republic, 17 Jan. 1923, 201.

¹⁰¹ “Mr. Lippmann Replies,” New Republic, 17 Jan. 1923, 201.

¹⁰² Lewis M. Terman to Jessie Chase Fenton, 12 March 1923, Terman Papers, Box 14, Folder 3. This view persisted: Lee Cronbach, J., “Five Decades of Controversy over Mental Testing,” American Psychologist 30/1 (1975), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 11–13.

¹⁰³ The paper even printed mock intelligence tests as advertisements “to test your capacity to be a subscriber to the The New Republic.” New Republic, 22 Nov. 1922, v.

¹⁰⁴ Edwin G. Boring, “Intelligence as the Tests Test It,” New Republic, 6 June 1923, 35–7.

¹⁰⁵ On the later emergence of operationism, see Isaac, Joel, Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences from Parsons to Kuhn (Cambridge, MA, 2012), 102–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Boring, “Intelligence as the Tests Test It,” 36.

¹⁰⁷ See also the discussion of “truth versus policy in scientific theory” in Boring, Edwin G., Psychologist at Large: An Autobiography and Selected Essays (New York, 1961), 300–1Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Boring, “Intelligence as the Tests Test It,” 37.

¹⁰⁹ Terman, Lewis M., “The Mental Test as a Psychological Method,” Psychological Review 31/2 (1924), 93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 117.

¹¹⁰ Minton, Lewis M. Terman, 94–5.

¹¹¹ Beyond works cited already, see Herman, Ellen, The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts (Berkeley, 1995)Google Scholar; Largent, Mark A., Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States (New Brunswick, 2008)Google Scholar; and Hegarty, Peter, Gentlemen's Disagreement: Alfred Kinsey and the Sexual Politics of Smart Men (Chicago, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹² Boring, Edwin G., A History of Experimental Psychology, 2nd edn (New York, 1950), 577Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Cohen-Cole, Open Mind, 35–62, 195–214.

¹¹⁴ Pastore, Nicholas, “The Army Intelligence Tests and Walter Lippmann,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 14/4 (1978), 316–273.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, at 316. See also Block, Ned and Dworkin, Gerald, eds., The I.Q. Controversy: Critical Readings (New York, 1976), 4–44Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Chomsky, Noam, “Psychology and Ideology,” Cognition 1/1 (1972), 11–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S., Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York, 1988)Google Scholar. The latter took its title from Lippmann, Public Opinion, 248.

¹¹⁶ Walter Lippmann, “Mr. Burt and the Intelligence Tests,” New Republic, 2 May 1923, 263–4. See also Lippmann, “Rich and Poor, Girls and Boys,” New Republic, 9 May 1923, 295–6; Lippmann, “A Judgment of the Tests,” New Republic, 16 May 1923, 322–3; and Lippmann, “A Defense of Education,” Century, May 1923, 95–103.

¹¹⁷ Burt, Cyril, Mental and Scholastic Tests (London, 1922), 235Google Scholar; Linstrum, Ruling Minds, 96.

¹¹⁸ William McDougall, letter to the editor, New Republic, 23 May 1923, 346.

¹¹⁹ Walter Lippmann, letter to the editor, New Republic, 23 May 1923, 347.

¹²⁰ Walter Lippmann, “March 22, 1923—Draft Outline,” Lippmann Papers, Box 219, Folder 308.

¹²¹ Walter Lippmann, “First Draft: Original MS—July 15–August 15, 1923,” Lippmann Papers (Additional Material), Box 17, Folder 39; Lippmann, “Live and Let Live: An Attempt to Define the Sphere of Public Opinion” Lippmann Papers, Box 219, Folder 309.

¹²² See the correspondence with Harcourt Brace, Lippmann Papers, Box 12, Folder 507; and Walter Lippmann, “The Phantom Public,” Lippmann Papers, Box 217, Folder 298.

¹²³ Some later editions of the text, beginning with Macmillan in 1927, used “A Sequel to ‘Public Opinion’” as a subtitle. But the first edition from Harcourt Brace, and from which citations will be taken, did not: Lippmann, Walter, The Phantom Public (New York, 1925)Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Lippmann, The Phantom Public, 22. “Not being a biologist,” Lippmann added, “I keep an open but hopeful mind on this point, tempered, however, with the knowledge that certainty about how to breed ability in human beings is on the whole in inverse proportion to the writer's scientific reputation.”

¹²⁵ Ibid., 18–19, 52–3.

¹²⁶ Lippmann, “First Draft: Original MS—July 15–August 15, 1923,” “Chapter II,” 4.

¹²⁷ Lippmann, The Phantom Public, 42–3.

¹²⁸ Ibid., 149–50.

¹²⁹ Ibid., 150. “Their congenital excellence, if it exists,” he continued, “reveals itself only in their own activity. The aristocratic theorists work from the fallacy of supposing that a sufficiently excellent square peg will also fit a round hole.”

¹³⁰ Ibid., 79.

¹³¹ Ibid., 54.

¹³² Ibid., 68.

¹³³ Ibid., 103.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 68.

¹³⁵ Ibid.

¹³⁶ Ibid., 105–6.

¹³⁷ Ibid., 107–9.

¹³⁸ Ibid., 115–24.

¹³⁹ Ibid., 114.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid.

¹⁴¹ Ibid., 69.

¹⁴² Ibid., 74.

¹⁴³ John Dewey, “Practical Democracy,” New Republic, 2 Dec. 1925, 52.

¹⁴⁴ Dewey, John, The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry (New York, 1927)Google Scholar, chaps. 1–3; Dewey, “Austin's Theory of Sovereignty,” Political Science Quarterly 9/1 (1894), 31–52. See also Westbrook, John Dewey, 301–6.

¹⁴⁵ Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 116 n. 1.

¹⁴⁶ Lippmann, however, did not feel compelled to respond to Dewey, and declined to review The Public and Its Problems for the Nation. Busy writing A Preface to Morals (New York, 1929) and dealing with the death of his father, Lippmann told Mark Van Doren (19 Aug. 1927, Lippmann Papers, Box 33, Folder 1229), “if I felt that [Dewey's] book was not being reviewed but was waiting for me, I should have it on my conscience badly. I wish you'd go ahead with a review of your own.”

¹⁴⁷ Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 142.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., 203.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., 209, emphasis in original.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., 210–11.

¹⁵¹ Ibid., 208, emphasis in original.

¹⁵² Ibid., 209.

¹⁵³ Ibid., 209–10.

¹⁵⁴ Westbrook, John Dewey, 315–18.

¹⁵⁵ Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 213.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid., 219, emphasis added.