I've always been a bit suspicious of this idea of unrealized potential. You can take anyone and put them in the perfect situation with motivation and there's a good chance they'll succeed. Just as much as a poor child could have the potential to present revolutionary ideas as Einstein did, how many people working in adtech for example could have become revolutionary mathematicians if they put their effort and focus into it? You can apply it to literally anything

> that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

Equal potential maybe. But it's nonsense to equate potential with talent. Talent is observed based on demonstrable execution.

A pithy quote is all that is.

Gould is known for placing ideology ahead of science, so it's refreshing that he admits as much.

Stephen F. Blinkhorn, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, wrote that The Mismeasure of Man was "a masterpiece of propaganda" that selectively juxtaposed data to further a political agenda. [..] Jensen also criticized Gould for concentrating on long-disproven arguments (noting that 71% of the book's references preceded 1950), rather than addressing "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Gould wrote a controversial book attacking whole swathes of science done in the past. The existence of a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire who has written a criticism of it doesn't seem that surprising and certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say.

> certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say.

No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments against the century-old studies he attacks (while carefully avoiding modern work) were shown to be faulty. It's like (poorly) debunking phlogiston in the modern day, and expecting to be taken seriously.

Stephen F. Blinkhorn, is that you?