Psychologist, Eugenicist or a bit of both? Reconsidering the questionable reputation of Cyril Burt

One of the most divisive psychologists of the twentieth century, unjustifiably Cyril Burt is often ignored today. There is a lack of cohesion between the ways in which Burt is interpreted by many historians, and contrastingly by psychologists themselves even when they consider him at all. The allegations of fraud made against Burt and the impact of his lifelong eugenic ideology discussed here also suggests the need for reappraisal. However, a comprehensive re-evaluation is too demanding for a single paper. Consequently, only professional, conceptual and technical aspects, rather than the wider social impact of Burt’s work are considered. Much of his work on intelligence and its heritability was intended to provide ‘scientific’ support for eugenics and to demonstrate the implausibility of any alternative, but this was often extemporised rather than systematic. During the first decade of his work for example his axiomatic claims for the biological origins of human intelligence as an ‘instinct’, that matured or unfolded rather than developed through experience, seemed relatively coherent. However, as this faced increasingly strong challenges subsequently, Burt resorted to progressively more complex mental gymnastics, and cited questionable methods and ‘evidence’ in its support. Regardless of whether Burt is deemed a pioneer of psychology, a fraudulent ideologue, or simply as professionally slipshod, his reputation demands reconsideration.