It's a perfectly plausible theory that cultural and social characteristics can and do 'naturally select' certain biological traits.

I hope nobody backs off the topic just because it might offend some people's hyper-politically correct sensibilities. If the theory proves to be true, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about it. It's like saying 2+2=4 - it's just a fact, again, assuming the theory can be proven.

I know they're not exactly the same, but what's the fundamental difference between what these researchers are saying and what James Watson said a couple weeks ago? Both scientists simply posit that genetic evolution is not uniform across the entire species Homo sapiens and that cultural, geographical, and other factors drive genetics in myriad and complex ways. That's a perfectly reasonable theory, and if they have the data to back it up, why is there any controversy?

There is controversy because the evidence is never overwhelming, and yet you always have crap douches like Murray waiting in the wings to spin some lame policy argument that amounts to "those people you don't identify with have lower IQs than you. they must not be, and cannot be, very productive. should we really continue to pay for them to breed?"

In other words, though the theories relating to between group IQ differences are plausible, to expect that culture and politics will allow the debate to proceed in a nuanced, objective fashion by either side is naive. That is why such theories have to rightfully be held to a high standard in terms of those things, and why I generally discount this crap when it comes out of hacktanks like AEI.

Jesus.

Wall Street, you are doing precisely what people like Murray do all the time. You make an assertion based on incredibly scant data; then when people object to that claim on the basis of the flimsy evidentiary support, that say "You only say that because it's politically correct." Bringing up "PC" is a way to leverage data without improving it. Rather than come up with better data, you just question the motives of the person questioning the data you have. The truth is, the backlash against political correctness has always been a more powerful cultural force than political correctness itself. And it's not close.

Jesus yourself!

Freddie, re-read my post, specifically these two sentences, "If the theory proves to be true, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about it. It's like saying 2+2=4 - it's just a fact, again, assuming the theory can be proven."

I'm not making any assertions as to whether the theories were correct or incorrect. What I said was that if a researcher has the data to prove the theory, then it shouldn't matter if the findings are not what people necessarily want to see.

The data is what it is.

I think I understand your larger point though: you think that the methods/results/conclusions of these studies are incorrect at best and deliberately misleading at worst and you don’t want people to use what you consider to be a flawed study as evidence to justify labeling some races genetically inferior/superior to others.

I get that. Everybody gets that. I promise, not everyone is as stupid as you think they are.

Again, I am not arguing for or against these studies. What I’m saying is that the subjective analysis that surrounds this issue is laughable; there is absolutely no need for the scientists to analyze results and tailor conclusions to match whatever the latest social/political fad is. Forcing the conclusion you want to see - regardless of contradictory evidence - is how people come up with ridiculous shit like Intelligent Design.

Freddie - I'm not so sure Anti-PC always trumps PC. It really depends on the arena where it plays out. In the general population, I would agree that you are correct. But when applied to PC controlled venues, such as American Universities, you would have to admit that the PC crowd has home field advantage. Just ask the University President who publicly mulled over the possibility that gender influenced one's abilities at math and science. The man was pilloried. If you are on a college campus, have a government job, or your career depends on the media, you must toe the PC line. Unless you do not mind having your career crushed.

Free Speech? It may cost you.

"I get that. Everybody gets that. I promise, not everyone is as stupid as you think they are."

No, not everyone gets that. History is repleat with policy makers using sketchy evidence to craft policy tailored towards satisfying their own or the majority's biases. That's why there is such a thing as 'political correctness' in the first place, and why science in this area will naturally come under extra scrutiny before being released for others to misuse. To think that a lot of people aren't this 'stupid' in this regard is naive.

....what's the fundamental difference between what these researchers are saying and what James Watson said a couple weeks ago?...

Agreed. What is the difference other than complementing a "race" rather than denigrating it.

On the other hand, if intelligence is a basis for improved survival and propagation, then why are Jews so consistently a small fraction of the world's population?

Estimates of intelligence are more likely a measure of how well an individual understands and incorporates the elements of human society (language, urbanity)