Whether you agree with Watson or not, you must admit that his back tracking was cowardly, and intellectually dishonest. Either he believes that black have lower IQ’s or he doesn’t. When he retracted his statements he tried to pull an old man excuse… ‘I can’t believe I said that!’

But where Watson dropped the ball, Saletan picked it up. I applaud his courageousness in at least discussing the issue. I find it disgusting that any supposedly scientific entity would find a topic “beyond the point of acceptable debate” [The Science Museum in London]

Yet, However, Nonetheless. I doubt that Saletan will truly analyze this issue in the cold, analytical, methodical technique that it requires. Despite this seemingly stark and honest first shot; I have little doubt that by Friday he will pleading with us “Why can’t we all get along?” I hunger to be proven wrong.

My last criticism I will save for the critics who have posted thus far. It’s difficult to lump them into one category, but if you look for a common theme it is this: They all point out the exceptions. ‘Well my 8th great-grandmother was half black and half Irish so I don’t easily fit these racial categories.’ Sure that’s true, but we’re talking about AVERAGES here people! The smartest black man is far more intellectual than a dumb Jew, no one is denying that. Why is it that people expect a Kenyan to beat Chinese person running a marathon, however to suggest a natural edge in a math competition is bigoted and backwards?

The fact that you have to accept is that on AVERAGE a person of African breeding will not be able to process data as well as an AVERAGE Asian. Once you accept that you can appreciate people for who they are with their strengths and weaknesses. Watson was initially right; when western countries play to the characteristics of Africans they can better help them to succeed in the world.

ieee:

Watson was initially right; when western countries play to the characteristics of Africans they can better help them to succeed in the world.

Plantations - there's the answer!

You're glossing over the significance of a mean of around 70, with a standard deviation of around 12, and what this means, comparatively.

Also, these same researchers will argue that women do have lower "g" scores than men, if you pin them down. It's an issue they've thus far not highlighted, preferring (I believe) to use this data to support changes in affirmative action, immigration, and foreign aid before they turn the attack on title IX and other policies enacted to ameliorate gender discrimination.

Probably don't want to risk alienating too many voters, too soon.

But they'll show up here, soon enough - ask them!

ieee:

Watson was initially right; when western countries play to the characteristics of Africans they can better help them to succeed in the world.

If only such benevolent motives were unanimous.

ieee , perceptions and reality often change. Up until the 1960's most runners - marathon and sprints - was won by Whites. Likewise we see Asians entering baseball and basketball. Today boxing is dominated by Eastern Europeans. The NBA VIP for two years in a row was a White Canadian. In fact, most sports are White dominated.Your contention that what we accept as fact about athletics is therefore wrong. But even if you were right, please do not pretend that the ramifications of athletic ability is the same as intellectual ability. History shows the latter to be dangerous if people aren't prudent with how they treat the data. And what you call "exceptions" are effected too, so they should be discussed.

Few are as pure at heart with such data as you seem to think.

"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world."

- Thomas Jefferson

"There is truth existing I wish unknown to the whole world." - Thomas Jefferson

Context matters. These findings lack adequate grounding in context, and are therefore not adequately interpretable, they are inherently misleading.

Any cognitive scientist who pretends otherwise has either lost their grounding to the glamour of statistical analysis, or is dishonest.

The rest of you, I don't blame so much. You're not supposed to know what "g" means, and how it relates to cognition.

And if you think that's a good summary of the criticism of Saletan's article, you haven't read what's posted here. At all. Let me sum:

brain size cannot be used to determine intelligence, because if that were true, whales and elephants would rule the world.

Epigenotype outstrips considerations of "genetic" racial characteristics.

IQ tests only measure our ability to take tests, and our academic learning. That's why Asians and Europeans tend to do better. It is not possible to construct a paper based test that measures g accurately across cultures.

No "aptitude" test can truly measure aptitude. much less success in later life. If this were the case, Oprah Winfrey would have scored over 200 on any IQ test.

Subsaharan Africans are subjected to so much illness, including parasites, malnutrition and other problems, and are so poorly served by education, that it is ridiculous to compare their performance on any standardized IQ test to those who have been brought up in stable environments with good nutrition and access to good education.

Race is a subjective classification, and Jensen and Rushton do nothing to create an objective definition. Think about it, what race is a "Latino"?

Since race, on IQ tests, is something the individual test taker fills out on his own, there is no real determination whether this individual is genetically "pure" or a mix, and heterosis can create individuals who carry the best genes of both parents.

for that link you provided on another thread re. the transracial adoption studies, heritability, and epigenetics.

Science will eventually self-correct. In the mean time, we just have to maintain social sanity - a formidable, perhaps insurmountable, task.