Every objection that has been posted thus far to Saletan's article is addressed in the articles that he links to the text. Clearly environment matters in the case of IQ. But all of the objections around culture, nutrition, education, parenting and such being the sole determinant of IQ are addressed and countered with a tremendous amount of evidence.

The idea that IQ doesn't matter has been disproven and is addressed in these articles. IQ is one important component predicting success in school and work across all cultures where education and informational occupations are engaged. IQ is only one component of success--EQ being another, for example--but when you take the relatively small differences and magnify them across millions of people, they can account for some pretty important group differences.

Finally, the idea of race as some separate "species" idea is clearly dead. But the idea of race as saying something about very minor genetic differences across groups is seriously in play and getting stronger by the month practically. Recent studies suggest that when you do genetic mapping, humans do cluster according to broader racial definitions. Saletan links to one such article in this text that shows that the gene for head size appears to show up more prominently in some groups as opposed to others.

It appears no one here actually read any of the articles he linked to and then criticized him for not providing sources.

As for the meaning of all this--I don't like it one bit and I was very disappointed to learn of all this evidence. And I'm a psychologist, so I'm a fair position to evaluate it--it simply is fairly substantial and the rebuttals to it have been weak (In fact, the article he links to on 30 years of research into the topic was rebutted by several authors, including Sternberg in the very same journal issue that it was released in). Anyway, I've been struggling with the meaning ever since--the best I can say is that we have to start taking people more and more as individuals, as that is where the rubber hits the road anyway.

"Every objection that has been posted thus far to Saletan's article is addressed in the articles that he links to the text."

Incorrect. The article he links to is written by James Malloy, who is a painter. He is not a scientist. He is a layperson just like you and me who has parsed together data leaning toward one conclusion. For the studies that he cites and the conclusions he provides, there are studies and data with counter results.

mdaf30:

Every objection that has been posted thus far to Saletan's article is addressed in the articles that he links to the text. Clearly environment matters in the case of IQ. But all of the objections around culture, nutrition, education, parenting and such being the sole determinant of IQ are addressed and countered with a tremendous amount of evidence.

It appears no one here actually read any of the articles he linked to and then criticized him for not providing sources.

I have recommended your post more for these statements than for anything else, although I'm sure you meant "every" to stand in for "almost every scientific" (i.e. there have been objections posted relating to what this all means, rather than if it is scientifically valid).

I take your general point about posters not following the links, and this is a chronic problem I've found with this forum (i.e. the Human Nature Fray). For his part, Saletan's problem is that he doesn't always sufficiently group concepts within paragraphs such that it is made obvious to the reader where he got his information. But yes, it would certainly benefit this board (and make Saletan's life easier) if people would dig a little deeper into his articles before posting.

No, correct. Saletan links twice to an article by Rushton and Jensen--two scientists published in a large, peer reviewed journal and referencing a host of other studies. This is the one that was published along with rebuttals by others. One could skip the other link all together.

Yes, that is what I meant. Appreciate the correction... even if one looks at the evidence and decides that it is sound or just in major need of serious response, there are a host of questions around meaning and implication, some of which these postings address as well.

By the way, the problem of reacting and not reading is not a Fray problem, but is everywhere I have seen on the web.

Well I'm not going to go thru every point in that 60 page article but a few things. The notion that 20% of Black Americans have White admixture is debatable. On page 25, they talk about twin studies that contradict their own hypothesis and suggest more studies be done. Thus, they concede they do not have all the answers. In fact they do this throughout the article.

They contend that IQ is stable throughout life yet simultaneouly argue that blacks shown to have high IQ at ages 7 - 13 raised in adoption studies is due to socialization which wears off. If IQ can be so radically altered by socialization, how is it a measure of true intelligence outside of strong environmental factors. Finding correlations is one thing, but explaining them is another.

Actually, nearly all of Saletan's citations are to Philip Rushton, a Canadian psychologist who has long been discredited. Rushton has no training in genetics and is funded by the eugenics outfit the Pioneer Fund. He has been censured by the university he was affiliated with and is not taken seriously by anyone in mainstream science.

Rushton's most embarrassing episode occurred when he got in trouble for approaching men of color in shopping malls and asking them questions such as the size of their penises and how far they could ejaculate. Rushton claims that large penis size is a determinant of low intelligence and was hoping to support his belief by engaging in that behavior. Anyone who cites Rushton as a source is as likely as much a moonbat as he is.

Jason Malloy is a member of one of the most notorious racist blogs on the Internet -- Gene Expression. The bloggers there claim blacks and Hispanics are geneticially inferior -- a missing link between apes and humans. Ironically, Malloy himself is at least a quarter black, but can pass for white. Hatred of his own ancestry seems to motivate him. He has no background whatsoever in science.

The fact that both you and Saletan are willing to take overt racists seriously suggests that you are fellow travelers.

Here's a link that provides criticisms of Rushton and Jensen's paper. It too, is from a peer reviewed scientific journal:

<link>.

<link>

Thank you. I was just going to mention the Pioneer Fund, its overtly racist and eugenics based history, and the fact that Rushton is anything but a respected expert on genetics. Many of its fundies are also part of the American Renaissance group. Saletan also links to Jensen who is just about as controversial. I'm surprised he wasn't quoting Spearman...

I am probably just pissing in the wind here, but take a look at Rushton's article. There are about 12 pages of references... Rushton is referenced a lot, but there about about 11.25 pages of other people. He references a huge body of knowledge done by others.

Will one assume that every one of those studies is done by a racist? (By the way, I heard Rushton not long ago on NPR totally refute the penis story).

Just one example.. one of the IQ studies that showed a relatively low African IQ was done by Sternberg. Sternberg is a vigorous opponent of the genetics-playing-a-role idea.

There's also the research by Asian Geneticist Bruce Lahn, which I don't think Saletan mentioned.

"In recent years, Dr. Lahn has become interested in why the human brain is so large and complex. Although humans and chimpanzees share about 96% of their DNA, human brains are about four times larger. Even today, researchers can find a correlation, on average, between people's brain size and their IQ.

Dr. Lahn's group zeroed in on the role of two genes, called ASPM and microcephalin, that are known to have a role in brain size. Humans with defective copies of either gene are born with brains only about one-third the normal size.

Studying DNA from several species, the Chicago team found that, over millions of years, the genes had undergone more rapid change in monkeys, apes and humans than in other animals. Their next step was to determine if evolution had continued in modern humans. Dr. Lahn's graduate students began decoding DNA from 1,184 people belonging to 59 groups from around the world, including Bedouins, Pima Indians and French-speaking Basques.

The data showed that evolution had continued in recent millennia. A statistical analysis of DNA patterns suggested that new mutations in each of the two brain-related genes had spread quickly through some human populations. Evidently, these mutations were advantageous among those populations -- just as the genetic variant promoting milk digestion was advantageous to early Europeans. Dr. Lahn and his team further observed that the new mutations are found most frequently outside of Africa.

What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence.

While acknowledging that the evidence doesn't permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain. He found ways to suggest that in his papers. One mutation, which according to his estimates arose some 40,000 years ago, coincided with the first art found in caves, the paper observed. The other mutation, present mostly in people from the Middle East and Europe, and estimated to be 5,800 years old, coincided with the "development of cities and written language." <link>

Actually, Lahn abandoned his eugenics claims some time ago. The only people actively promoting what was very dubious 'research' by him are race supremacists.* The person currently focusing attention on it, who uses the screen name Half Sigma, also claims the presence of blacks and Hispanics in America causes white people to be unhappy. His solution (to a problem that has no basis in reality) is a kind of reservation system in which 'inferior,' unhappiness causing blacks and browns would be kept away from their otherwise euphoric white victims. The fact that anyone would take this clown seriously reveals very little analytical thinking goes on in the racist movements.

Lahn's 'research' claimed two out of millions of aleles confirmed intellectual superiority on Europeans and some Asians. He was not even able to prove the aleles did what he claimed they did. After being roundly criticized by expert geneticists, he gave it up.

Jah, also notice that Saletan slips in the equally discredited Lynn through Rushton. Lynn was kicked out of academia after it was discovered that much of his race superiority 'research,' including twin studies, were just plain made up.

The New York Times fired another stalwart in 'respectable' white supremacy, the late Sam Francis, after his affiliation with the American Renaissance confederacy of dunces became known. It is unfortunate that Slate lacks the decency to do the same to Saletan.

Lahn's research reveaed no connection between IQ and the two alleles he found. Moreover, he did a test on himself and discovered that his brain lacked those two alleles.

What Podesta & Transboy said.

+ Saletan did quote Lahn's study... that is what set off the whole "hat size" threads.