Look, I'm not looking to get flamed, but there is a scientific case to be made here, unpleasant though it may be. I do wonder if these are questions that science should not be asking, if this is one place we simply should not look. I think it was Noam Chomsky who suggested this was an area that should be closed to further scientific inquiry. But if people wish to know the state of science on the issue, I recommend this article: <link> It answers almost all of the questions raised in the comments. However, commenters who are already very upset should probably not go poking further into this subject. Truth is not always a liberating commodity.

On differences in brain size between men and women:

Through high school, girls earn better grades in math than boys, but boys usually do better on standardized tests. The difference in means is modest, but the male advantage increases as the focus shifts from means to extremes....
Evolutionary biologists have some theories that feed into an explanation for the disparity....

Why not instead attribute the results of these tests to socialization? Enter the neuroscientists. It has been known for years that even after adjusting for body size, men have larger brains than women. Yet most psychometricians conclude that men and women have the same mean IQ (although debate on this issue is growing). One hypothesis for explaining this paradox is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity. In the past few years, magnetic-resonance imaging has refined the evidence for this hypothesis, revealing that parts of the brain's parietal cortex associated with space perception are proportionally bigger in men than in women.

What does space perception have to do with scores on math tests? Enter the psychometricians, who demonstrate that when visuospatial ability is taken into account, the sex difference in SAT math scores shrinks substantially....

On race as a social construct:

Turning to race, we must begin with the fraught question of whether it even exists, or whether it is instead a social construct. The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Mr. Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the past few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Mr. Lewontin was wrong. Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9% of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

On the present state of our knowledge about the black-white intelligence gap in the US:

Historically, it has been about one standard deviation in magnitude among subjects who have reached adolescence; cultural bias in IQ tests does not explain the difference; and the tests are about equally predictive of educational, social and economic outcomes for blacks and whites. However controversial such assertions may still be in the eyes of the mainstream media, they are not controversial within the scientific community....

The most important change in the state of knowledge since the mid-1990s lies in our increased understanding of what has happened to the size of the black-white difference over time....(1) The black-white difference in scores on educational achievement tests has narrowed significantly. (2) The black-white convergence in scores on the most highly "g-loaded" tests--the tests that are the best measures of cognitive ability--has been smaller, and may be unchanged, since the first tests were administered 90 years ago....

If you are a pessimist, the gap has been unchanged at about one standard deviation. If you are an optimist, the IQ gap has decreased by a few points, but it is still close to one standard deviation. The clear and substantial convergence that occurred in academic tests has at best been but dimly reflected in IQ scores, and at worst not reflected at all.

Nature vs. nurture:

Whether we are talking about academic achievement or about IQ, are the causes of the black-white difference environmental or genetic? Everyone agrees that environment plays a part. The controversy is about whether biology is also involved.

It has been known for many years that the obvious environmental factors such as income, parental occupation and schools explain only part of the absolute black-white difference and none of the relative difference. Black and white students from affluent neighborhoods are separated by as large a proportional gap as are blacks and whites from poor neighborhoods. Thus the most interesting recent studies of environmental causes have worked with cultural explanations instead of socioeconomic status.

On the cultural content of tests:

When you compare black and white mean scores on a battery of subtests, you do not find a uniform set of differences; nor do you find a random assortment. The size of the difference varies systematically by type of subtest. Asked to predict which subtests show the largest difference, most people will think first of ones that have the most cultural content and are the most sensitive to good schooling. But this natural expectation is wrong. Some of the largest differences are found on subtests that have little or no cultural content, such as ones based on abstract designs.

On why it is important to ask these questions:

What good can come of raising this divisive topic? The honest answer is that no one knows for sure. What we do know is that the taboo has crippled our ability to explore almost any topic that involves the different ways in which groups of people respond to the world around them--which means almost every political, social or economic topic of any complexity.

Thus my modest recommendation, requiring no change in laws or regulations, just a little more gumption. Let us start talking about group differences openly--all sorts of group differences, from the visuospatial skills of men and women to the vivaciousness of Italians and Scots. Let us talk about the nature of the manly versus the womanly virtues. About differences between Russians and Chinese that might affect their adoption of capitalism. About differences between Arabs and Europeans that might affect the assimilation of Arab immigrants into European democracies. About differences between the poor and nonpoor that could inform policy for reducing poverty.

Even to begin listing the topics that could be enriched by an inquiry into the nature of group differences is to reveal how stifled today's conversation is. Besides liberating that conversation, an open and undefensive discussion would puncture the irrational fear of the male-female and black-white differences I have surveyed here. We would be free to talk about other sexual and racial differences as well, many of which favor women and blacks, and none of which is large enough to frighten anyone who looks at them dispassionately.

Talking about group differences does not require any of us to change our politics. For every implication that the right might seize upon (affirmative-action quotas are ill-conceived), another gives fodder to the left (innate group differences help rationalize compensatory redistribution by the state). But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today's language in "The Blank Slate," writing that "equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group."

Nothing in this essay implies that this moral principle has already been realized or that we are powerless to make progress. In elementary and secondary education, many outcomes are tractable even if group differences in ability remain unchanged. Dropout rates, literacy and numeracy are all tractable. School discipline, teacher performance and the quality of the curriculum are tractable. Academic performance within a given IQ range is tractable. The existence of group differences need not and should not discourage attempts to improve schooling for millions of American children who are now getting bad educations.

In university education and in the world of work, overall openness of opportunity has been transformed for the better over the past half-century. But the policies we now have in place are impeding, not facilitating, further progress. Creating double standards for physically demanding jobs so that women can qualify ensures that men in those jobs will never see women as their equals. In universities, affirmative action ensures that the black-white difference in IQ in the population at large is brought onto the campus and made visible to every student. The intentions of their designers notwithstanding, today's policies are perfectly fashioned to create separation, condescension and resentment--and so they have done.
The world need not be that way. Any university or employer that genuinely applied a single set of standards for hiring, firing, admitting and promoting would find that performance really is distributed indistinguishably across different groups. But getting to that point nationwide will require us to jettison an apparatus of laws, regulations and bureaucracies that has been 40 years in the making. That will not happen until the conversation has opened up. So let us take one step at a time. Let us stop being afraid of data that tell us a story we do not want to hear, stop the name-calling, stop the denial and start facing reality.

Citing an 2005 editorial written by a co-author of The Bell Curve is hardly the "state of science" on the issue.

This post is naive. Do you honestly think that progressive policies are responsible for the inability for people to speak 'openly and honestly' about between group distance? Do you really trust people to judge evidence about differences between them and people they don't identify with in an objective fashion?

If the answers to these questions are 'yes', then i would humbly submit that you are on the left hand side of the bell curve.

Face your own reality. Clearly you have not experienced the unbridled joy of being black in America. We regularly have to defend our competence, decorum, and intelligence against false presuppositions. Now we have to defend our genetic parity as well! When will the parade of indignities end in this country. We were kidnapped, enslaved, raped in front of our children, had our families sold to the highest bidder like cattle, and even after the civil war treated like lepers and second-class citizens until the 60s. Now this?! The final indignity. It has been less than 50 years since black people received equal protection under the law and were expected to perform on par with folks who've had centuries worth of a head-start. Don't you think people who've experienced trauma on that scale would have lingering psychological issues that remained unresolved without some sort of counseling. Maybe some of those issues were passed to their children.

While I am generally in favor of free and rigorous discourse in the marketplace of ideas, I would submit to you that this debate is tasteless and completely inappropriate for public discourse. Either we as a society are going to treat people equally or we aren't, period.

Do you have any black friends or colleagues? How do you think they would feel as you debate whether they and their families are genetically inferior? These are living, breathing people with the same emotions as you. Not all arguments benefit from objectivity. The further you explore this internecine, dehumanizing debate without regard for the individuals you may adversely impact, the more humanity you lose.

Consider if you were an impressionable black child of 13 or 14 and happened upon this debate. Do you have any idea of the impact this discussion would have on a child's nascent self-image? Now ask yourself, is this debate honestly worth having in the public square?

Face your own reality, then embrace your humanity.

"Consider if you were an impressionable black child of 13 or 14 and happened upon this debate. Do you have any idea of the impact this discussion would have on a child's nascent self-image? Now ask yourself, is this debate honestly worth having in the public square?"

Yes. It is absolutely worth having this debate in the public square. As I mentioned in your other thread, it is racist not to have this debate. If we shut down inquiry into the differences of races because we are worried that one race will "come out on top" or one race will be left behind, then we are being racist because we have a suspicion that one race is better than another. I do not have this suspicion. All the races have been evolving for the same amount of time. Scientifically, it doesn't make any sense that one race would be "better" than another. At this point in time, scientists are studying IQ, but if we stand our intellectual ground and don't succumb to political correctness, we could find out later more about the races. For example: That black people are genetically predisposed to be more empathetic than white people. It could very well be possible. But the point is, we won't know if we are too scared to find out.

As for your worries about an impressionable black child of 13 or 14 learning about this. Agreed, it is worrisome. But I have more faith in a human being's self-respect and ambition than to think this will be a crippling problem. I'm white, but I do not care that Asian people and Jewish people have a higher average IQ than white people, because I know that I have value, and have something to contribute to society. I don't think it is any different for a black child. In the end, it is the individual, regardless of race, that matters.

Sir, you misunderstand my point which is this debate is not appropriate in an open forum. I did not say it was racist, I dont believe that it is. I think the statistics are worth investigation however I dont think this is the proper venue. I'm glad to see that you believe that my proverbial child is emotionally resilient. I will submit to you that I was that child and I know far more children of similar background. Respectfully, I don't think youre in any position to postulate whether this debate will be psychologically damaging. I assure you that it is, particularly is a culture where, unfortunately, little is expected of these children anyway. You said that you know you have value and something to contribute to society, please understand that simple sentiment is not shared among many black kids. I not saying that they are correct or that they should think that way but that is how it is at point. A debate such as this is going to do nothing but continue to marginalize an already vulnerable population.

You also need to understand we dont live in a nuanced society, most people do not think critically. We live in a country where Fred Thompson is a leading presidential contender mostly because he was on Law and Order. Now you'd like to tell these people that black folks are intellectually inferior on average and you don't believe a large portion of the population isnt going to stereotype us, get real sir.

Finally, it is not your call whether this debate in an open forum is appropriate or not, it is ours and I say that it is not. Given that you are white, it is fine for you to discuss whether asians are on average smarter than whites, you're in a better position to gauge its potential impact. However, it is the height of arrogance for you presume that you speak for all black people. I don't speak for all blacks either but I will say this debate personally hurtful and demeaning. As I said earlier, either we will be respected as equal partners in this society or we wont, I don't think that studying the potential genetic inferiority of a population is conducive to a strong and unified country. I struggle to see how this debate will be beneficial in this capacity but I dont object to it in principle

This is what you call 'thouroughly discussed'. You off hand speculation, running counter to much history and sociology, that individuals can just 'deal' with it, that people will be treated fairly or think they will be treated fairly?

This is naive and moronic.

"Do you have any black friends or colleagues? How do you think they would feel as you debate whether they and their families are genetically inferior? These are living, breathing people with the same emotions as you. Not all arguments benefit from objectivity....

Consider if you were an impressionable black child of 13 or 14 and happened upon this debate. Do you have any idea of the impact this discussion would have on a child's nascent self-image?"

Of course I have black colleagues. I am a lawyer. And as some of them are my friends I won't be emailing them copies of this debate. Not because they would feel inferior, they are all much too accomplished to feel threatened by this research, but because I get the sense that they are frustrated to the point of despair with the problem of how to motivate and uplift the black lower class.

Which brings me to your second point. As I said, I am not at all sure that this research should continue, for all the reasons you've stated. Clearly it won't do for a 13 year old to review these data; even the most analytical child is bound to draw all the wrong conclusions. But then neither is it good for us to obsessively catalog every performance difference between blacks and whites and ascribe all lag in black achievement to pervasive white racism. By the time these kids graduate high school they're convinced there's a racist hiding behind every bush waiting to hate on them.

I tutor a high school boy who is about the age of your hypothetical black child. He is convinced that the government invented Aids to kill black people and that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans. My biggest challenge working with him is convincing him that he really can be anything be wants to be if he tries hard enough. But he's fallen for the notion that the deck is so hopelessly stacked against him by a racist society that there's little he can do.

So no, I would never want him to know the state of intelligence research, but I would truly like to have a word with whoever is responsible for filling his head with all this self-defeating racism poison. That stupid, vicious person has ruined his life.

This is better than the article.

I hope that you are in a profession that allows you to wield reason and eloquence to good effect.

Thank you, Liza.  That was wonderfully well done.

Now if we can just teach a few lessons to these dolts out there who keep throwing around free-floating adjectives like "superior" and "inferior."

As for hurting the feelings of groups who do not score highly on these particular tests:  I belong to such a group, and I've ocassionally heard people from other groups express mild surprise that I was in an Ivy League setting.  But that was before affirmative action for my group, and I knew that I belonged where I was.  Pretty soon they did too.

I would have felt worse, I imagine, if I hadn't belonged.