Lotsa hate mail on this one, as would be expected. But you gota hand it to Will. He's clear, concise, direct, logical, and right. You can argue all you want about what "IQ" is, or what "g" measures, or how cultural and sociological explanations account for variations observed. But whatever is being measured does clearly correlate with race/head size, and by extension genes/environment. Maybe it isn't IQ, maybe it isn't intelligence as we narrowly conceive of it, but something is clearly being measured, and more importantly, differences are clearly observed in different races and different ethnicities. We all want to be like Colbert, colorblind, but the world is not the Colbert Report; it's what Colbert is satirizing.

There's some truth to what you say, but the way we measure each other does matter, and applying a fraudulent metric requires being at least addressed, which the author failed to do.

We live in a very bigoted society that hides behind a false mask of meritocracy. This needs to be exposed as racist and collectivist.

Sorry, had to add this bit.

Saletan is awesome, but I'm surprised that he is so distraught by the idea of living in this 'age of genetic difference'. It seems to me quite myopic to believe that we are just now entering a world where our genes matter. Our courting process over the last few millenia would seem to indicate at least a partial understanding that our genes influence who we are and what we do. Why would hair color, facial structure, body size, coordination, and athletic ability (by way of one's heart, lungs, muscle mass, etc.) all have at least partial genetic explanations, but not intelligence? The obvious outcry and rebuttal is that our genes do not differ... at least racially... in which case I would refer you to the aforementioned Colbert-syndrome.

Need to remember that race is polygenetic and socially defined. Why not compare a bunch of biracial groups and see if there are any 'half-and-half' combinations that are smarter than everybody else? Some are noting that intelligence has always produced definitional difficulties -- but race is just as difficult to define.

I do see that Saletan understands that individual differences are by far more important than differences in averages between socially constructed groups.

Hear hear! No matter what one thinks of the subject at hand, Saletan must at least be applauded for his courage. The scientific method has so far been consistently on the side of the humanist, but if we turn away from it when it defies us, then we will have lost all. Remember, if we do not recognize a genetic difference (if there indeed is one), then we will never be able to address it.

I am also on the "Saletan is Awesome" boat. There's no getting around numbers and results. They do quantify something whether we like the results or implications. Sure, IQ tests or other standardized test results aren't the be-all or end-all, but they certainly are a good indicator of things relevant to modern life. I think the whole "racially biased" idea came from people playing the race card. Bigotry does exist, but not in this case. I'm tired of people victimizing or pitying themselves whenever issues like this arise. Genetic variations in intelligence do exist; live with it. The attacks on this article were hardly substantive and didn't go beyond, "Hey! You're racist! You can't prove any of this!" It's all emotion. No real substance.