It seems that most people assume something terrible happens as a result of the discovery that genetics play a part in IQ. This hand wringing is pretty ridiculous. Is there anyone who doubts that people of African descent are as a whole more athletic than people of European descent? I daresay there are few who could really profess to believe that a genetic gap doesn't exist in sprinting and jumping. People of some people groups are taller than other people groups, some are hairier than others, some are more prone to obesity than others. Why would we assume the brain (just one among many organs) is the one area of the body where there would be no genetic difference? It confounds belief that this many people could really believe that all people groups are created equal. It seems that part of the dismay over the possibility of unequal intellect (at least as defined by test scores and success in careers) is that it would have us believe that if it were proven true, no one would hire African Americans (at best) or that eugenics would rear its head (at worst). Both seem unlikely. The key to living and interacting with people who are different than you are tolerance and understanding. While it is true that a substantially higher percentage of African Americans are convicted of crimes or have HIV than that of the Asian or European communities, it certainly doesn't give me the license (or the basis) for treating any individual African American as a criminal. Understanding that, and acclimating ourselves to the fact that others can make the same decisions to look beyond stereotypes, are the keys to: 1. Accepting these findings as legitimate and 2. Understanding where educational advances can be made. The end result is, if I know in general that a group of people are color blind, then I would not use colors in teaching them. If I know that Africans don't process information in the same way that we do, I can maybe better understand how to work with them, whether it be to prevent the spread of AIDS or encourage farming and respect for women's rights.

If people of African descent are generally better athletes than others -- based on genetics -- why is there no racial dominance of soccer (football) or volleyball, which are played worldwide? Why is American baseball, which sure seemed dominated by excellent African American players (along with European Americans) in the 1970s and 1980s, now dominated by Latinos (or by Asians, if we think about Little League)? What about the fact that basketball was once considered a game especially cut-out for the talents of Jews?

Not all sports are created equally. In some sports, there is a clear association between tasks and required skills. For example, men's long-distance running (which requires physical endurance and mental stamina), has been dominated by Kenyan and other African runners. Likewise, the NBA and NFL are heavily dominated by African Americans. There is also a strong dominance of blacks in track and field events. Whether genetics alone accounts for this has not been rigorously tested, but its hard to deny the results.

Most sports are dominated by Whites. The Blacks that dominate some US sports represent a small sample of African heritage as they're West Africans. Just as the domination of boxing by Eastern Europeans is only a sample of European heritage. Those who dominate sports has changed in the past and continues to vary.

soccer - not as much access to equipment and real coaching, plus feeder programs are only for national team athletes in Africa, in America African Americans have little interest in soccer.

volleyball - it barely exists in Africa and is not popular with many American males, especially African Americans

baseball - was never on its way to being dominated by African Americans, is often based just as much on skill as athleticism and is (more importantly) just not popular in the African American community. This is a problem that baseball is trying to fix, but has continued to be unable to lure African Americans the way that football and basketball can. Latinos love the sport of baseball and finally have more access to training and equipment. Hence, whatever genetic abilities they have are finally able to be rewarded in the big leagues. Asians don't "dominate" little league, but again, baseball is a sport where you can win without being athletic. Focus and determination count for as much or more than athleticism. Quick hands can be better than quick legs or the ability to jump.

As to the comment about basketball and Jewish people (I understand using the term "Jews" to be considered rather offensive) many assumptions made in the past have proven to be wrong.

Here's an experiment for you. Watch the Olympics and see who is fastest or jumps the longest. After all, running fast is the best measure of who "runs fast" (intentionally redundant). If that isn't convincing then go to an elementary school and line up 20 white kids and 20 black kids at random. Have them race. Document the results. I don't know why we're all required to "ostrich" this issue as if we can't see that there are differences in people groups. If we believe in evolution (and we must - Carl Everett aside) then we must believe that animals have adapted to their environments. This means that two populations, placed in disparate environments will develop different traits. I'm at a loss for how anyone can combine a belief that animals evolve with a belief that the brain of all humans is the same.

cbreland, I'm glad someone said it. Before reading the responses to this article I thought denial of science that doesn't mesh with one's ideology was a predominantly conservative trait, but maybe not.

Look liberals (which I mostly consider myself to be): the science is out there. It isn't pleasant. It isn't what anyone but an overt racist would wish it to be. But it's there. It's important to remember that no scientist is advocating a 100% genetic explanation-the debate is generally between the 100% environmental and 50/50 crowds. And, repeating at least one previous poster, it's more important than ever to consider every individual on the planet as an individual. I dont think Saletan emphasizes enough how wide the ranges are and how much overlap exists between groups.

To me this quote kind of sums up my take on the race and IQ issue: "The end result is, if I know in general that a group of people are color blind, then I would not use colors in teaching them."

The policy/end results question is to me the most germane. If you know that a group of people is color blind would you use colors in teaching them? In the real word, yes, you probably would. How are you going to determine who is colorblind accurately? What purpose would you find in not teaching them about or with colors? Should colorblind people be excluded from some learning opportunities because of their deficiency?

The same holds true for the athletics analogy: it appears that people of African decent are "more athletic" than non-Africans. So, what are we supposed to do with that information? Are there any policies or real world actions that can be taken based on this information? Are we going to give more or less opportunities to people based on their potential athletic ability (or lack thereof)?

Along the same lines, what will we accomplish with this information about IQ and race? Are we going to change some policies (presumably regarding education and employment) based on group IQ?

Now, I can hear the race and IQ folks screaming, "YOU'RE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH!!!!" Not at all. I'm not afraid of the "truth" and I'm not afraid of science, but i also recognize that occasionally people use these types of statistics to buttress arguments that favor mistreatment of minorities.

Noam Chomsky (whom you may or may not view as an authority on anything) stated the following on race and IQ which I think is true:

"Consider finally the question of race and intellectual endowments. Notice again that in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. An individual is what he is; it is only on racist assumptions that he is to be regarded as an instance of his race category, so that social consequences ensue from the discovery that the mean for a certain racial category with respect to some capacity is such-and-such. Eliminating racist assumptions, the facts have no social consequences whatever they may be, and are therefore not worth knowing, from this point of view at least. If there is any purpose to an investigation of the relation between race and some capacity, it must derive from the scientific significance of the question. It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. Likewise, inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ can be justified on any scientific grounds."

i guess all i can say in response is that "yes!" i would suggest policy changes were in order. my colorblind example was not to not teach people who were colorblind that colors exist, but that teaching them using standard practices might not be as good as some tailored instruction. currently we teach kids with pictures of brightly colored objects that make the item stand out in the child's mind, and therefore be more readily associated with the spelling of the word. maybe (if we know that all people in a certain town are colorblind) it means that instead of "tommy held a red balloon" we teach "tommy had a giant balloon" and the associated illustration is tailored to the abilities of the kids. or, it could be as simple as they can't tell the difference between red and green and consequently we utilize other colors in teaching.

point being, if we don't think there are analogous opportunities in educating people in Africa about diseases, about social equality and about development of infrastructure then we just aren't thinking hard enough. i would hate for America (specifically) to continue to be the hammer that thinks everything looks like a nail.