Cheers! to Falonia's comment. My history teacher in the 11th grade told us, in the context of teaching us about the intelligence tests of the Victorian era on down to the late fifties and about racial hierarchy in general, that Filipinos were considered pretty much "the n-----s of Asia" among other Asian populations (he was black BTW so he could say the word). Being Filipino, I thought it was an accurate view of how my people were ranked. Is it true that we're culturally/ethnically inferior to the rest of Asia? WHO THE HELL KNOWS, and more importantly, WHY SHOULD I CARE? Are my lazier, simpleton-like moments due to the fact that I grew up in balmy weather, that my parents didn't read to me as a child because they were too damn busy for most of my early childhood keeping us fed and alive in America, that my brain is really half the size of the average East Asian girl's, that I'm just inherently too lazy to apply myself, because my elementary school sucked? It could be all these things, or, as Saletan says it could be genetic. How can anyone separate the components that make up my life and tell exactly how I became the way I am? At the end of the day I can't do jack crap about my heritage and my genetic lot in life other than try as hard as I can at the things that I am able to do and try not to lament too much the things that I can't do.

And at the very least, I was counting on the fact that my substandard social status/performance and brown skin wouldn't get me singled out as "inferior" in AMERICA, because, you know, "created equal" and all that. Because, Saletan & cohorts, that's what this kind of information was used for, by and large, in the not-so-distant past. Hell, people are afraid of releasing race-based research on medical treatment now because they're afraid it leads to this, and they're actually researching this topic for a public good.

What, on the other hand, is Saletan offering with this information? Because even he can't find a conclusion other than the ones regarding social rehabilitation and inequality that might lead to actual policy. Which we already know without the benefit of Rushton et al.

Also, our citizenship laws don't respect "science" for the sake of "truth" any more than it respects "religion" for the sake of "moral and spiritual guidance" here in America. We above all hold the right of people to keep the beliefs that they have to the extent that they don't impinge on the rights of others while they practice those beliefs. And as much as that impingement is often difficult to dispute in the finer points of social interaction, there's one big issue to remember. As cute as Saletan's analogy is about Creationists to the so-called politically correct people who object to his articles, he should be reminded that no one has yet gotten killed for believing that biological evolution didn't happen. On the other hand, people have used intelligence hierarchies in various guises to justify everything from slavery to genocide.

So, in summary, people can sometimes suck massive donkey dick, and so we withhold and/or screen ideas and information and/or provide useful context to keep them from using it against each other without thinking. I just want to make it clear that my and others' objection to Saletan's article are not, as he so pompously put it, about putting down "truth". It's about his act of presenting it in such a way that potentially makes it ammunition against another set of "truths" (oh that word) that we hold to be self evident (etc. -- you know the song).


So Will: assuming you've got science on your side (and Stephen Jay Gould already presented his argument against that), you're presenting it to what end? Once again, I'm not saying that Slate should somehow keep ideas like this under wraps, but really, what kind of a response were you expecting when your audience is a bunch of Americans weaned on the ideal of "freedom and equality for all"? Should we trust that people will mean well when they handle your information and not make a fuss because OMG you've got numbers and charts and, like, real PhDs on your side? Is human history dominated by people using science responsibly in the social sphere? No effin' way. We've got the Constitution and 2000 years' worth of struggle over the meanings and applications of democracy, and I think that presents a worthy challenger to the "science" that you've presented.

WS says in several places that AS we move from research to policy to action there needs to be firm connection. To used the tired old cliché, you play the hand you're dealt not the one you wish for. Our egalitarian impulse must always be woven into our laws, but as we move closer to a performance based meritocracy we mush acknowledge differences in aptitude, just we do on the fields of sport. Evolution tells us that different traits were reinforced over millennia among different groups facing different environmental conditions. Can we undo this in three or four generations, especially when we have such difficulty in offsetting the new conditions e.g., the Hip Hop culture?

Science will continue to reveal genetic info that shows both differences and similarities among races. Hereditary traits extend far beyond IQ and in many ways have more importance in ensuring or preventing societal participation. Soon genetic engineering will be used to level the playing field. But until then we should be exploring educational and public policies that take into account potential. If some children are left behind this need not mean that we don't as a nation have avenues for workforce participation. It's either that or more warehousing which no one wants.

• And how close do you think we are to "performance based meritocracy" when we have more black men in the United States ending up in prison than in college? Is it just true that they don't naturally have what it takes to succeed in society? Are you suggesting that we medicate/operate because that's where science detects inadequacies? What is good empirical evidence of "social adequacy/inadequacy"? The fact that you have a job, hell a steady job, can balance a checkbook, that you know how to invest your money, that you have a house, that you know how to fundraise for your new internet startup business? That you earn over 20K, 30K, 40K, 100K, depending on the number kids you have and the disadvantages you may or may not have: 1)by going/not going to college or 2)working off your bankruptcy because you couldn't pay for health treatments or 3) were too dumb to sell your Enron shares before it collapsed or 4) have a substance addiction which you may or may not learn to control or 4)your dad was a deadbeat who left your mom to pay for everything? or 5)grew up in a neighborhood where you had to get chaperoned to and from school because people were afraid of the gang violence in the neighborhood? Who gets to determine which ills are in need of serious medication and which are societal ills that individuals can overcome that must later depend on local and state and national government to address? Are we all to be the same kind of people who succeed in the same ways? Who gets to determine worth? Is it you? Is it me? Because in my world, given what you're suggesting we do to "defectives", you'd be the first to go into a reeducation camp/gene therapy/medication.
  

  
  And what, pray tell, is "hip-hop culture" and why is it such a problem? Do you see a correlation between baggy pants and crime? Is Chuck D the same as the asshat who was interviewed by Anderson Cooper about "snitching"? Is there a correlation between those bright hoodies and school performance? Does a guy rapping about how he wishes he was a little bit taller -- and a baller with a rabbit in a hat and a bat -- make you want to call a research university? At the very least, it sounds better than saying that you want to call the police.