First the article alleging Jewish intellectual superiority and now this. Do Caucasians possess some intrinsic drive to prove they are ascendant amongst all racial groups? Or does the white race simply just really dislike black people? It would be pathetic if it didn't cause so much harm. So as a black male attending Rice university, I'm surely some sort of intellectual anomaly. It's too bad my black bretheren weren't blessed with the necessary cognitive capabilities inherent in whites and asians to join me. I'm sure the institutionalized racism that continues to run rampant in this country had nothing to do with. The inequal conditions in housing, education, health, income, and other factors are unrelated as well. I'm also sure the effects of colonial oppression in several of the African countries cited played no role in these IQ tests. And even if they didn't, the purpose of this entire enterprise seems riddled with latent racism.

The conclusion I drew from this series is this; Black people are cognitively inferior by nature and as such we should expect less from them intellectually because its not their fault. Instead we should mix our superior genes with them in order to lessen their natural stupidity and compensate for any weaknesses they have academically and socially. And as a Black person I'm supposed to be ok with this? *Thank you Mr. White Man for bringing our genetic inferiority to the light, I hope your genius allows you to discover a solution to our dilemma.* Studies such as these are irresponsible. Being black is arduous enough as it is. The evisceration of our race is constant and ever present. (And no one, NO ONE, can ever understand this experience except other Blacks). What do you think this study does to my psyche? And I'm allegedely one of the "smart" ones. What about those black students not attending ranked universities? To be honest, I didn't write this to argue the validity of this series or counter any assertions towards Black intelligence. I don't really have the expertise to do so and I don't really care to anyways. I just want to thank Caucasians once again for inventing ever new ways to make Blacks everywhere feel less about themselves. And save your rebuttals about, "Stop blaming the White Man," or "Slavery is over, move on," or my personal favorite, "I never did anything to Black people, so don't blame me!" All of those protests are beside the point. If you are white you benefit from white privilege and whether consciously or not, your race plays a role in consolidating resources and power to the exclusion of mine.

This series should never have been shown in a Slate. It is not a legitimate scientific article. It utilizes certain data, handpicked by the author, to expound on a personal position. Furthermore, this topic is too socially charged to be casually discussed by the general public. Many people already possess implicit negative beliefs concerning Blacks in their subconcious, articles such as this only serve to strengthen possible racist tendencies. There is no reason Slate should serve as a conduit for this sort of thing. It is for this reason, irrespective of whatever scientific claims are being alleged that I think this series never should have appeared in Slate. Perhaps the next series can be on why Blacks have bigger penises and are better athletes than other races.

Thank you for your message. I'm a white person, but I share your anger, and all of your points are right on. "Intermarriage is closing the gap"? My god, who is this person and why did he do this? I can't believe my eyes.

Slate is a marginal publication, and so these articles wouldn't receive the immediate scrutiny that, say, the New York Times or Newsweek would. And yet it is the their most emailed story now. Saletan's flawed and poisonous message is reaching countless people - young African Americans whose sense of worth is already assaulted by American society, as well those gentile whites, jews, and Asians who will do who knows what with with this "information."

We can only hope the uproar will be loud enough that he will soon be subject to more public scrutiny in more established press (e.g. NPR, who collaborates with Slate), where he will certainly be slaughtered. Where is Howard Gardner, where are the experts themselves, to put this man in his place?

Talk about it with your colleagues at Rice, and make a lot of noise. Don't let him get away with it. Keep the faith.

Those IQ boys(J. P. "How Far can You Ejaculate" Rushton, Lynn, Jensen, et al) are just hot air--not much more. Look at their numbers and you will see that U.S. blacks score higher IQs than all of West(Iran 83, Arabia 83) and South Asia(India 81, Pakistan 81, Nepal 78), Central America(Mexico 83, Guatemala 78(Maya Civilization territory), Honduras 84, etc.) and is on par with Sinoid populations of South Esat Asia(Burma 86, Philippines 86, Laos 89, Thailand 91, Indonesia 89, etc.).

When the skeptics start their scientifically innocent but condescending talk ask them to google "Jonathan Farley", "Philip Emeagwali", "Abiola Lapite" and many other such.

I agree with your post. I did write Slate and ask that they follow this series with another that presents a different viewpoint. And I said that perhaps they should have paired Saletan up with someone who has a different viewpoint in a dialogue, like they sometimes do, rather than have the posts be freestanding. There were several more responsible ways to present material that was certain to be inflammatory. I wonder if the Slate editors somehow thought it wouldn't be a big deal? Or just didn't care if it was as long as the site got attention. And also didn't care if they alienated readers. It's an interesting business model.

We all have the clear, wondrously bright field from the beginning. Many lifetimes of misunderstanding come only from distrust, hindrance, and screens of confusion that we create in a scenario of isolation.

- Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157)

DAMOCLES SWORD:

When the skeptics start their scientifically innocent but condescending talk ask them to google "Jonathan Farley", "Philip Emeagwali", "Abiola Lapite" and many other such.

In what way is the existence of very smart accomplished black people like Dr Farley and Abiola Lapite in contradiction of the assertion that intelligence is not identically distributed in different races ? Are you totally ignorant of probability and statistics ? Once again, how does bringing up these 2 disprove what Mr Saletan said ? Did he or any other serious researcher say hat there is no such a thing as smart black people ?

No. What they're saying is that there are proportionally fewer smart people in black populations, when compared to some other populations . The findings of psychometry are basically that for every genius like Farley or Abiola randomly drawn from a given black population , you have many more such geniuses who are white/northeast asian and you have even more such geniuses who are jewish ( a subset of white, if you wish ) . I don't see that being belied by the facts, do you ? As for Emeagwali , besides one supercomputing accomplishment back in the late 80s , he's a fraud and you're insulting both Farley and Abiola by associating that con artist together with them . Look it up

moisemetellus/ogunsiron

However deep your knowledge of the scriptures, it is no more than a strand of hair in the vastness of space. However important seeming your worldly experience, it is but a drop of water in a deep ravine.

- Tokusan

someone else:

- young African Americans whose sense of worth is already assaulted by American society, as well those gentile whites, jews, and Asians who will do who knows what with with this "information."

Do african americans really suffer from widespread self esteem problems ? If anything, us black people tend to think that we're better than whites and that the only reason we're not dominating them is because they're keeping us down .

someone else:

...

We can only hope the uproar will be loud enough that he will soon be subject to more public scrutiny in more established press

...

You mean scrutiny or witch trial ?

someone else:

Talk about it with your colleagues at Rice, and make a lot of noise. Don't let him get away with it. Keep the faith.

How ironic, given that this series of articles is about liberal creationism . Keep the *faith* indeed because it's certainly not science that's on your side .

may have some genetic origin??.....

Re Emeagwali: you cannot deny his work on parallel processing for which he still retains his Gordon Bell prize. Even Einsten didn't get a doctorate until very late and with some string pulling. And there are those who claim that it was wife's insights or those of his colleagues, etc. And Watson and his claims to fame for the DNA helix? What about the persistent rumors concerning his female lab assistant who made the breakthrough--as some claim?

The reason for mentioning those examples--and there are many more is to make a point about IQ scores distributed according to the standard Bell Curve. The fact that there are so many persons of African genealogy whose achievements put them on the far right quartile of the standard curve means that the black curve is extremely skewed to the right or it consists of 2 bimodal curves--both a function of education/culture, etc.

If the black Bell Curve were a standard curve then the existence of those individuals who exist beyond the 98th percentile of the standard curve would have been statistically impossible. Thus the only plausible explanation is that the black Bell Curve is heavily environmentally determined. That's my point.

Note that the debate about IQ is not about the raw scores--if the tests were properly done--but about how much of those raw scores are determined by nurture(environment/culture,et­c.) rather than by nature. The nativists, given their dogmatic beliefs about the cognitive inequality of the so-called races argue that raw IQ scores reflect the true intellectual capacities of the groups tested. I disagree with that.

I think j_rock first paragraph sums up the entire problem with this profession. Why is it that white scientists, scholars, etc. are so obsessed with determining, 'who's bigger' or 'who's smartest'? If the findings Saletan is quoting are true, then what? As I said in my own post, and just like it was said in this post: Latent Racism permeates this entire debate. You can prove this is Latent Racism just by the way Saletan approaches the article. Why is he focusing on the so-called lower IQ's of Blacks, as opposed to the higher IQ's of Asians? Why isn't the focus of the article on why Asians seem to be smarter than everyone?

DAMOCLES SWORD:

Re Emeagwali: you cannot deny his work on parallel processing for which he still retains his Gordon Bell prize. Even Einsten didn't get a doctorate until very late and with some string pulling. And there are those who claim that it was wife's insights or those of his colleagues, etc. And Watson and his claims to fame for the DNA helix? What about the persistent rumors concerning his female lab assistant who made the breakthrough--as some claim?

===

That's why i said that he did achieve someting important in 1989 (1991 maybe). With that said, he has overblown the significance of his work considerably and the man is mostly a self agrandizing fraud and liar. Have you seen his website ? Looks like a practicing scientist to you ? he calls himself the world's biggest brain and africa's smartest man, etc. He's an *extraordinary* self promoter though . He's * definitely * a smart man but not in an interesting way. I used to look up to the guy a few years ago but I found out . If you'd like to read more about legitimate black scientists, take a look at the site "mathematicians of the black diaspora" . It's pretty good ! But to get back to the original subject , what 's known about IQ at the moment predicts ( correctly it seems to me ) that the proportions of such highly intelligent people is lower among the africans than among the eurasians , whether the cause is environmental or genetic . Thats'what it says. It doesn't say that there is no such thing as a smart african. That's ridiculous .

===

The reason for mentioning those examples--and there are many more is to make a point about IQ scores distributed according to the standard Bell Curve. The fact that there are so many persons of African genealogy whose achievements put them on the far right quartile of the standard curve means that the black curve is extremely skewed to the right or it consists of 2 bimodal curves--both a function of education/culture, etc.

===

Maybe you mean that the curve has fat tails ? i don't know . if they did have fat tails though , we 'd still encounter different proportions of each population functionning above a given IQ level . That is : if the curves aren't gaussian but have fat tails , the number of black people who can score 140 is much higher than predicted, but it also means that the number of Jews is even higher than previously thought . The disparities remain, at pretty much any cutoff point. Draw a few curves and check it out .

Bimodality : maybe ? It's something to check out I guess .

You raise intesting points. It's just that you dogmatically dismiss any genetic component. Why do i care about the posible genetic component ? because environmental solutions may not be enough . Why not try to strike at all roots of the problem ? I'm all for it .

===

If the black Bell Curve were a standard curve then the existence of those individuals who exist beyond the 98th percentile of the standard curve would have been statistically impossible. Thus the only plausible explanation is that the black Bell Curve is heavily environmentally determined. That's my point.

====

Huh am i understanding you right ? Are you saying that there should be no black people who score above the 98th percentile of the *white* curve ? What the theory says is the *white* 98th percentile is the same as a much higher percentile for the "black" curve. ie (I'm making those numbers up ) the 98th "white" percentile is like the 99.75th "black" percentile or something like that . The curves surely need work because it occured to me that if we assume a simple gaussian curve and the usual standard deviation of 15 , there should simply be no one in central africa smart enough to be an engineer, for instance . That's obviously false and I'd know, having central african engineers in my own family. The curve needs work , but the central idea of the mean black IQ being lower than the mean eurasian IQ still makes sense to me and is not inconsistent with all that I've seen so far .

===
Note that the debate about IQ is not about the raw scores--if the tests were properly done--but about how much of those raw scores are determined by nurture(environment/culture,et­c.) rather than by nature. The nativists, given their dogmatic beliefs about the cognitive inequality of the so-called races argue that raw IQ scores reflect the true intellectual capacities of the groups tested. I disagree with that.
===
Personally i don't dismiss out of hand a genetic component to the gap. i see no good reasons to . My hurt feelings certainly aren't a good reason . I keep an open mind though and my beliefs aren't set in stone , though i consider them to be based on solid ground, for now .

moisemetellus / ogunsiron

No need for "hurt feelings". There are just no good environmental reasons why the different populations when taken IN TOTO should inherit any differences(i.e. stochastic) in cognitive abilities. Here's why:

The human species began in Africa some 160,000 years ago and remained in Africa until some 50,000 years ago. The poplations that migrated out--of course, the migrants had no idea where they were--in terms of continents--and where they were going. Some ended up in South Asia and Australasia, others travelled North-East and landed in central Eurasia--perhaps as several independent groups. Eventually some of the migrants headed due West into what we now call Europe and others headed due East into East Asia then other parts of Asia-- South East and North East.

The point is this: the cognitive abilities that humans developed in Africa was more than enough to survive ANY geographic area of climate they would encounter in any part of the world. There was no need to know how to solve differential equations ot write computer code to get the next meal and to find safe shelter. All that was necessary was knowing how to hunt and scavenge successfully with the lithic tools available and to forage and gather wild fruit and vegetables.

Humans have been around for 160,000 years but it is only in the last 600 years--put aside Egypt/Kush and Mesopotamia--that writing and other abstract forms of communication became known to lots of people--by no means the majority.

So what were Europeans doing until 1,000 years ago after having spent some 40,000 years in Europe? Just hunting, gathering, warring, plundering(among the Vandals--from which we get "vandalism", the Vikings, the Saxons, the Picts, the Angles, the Gauls, the Visigoths, and the thousands of other groups) and engaging in basic agriculture.

The most genetically favored men were those who were strong, brazen, unscrupulous, cunning( to ward off and kill rivals), and knew how to shoot heavy bows and arrows and to wield a big battle axe.

Those types cornered the market for female mates--either through blatant kidnapping, conquests, or being the top men in their group they just took what they wanted. I mention this only to demonstrate how humans selected genetically until very, very recently.

It was the same everywhere: Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe.

It is only in the last 500 years that the surplus brain power that humans already acquired in Africa have been used to write books and solve problems in mathematics and the sciences. Sure, there are individual differences in cognitive abilities and dispositions--but that's between individuals and sub-groups, not WHOLE geographically identifiable groups. Thus while it is claimed that Askenazi Jews score high(++100) on IQ tests the average IQ of Israel is 94. Japanese and Koreans score 105 on IQ tests but their physiognomic and phenotypical peers in Burma, Thailand and Laos average 86 on the same tests. In Europe Greece--the source of Western civilization for almost every Western idea--scores 92 while Germany scores 102. Persia, Syria and Mesopotamia were places of impressive accomplishments in human history but today Iran(Persia) scores 83 while Syria scores 87 and Iraq(Mesopotamia) scores 87.