Here, on November 28, you write: "I wanted to discuss whether egalitarianism could survive if this scenario, raised last month by James Watson, turned out to be true." and "But my attempts to characterize the evidence beyond that, even with caveats such as "partial," "preliminary," and "prima facie," have backfired. I outlined the evidence primarily to illustrate the limits of the genetic hypothesis. If it turns out to be true," and so on. As if it was just a possibility you were innocently exploring.

But what you really wrote on Novemebr 20 was: "Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic."

Well, which is it? I think the cat is out of the bag - it's there for everyone to see. You wanted it to be so. There was no "if," in your mind, and in your message to the world.

Slate, I can't believe this!

"Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic."

Whooaa!

You put two and two together for me. Thanks. I've shuffled Saletan backwards on the trust/confidence scale yet again. Might have to do it for others too.

These Race Realist are just congnitively enabled devious.

More like you're misrepresenting Saletan.

Why not include the context?

Saletan:

The study's authors claim it "shows that genes may work via the environment to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature versus nurture debate." That's true if you have the gene. But if you don't, nurture can't help you. And guess what? According to the International Hapmap Project, 2.2 percent of the project's Chinese-Japanese population samples, 5 percent of its European-American samples, and 10 percent of its Nigerian samples lack the gene. The Africans are twice as likely as the Americans, and four times as likely as the Asians, to start life with a four-point IQ deficit out of sheer genetic misfortune.

Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.

In context, it's obvious the Nigerian babies he's referring to are the 10% who lack the gene to gain the IQ advantage garnered by other babies when breastfed.

So, someone else, we now know that you're at least as dishonest as you claim Saletan is.

Saletan identifies two things (proportion of missing gene, and IQ studies) and then haughtily assumes a causal relationship; "Dont tell me..."

Have you been reading any of this protracted debate?

There's dishonesty, and then there's dishonesty...

He might have been a better writer to have replaced "those Nigerian babies" with "these babies" because after all 5% of the babies of European descent lack the gene(s) too.

To argue that babies who don't have the gene that allows them to theoretically gain IQ points via breastfeeding (this is an arguable relationship), are therefore cognitively disadvantaged is erroneous, if not dishonest. They may be cognitively superior to any other given set of babies, regardless of that particular gene.

It may be in error. I would argue that it is. But it's only dishonest if Saletan actually believes that it's not true, and says it is anyways.

And do you argue that cherrypicking the quote to give the impression that Saletan is referring to all Nigerian babies isn't dishonest?

He might have been a better writer to have replaced "those Nigerian babies" with "these babies" because after all 5% of the babies of European descent lack the gene(s) too.

Not only a better writer but also less dishonest if he would have used "these babies" rather than "those Nigerian babies" but he didn't do it because it did not move forward his agenda to distinguish blacks from whites in terms of mean IQ differences.

Did I say Saletan was right? He has one major failing as a science writer. He's not a scientist. He often makes mistakes he shouldn't, because of that.

And no, I haven't, in fact, been reading the discussion here on the Human Nature board. Which has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that someone else cherry-picked a quote to make it appear that Saletan was saying something inherently racist and dishonest. As the quote in context shows, while Saletan may be wrong, that is, at least, an arguable point. And it's only dishonest is he believes that it's wrong, but says he doesn't.

I notice that I don't see you taking someone else to task for the cherry-picking. As you say, there's dishonesty, then there's dishonesty.

together (including the Jewgenics article), I have to say it's an intellectually dishonest statement, but he may have been under the influence of pride, that didn't allow him to be objective about the information-- he is certainly smart enough to know the difference between what he said and reality, were he interested in describing reality rather than pushing an agenda.

That said, I don't see how Saletan's quote can be a simple error in your mind, where the top poster's misunderstanding of his point would constitute dishonesty. Unless, of course, you have an agenda that doesn't allow you to be objective, or at least generous.

The context of the "Nigerian babies" quote is in fact very relevant. It was the concluding point in his final essay of the group of three (before the new apology one). It was followed by this: "Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it. No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job." Finito. As a concluding point (go back and look, don't take my word for it), the "Nigerian babies" were clearly symbolic for "black Africans" as a "race."

Need more convincing about Saletan's unequivocal condemnation of the IQ for blacks, as a "race"? Then look at his opening remarks, in the first essay.

"The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied 'that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.' I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians."

He might have been a better writer to have replaced "those Nigerian babies" with "these babies" because after all 5% of the babies of European descent lack the gene(s) too.

Thanks for reminding us of the context of Saletan’s quote. Of course there is a lot more to it than that.

Firstly: It is not 5% of all babies of European descent that are disadvantaged, but 5% of American babies of European descent. I’ll show why this is significant later.

Secondly: As you suggested, the gap is not as wide as “SomeoneElse’s” excerpt makes it appear since the differential is not 10% but 10-5%, that is a 5% disadvantage.

Thirdly: Here’s where the devil is in the detail. There is good reason to suppose that a greater number of less developed people breast-feed their babies.

Suppose for example 90% of Nigerian mothers breast fed their babies, the 10 babies not breast fed and 9 (10%) of the breast fed babies out of the 90 would be disadvantaged, right? (10% of 90% is 9). So 19 % of the Nigerian babies would be disadvantaged.

Now suppose only 75% of American mothers breast fed their babies, right out of the gate that would leave 25% disadvantaged, plus another 5% of that 75%, 3 or 4, namely at least 28% of American babies of European descent would be disadvantaged.

Of course I don’t have the time to find out the percentage of breast-fed American vs the percentage of breast-fed Nigerians. In which case we could tell Saletan that overall Nigerian babies would be LESS disadvantaged in this particular way, unless he can show that American mothers breast feed as much or more than Nigerian mothers. But Saletan’s rather pompous assertion, “Don’t tell me those Nigerian babies aren’t disadvantaged,” is committing the fallacy of begging the question.

Unless he goes into a less superficial analysis of the data presented to him, as with the question of head size he is once again allowing himself to be overwhelmed by his admiration rather than his analysis of the data and its presenters.

Pardon my prolixity, all I needed to have said was: that the 5% differential in children who can benefit from that single advantage of breast-feeding could easily be offset if a greater percentage of Nigerian mothers breast-fed their infants than American mothers.

The sentence "Suppose for example 90% of Nigerian mothers breast fed their babies ..."

Should have read: suppose, for example, out of a sample of 100 babies, 90% of Nigerian mothers breast fed their babies.

(Of course the sample would have to be very much larger for the science of large numbers to come into play.)

Addendum: There may be other meaningful studies that could be used to contradict Watson's predictions for Africa in particular and the significance of IQ tests for predicting outcomes for larger "breeding groups" in particular, especially in environments free of racial hostility. How have blacks fared in diaspora in areas where they constitute the governing majority, and not a minority?

What does this portend for S. Africa and Zimbabwe, where the majority blacks have lived under much less developed and isolated conditions than in the islands of the Caribbean?

Why is Haiti, where the largest black majority ruled Caribbean population has existed for the longest period, why is it now "the basket case of the West," whilst other independent nations, coming out of British and French rule have largely been able to drop their third world designation within a generation or two of freedom?

Why has Cuba, in spite of the continuing deplorable loss of individual freedoms, been able to maintain health and education statistics equal and in some cases superior to those of the US?

Even more interesting and to the point, why is it that these IQ tests imposed upon children in some of these tests still show the same discrepancy between black and white scores that they show in the US? What then is their relevance as a predictor of success in the international economy? Do they in fact indicate a difference, or divergence if you will, in the manner of mental processing or possibly in the cultural environment rather than an inherent inferiority, and that even though this difference clearly puts blacks at a disadvantage in majority dominated white environments, it does no such thing in countries where prejudice against individuals based on skin color is not a problem, for blacks?