William Saletan’s articles on race and I.Q. got an article of their own today in the New York Times (see the Arts section of the NYT on 12/1/07). The article, entitled “I.Q. Debate Adds A Chapter Online,” describes all of the furor surrounding Saleton’s pieces on genes and intelligence. Apparently the articles not only sparked discussions among Fraysters and Bloggers, they were also commented on by big shots like James R. Flynn (of the “Flynn Effect”).

Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg engaged in a little CYA in the NYT article saying “since Mr. Saletan is a senior writer, his posts went up without anyone there [at Slate] reading them. ‘Given the sensitivity of the subject, Will’s commentary should have been carefully edited in advance of publication, and it wasn’t….Mr. Weisberg said he was disturbed by the casual ‘what if’ thought experiment and some of the sources Mr. Saletan cited. ‘I wouldn’t have stopped Will from writing on this subject, but I would have challenged him on these and other issues….’” (Patricia Cohen, I.Q. Debate Adds A Chapter Online, N. Y. Times, December 1, 2007, at B15.)

Saletan may have fixated on black and white, but it sounds like Mr. Weisberg is thinking about the green.

Apparently we'll get at least one more Slate article about this subject on Monday--a rejoinder to Saletan from Stephen Metcalf.

Saletan’s articles are controversial but they are about a subject that isn’t going to go away. Scientists will continue to decode our DNA and we may not like what it tells us. I hope PC-dom doesn’t neuter Mr. Saletan. If I want comfort food I’ll start watching Katie Couric.

Here.

Thanks for posting this. The NYT article is fair and balanced and without cheap emotional appeals. The discussion at Cato Unbound that the article mentions is quite interesting, though the lead article by Flynn is hard to follow in its logic. However, Flynn's attitude toward this debate is enlightened. He argues that neither side, environment or heredity, can best develop its own scientific theories if the other side is stigmatized or suppressed.

Scientists will continue to decode our DNA and we may not like what it tells us. I hope PC-dom doesn’t neuter Mr. Saletan. If I want comfort food I’ll start watching Katie Couric.

Then what's with all the premature bs. Decoding of our DNA is going to go forward so let it happen and we'll see what it tells us. The "race realists" are like a bunch of little school girls waiting for the ice cream truck to arrive hoping that it still offers chocolate chip flavor. Let's wait for the "dissapointing" news before declaring that it's dissapointing.

"PC-dom" isn't going to stop the study of our DNA nor its results.

In most cases, do laymen wait until research is completed before they discuss the underlying issues? No.

This is a controversial subject but why should it be different? If someone says something you don't like then refute their statement on the merits or point out that they are merely engaging in speculation.

Based on my observations PC-dom attempts to shut down discussions that it doesn't care for; to put people out of work who discuss things it doesn't care for; and in some cases decides whom to fund and whom not to fund.

Perhaps you have a different take, but it seems to me that a lot of what I read, listen to, watch, etc. is homogenized corporate bullshit that falls within a narrow PC spectrum.

As long as it isn't illegal, I'd rather hear it all even if I hate some of it.

In most cases, do laymen wait until research is completed before they discuss the underlying issues? No.

This is a controversial subject but why should it be different? If someone says something you don't like then refute their statement on the merits or point out that they are merely engaging in speculation.

This isn't like discussing the Superbowl or the who-slept-with-who last night mumble by the coffee machine. And I think many here have refuted their statements on the merits effectively.

Based on my observations PC-dom attempts to shut down discussions that it doesn't care for; to put people out of work who discuss things it doesn't care for; and in some cases decides whom to fund and whom not to fund.

Don't businesses owners have the right to shut down what they don't want going on in their organization and put people out of work who damage their business?

Perhaps you have a different take, but it seems to me that a lot of what I read, listen to, watch, etc. is homogenized corporate bullshit that falls within a narrow PC spectrum.

As long as it isn't illegal, I'd rather hear it all even if I hate some of it.

Sure, but most people aren't like you.

This isn't like discussing the Superbowl or the who-slept-with-who last night mumble by the coffee machine.

Yes, you are correct. It is the type of controversial subject that the US Constitution seeks to protect.

And I think many here have refuted their statements on the merits effectively.

Yes, on both sides.

Don't businesses owners have the right to shut down what they don't want going on in their organization and put people out of work who damage their business?

Yes, plus:

The freedom of the press means that people who own presses can print articles and books that skew our view of reality and shape our perception of what is important. Same goes for people who own television stations, cable networks, motion picture companies, etc.

Manufacturers can bombard us with advertising that is misleading, as long as it is not illegally misleading.

Politicians can shovel all sorts of rubbish into us. So can televangelists and other religious leaders. And pop stars. And sports stars. And pundits. And on and on.

The world is a big place but look at how narrow most of our discussions are. Maybe you like it narrow but I don’t. I’d rather hear it all (which is a lot lot more than all the info I get from those listed above) and make up my own mind.

Sam I Am...

Look, I'm a diehard freedom of speech cat. "I may loathe what you say, but I will defend to the last your right to say it."

This isn't really about censorship though is it? Despite overwhelming evidence showing cherry picking, data mining, and outright fabrication in many Pioneer Fund studies (any of which would be considered scientific fraud no less)... they still get published and circulated. (see this peer critique)

What we are talking about here is editorial responsibility in maintaining the "good name" of a widely read magazine. Tabloids can print articles claiming that "chupacabras breastfeed mormon monkey babies," and no amount of PCing them will, or should, silence them. This is a question of integrity. Slate has a vested interest in the notion that its articles are fact-checked and vetted up to high intellectual standards. That was obviously not the case here.

I, for one, despite being vocal in my denouncement of the pseudo-science presented, and a bit unimpressed with the half-retraction given... have said that we should take a reconciliatory stance. Saletan has indeed learned something from this debacle. This article you brought up indicates that the Slate editorial staff realizes that they need to be more "on the ball." Both of these results came from the so-called "PC outrage" you fear.

Lumping everyone who "cries foul" on any topic that falls outside the comfort zone of our cultural zeitgeist into one group... as if there were some vast conspiracy of PC militias plotting in basements nationwide... is simple-minded and a classic "guilt by association" fallacy to boot.

Let's take liberal, neo-con, PC and other such broad stroke dismissal terminology and relegate them to the waste bin of our national debate. I agree with you. Arguments should be logically debunked. Your appeal to emotion on the PC issue is not only speculation and hasty generalization... but an unfair association fallacy as well.

Jahsun,

I've been increasingly impressed by your posts, your ability to distill complex ideas I hadn't thought of, and your diligence in pursuing background research. You care about civility and moderation and recognize that discussion is both means and end.

But now you've really done it--Chupacabras?

Marry me?

Seriously, the quotes from the NYT from Slate and from field experts were heartening. At the risk of sounding like a morality voiceover at the end of the sitcom, everyone's learned something worthwhile here. Ah, the internet.

Right back at you...

Maybe we should try dating first?

;-)

Jahsun wrote:

"This isn't really about censorship though is it? Despite overwhelming evidence showing cherry picking, data mining, and outright fabrication in many Pioneer Fund studies (any of which would be considered scientific fraud no less)... they still get published and circulated. (see this peer critique)"

Well, yes, it really is about censorship. Saletan's groveling about citing Rushton is bizarre. The blog Half Sigma points out that criticizing Rushton about the Pioneer Fund is like criticizing someone as an anti-Semite who is supported by the Ford Foundation. Me, I would take research money wherever I could get it (unless there were strings on it.)

The Richardson review of Lynn and Vanhanen that you cite is pretty bad. Richardson, obviously completely ignorant of the literature on IQ, asserts that it simply measures middle-classness and is a consequence of economic differences rather than a cause. He says it is "not a simple biometric trait" but in fact it does work that way. And so on....

I am still waiting for a respectable and responsible paper that contradicts what Jensen and Rushton say. The response by Nisbett was closest, but he cites two papers about small children, and it is already well known that children's test scores can be changed. It is also well known that the changes don't persist past adolescence.

Flynn's papers are pretty vague, they wander around, and they don't address criticisms people have of what he says. This is not to deny the importance and interest of the Flynn effect.

Someone ought to bring Clark's "Farewell to Alms" into this discussion. He denies he his talking about IQ but his argument is that selection in medieval Europe selected for middle class people and that this allowed the Industrial Revolution to occur. In many ways his argument is even more politically incorrect than that of Rushton and Jensen but no one has noticed.

Does the Ford foundation have, as part of their charter, an emphasis on funding research supporting a eugenic, or anti-semitic, agenda? Because otherwise, the comparison seems sort of ludicrous.

Also, if the Aryan Nations or American Nazi party started to fund research, would you hesitate to accept funding from them?

Just curious.

1. Rushton doesn't merely receive money from the Pioneer Fund... he is it's president.
2. Saletan was not censored. He realized he had made a mistake and apologized.
3. None of the race-realists have been censored. Rushton was censured for measuring penises though.
   
4. It seems you did not actually read the review even to the 4th paragraph which says:

"But I would not take the 'evidence' presented in this book to serve arguments either way. Of the 185 countries in the sample, 'direct evidence' of the 'national IQ' is available for only 81! National IQs for 101 countries are simply estimated from 'most appropriate neighbouring countries', that is, the 'known IQs' (sic) of their 'racial groups' (p 72). But, even for most of the others, 'direct evidence' is putting it strongly, as even a cursory glance at the motley tests, dates, ages, unrepresentative samples, estimates, and corrections show. A test of 108 9–15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, and so on, all taken as measures of 'national IQ'." (emphasis mine)

Defend this if you can. Then we can move on to the equally startling revelations further in the review. Ken Richardson is not merely a book reviewer, but a colleague of Lynn's. He is a respected intelligence researcher in his own right. (a 2006 study he co-authored)

Simply calling a review bad does not make it so. His hypothesis on the middle class nature of IQ is merely that. When you comment on something without having read it, you do not strengthen your argument.

The link you provided doesn’t appear to critique the “30 Years” article Saletan cited to, but these do:

<link>

Saletan has indeed learned something from this debacle.

Yes, he’s probably learned to self censor.

Lumping everyone who "cries foul" on any topic that falls outside the comfort zone of our cultural zeitgeist into one group...

I have no problem with the people crying foul. But I do have a beef with people who say “don’t talk about this subject.” I saw a lot of those people on The Fray. I found many of the posts written in reaction to Saletan’s articles, and the responses thereto, more informative than the articles themselves. But I would not have had the opportunity to read these discussions if the articles that triggered them hadn’t been published. If people at the Harvard Club can discuss this issue, why can’t the rest of us?