Bravo to Metcalf for this brutal and informed take-down of Saletan's crap work.

I say this as someone who has long admired Saletan's inquisitiveness and willingness to take argumentative risks. But these things are different from sheer laziness in research. Before publishing such an inevitably inflammatory series, Saletan should have read everything about this that he could get his hands on, including -- as Metcalf notes -- thoroughly investigating the ties of those who argue on behalf of racial differences.

I will no longer take it on faith that Saletan is a reliable writer. This was such a gross mistake that it discredits him for sometime, if not forever. He was so eager to be controversial and to spit in the eye of his liberal friends that he dispensed with good sense and solid research.

Shame on you, Mr. Saletan. You should do the decent thing and resign from your post at Slate. After writing a lengthy apology to black people.

I don't want to see Saletan forced out, but I won't read him again. ---BDC

Bravo to Metcalf for this brutal and informed take-down of Saletan's crap work.

If only it were informed. Instead, it's an incredibly weak and tired argument to anyone familiar with the literature - which, unfortunately, Metcalf is not. He might actually want to read the works of people like Jensen for a change starting with The g Factor. As it stands, Metcalf isn't even informed when it comes to James Flynn's own opinion of Arthur Jensen.

Sadly, it looks like the utterly shameless, ever ignorant, and perpetually hysterical PC lynch mob is trying to ruin Saletan's career the same way they've ruined Watson's. So much for all the smug and silly claims of open-mindedness liberals always make for themselves.

Saletan did get one thing wrong: today's race and IQ denialists aren't like creationists; they wield too much power over social discourse to be compared to a movement as fringe as creationism. Instead, they are more like the medieval Catholic establishment calling for the death of every Bruno that would upset anti-intellectual orthodox opinion. The high priests of PC have divined the objective "truth" better than any psychometrician or geneticist and they don't intend to let anyone challenge them on the "truth" no matter how strong the evidence. Off with their heads! Out of their jobs!

I'm reading these articles and replies with a lot of interest, and while I am not well-informed enough about the topic to pronounce judgment as quickly as some others, I find it disturbing that some commenters (aka, willep, tommy7599) resort to name-calling or condescension. If one is so tired of arguing with uninformed people who don't know the literature, stop. Pearls to swine. On the otherhand, if one wants to promote discourse and be open to learning something, start by accepting that people have different opinions and persuade without putdowns.

I agree. It's untenable for a publication such as Slate to employ a science reporter that have these views. I can't imagine what his editor was thinking, letting him publish this stuff. This has seriously hurt Slates reputation, and I will find it very hard to take seriously anything Saletan writes.

I'm just thankful Slate had the good sense to publish Metcalf's response, otherwise I'm not sure if would continue to read stuff on this site anymore.

"Saletan did get one thing wrong: today's race and IQ denialists aren't like creationists; they wield too much power over social discourse to be compared to a movement as fringe as creationism. Instead, they are more like the medieval Catholic establishment calling for the death of every Bruno that would upset anti-intellectual orthodox opinion. The high priests of PC have divined the objective "truth" better than any psychometrician or geneticist and they don't intend to let anyone challenge them on the "truth" no matter how strong the evidence. Off with their heads! Out of their jobs!"

Ah yes, the anti-racialists are just like the religious fundamentalists suppresing so much scientific progress. Kind of like how so many have compared Watson to Galileo, because we all know saying blacks are dumb is comparable to the critique of the heliocentric model.

Well, that speaks of an even lower level of opinion for scientific integrity than you accuse his critics of being. And I'm really, really sick of how so many people throw the term PC around so much. It's empty and meaningless now. Sure, it's applicable to things like cheap ethnic pandering, but outright assaults on someone's humanity? Seems to go in line with how deeply misanthropic racialists are.

when they are trying to disown their own indecency.

The rest of us prefer "respectful", which is less pejorative, and far more accurate.

Ah yes, the anti-racialists are just like the religious fundamentalists suppresing so much scientific progress.

Why yes. Yes they are.

Kind of like how so many have compared Watson to Galileo, because we all know saying blacks are dumb is comparable to the critique of the heliocentric model.

Why yes. Yes it is.

Sure, it's applicable to things like cheap ethnic pandering, but outright assaults on someone's humanity? Seems to go in line with how deeply misanthropic racialists are.

No, how misanthropic Nature is. Do you think the blind watchmaker of Evolution is a humanitarian?