After Saletan's terrible series of articles on the supposed connections between race and intelligence, I see no reason to ever read his work again.

see, that's why they call it "liberal creationism": no addressing of the overwhelming evidence. Just "damn you to hell for believing such a thing."

FayeKane:

see, that's why they call it "liberal creationism": no addressing of the overwhelming evidence. Just "damn you to hell for believing such a thing."

you know, I have noticed this trait too, it's pretty universal among liberals, the name calling is great, and the censorship hypocracy is priceless

FayeKane:

see, that's why they call it "liberal creationism": no addressing of the overwhelming evidence. Just "damn you to hell for believing such a thing."

Overwhelming evidence? Hahaha. That is funny indeed. No, you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you like. Saletan too can believe as he desires. He, however, is a journalist who is paid (I presume) to write insightful pieces on the intersection between contemporary scientific research and the human experience. If Saletan (and you) actually were versed in the literature, he would recognize that race and intelligence are the most fundamentally flawed concepts in the social sciences. And, he would not have written such horrendous articles. He has done little than resuscitate Herbert Spencer in his pieces. The simple term for this perspective is scientific racism. You, as your previous posts indicate, also seem to want to return to phrenology of the nineteenth century (though I doubt you recognize it as such).

You should really want to know more. Here are five titles you should read before accusing anyone of "no addressing the overwhelming evidence." These are just the beginning. Enjoy!

Barkan's The Retreat of Scientific Racism.
Chase's The Legacy of Malthus
Draper and Tucker's The Funding of Scientific Racism.
Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.
Graves' The Emperor's New Clothes.

P.S. Don't come back until you've done your homework.

Dear mojomojo,

What a great selection of books you are offering. Just the titles alone should bring shivers to any scientist contemplating research in genetics or populations.

I'll just give the list with some additional info.

Barkan's The Retreat of Scientific Racism.( the title goes on: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars, 1993)

Chase's The Legacy of Malthus (1977)

Draper and Tucker's The Funding of Scientific Racism.(originally published in 1980, reissued in 2007. A single review from a self-identified writer, but that’s it.)

Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. (1996)

Graves' The Emperor's New Clothes (2003. Graves is Professor of Biological studies holding a joint appointment in African American Studies at ASU-Main and is one of the proponents of “race is a social construct. Here how the book is praised by one reviewer on Amazon:

“Joseph Graves' The Emperor's New Clothes is a well-written exposition of the evidence for one single human race. Graves correctly points out that the human species could have developed into separate races, but that it didn't happen.”

Another reviewer had this to say about the book: “Although the book shows impressive scholarship, it seems more of a political tract than a scientific one.”

Just the fact that Liberals hate the idea of IQ varying with race doesn't make it true.

Hmmm. Yes, great logic. Try this: The argument that Conservatives love the idea of IQ varying with race makes it untrue.

I don't see how it matters. We all know there are genius IQ black people, stupid white people, mentally retarded Asian people, dim witted jews, etc. Any statistical difference between groups will not affect public policy. It is just an inflammatory topic someone is going to bring up every few years to stir up trouble.

Race is a social construct. IQ is a measure of performance on IQ examinations. And the twain should never meet.