<link>

As for Mr. Saletan's latest piece...before I said he was smart, but not educated. Well, he's had ample time and resources to get educated. I can only conclude that someone who so stubbornly ignores logic and evidence--enough to think this article is some great new idea--is just not that smart.

And neither is Slate for failing to act in any meaningful editorial capacity. I noticed their "fraywatch" didn't even mention the avid discussion here, and that there is still no link between Mr. Metcalf's article and Mr. Saletan's original set, suggesting Slate is more interested in grabbing eyeballs with controversy than presenting thoughtful, intelligent ideas and discussion.

Someone said earlier that Slate has become basically a tabloid, and I resisted that at first because I've been a reader for years. But this has opened my eyes, and now I notice it's mostly about celebrity gossip, what other people said in their blogs, and inaccurate science journalism written by people with no scientific training and no interest in talking to actual scientists. The intelligent political/international commentary and original ideas I once enjoyed appear only occasionally.

Whether because of the owners or the rise of blogs, the site is no longer a place for thoughtful analysis. Too bad, and peace out.

"[James] Watson was defended by the journalist William Saletan, in a three-part series for the online magazine Slate. Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion. To erase the difference between blacks and whites, Saletan wrote, would probably require vigorous interbreeding between the races, or some kind of corrective genetic engineering aimed at upgrading African stock. “Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern,” Saletan declared, claiming to have been “soaking [his] head in each side’s computations and arguments.” One argument that Saletan never soaked his head in, however, was Flynn’s, because what Flynn discovered in his mailbox upsets the certainties upon which I.Q. fundamentalism rests. If whatever the thing is that I.Q. tests measure can jump so much in a generation, it can’t be all that immutable and it doesn’t look all that innate.

"The very fact that average I.Q.s shift over time ought to create a “crisis of confidence,” Flynn writes in “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22), his latest attempt to puzzle through the implications of his discovery. “How could such huge gains be intelligence gains? Either the children of today were far brighter than their parents or, at least in some circumstances, I.Q. tests were not good measures of intelligence.” (emphasis mine)

Don't go, Biologista. I come to this page to read your, and General D's, Jah Sun's, and Melvyl's posts. You four light up my day and make me feel like I'm actually learning something. This ongoing (non) debate makes me work harder, read more carefully and think and write more clearly, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's benefiting from your presence and insight.

I agree with Isonomist - there is intelligent discussion of human evolution and ecology on Slate. Unfortunately, it does not come from the writers or editors, but rather from a few educated and diligent readers, interspersed among the fools, lunatics and hysterics.

Mr. Saletan's articles on human intelligence have been rife with ignorance of biological processes, factual errors and flawed logic. As a scientist and a human being, I find these errors offensive. Fortunately, Slate has managed to attract some intelligent and well-educated readers who have done good preliminary work at detailing Slate's errors. Unfortunately, the onus still falls upon Slate to maintain a modicum of journalistic integrity. With the exception of Mr. Saletan's quasi-retraction and disingenuous apology, Slate has done nothing to remedy the many errors published on its site.

Therefore, I suggest that Slate do the following to maintain whatever good reputation it retains:

1) Issue a retraction of all the erroneous information in Mr. Saletan's recent articles on human evolution and intelligence. This will likely require that Slate...

2) ...find someone who understands evolution and ecology to write about those topics. This will then allow Slate to...

3) ...have that new someone write an article about human evolution and intelligence, as a first step toward undoing the damage that Slate's irresponsible reporting has caused.

Well put.

The point you made regarding the lack of any mention of this discussion in fraywatch is an important one. I've wondered about that as well. It's hard to interpret the slience from the editors. The avoidance of drawing attention to the discussion in fraywatch might suggest that they are embarrassed and wish the whole thing would go away. However, if they were really embarrassed, you would think they would attempt to put some distance between Saletan and the editors/owners, rather than just hoping everyone would forget about it. Metcalf's article was a welcome counterpoint, but that could be interpreted as simply offering an equally valid point of view on a controversial matter, rather than any kind of retraction or editorial oversight.

I called Slate an online tabloid in one of my posts--don't know if that was the one you referred to or not. I'm sure that others have noticed too.

I've been a reader for about four or five years. I didn't make the tabloid reference lightly, and Saletan has a lot to do with why I said it, as his articles are the worst offenders. I made the characterization because: the headlines and ledes are teasers that are completely unsupported by the articles that follow, snappy characterizations are preferred over analysis, and the language is deliberately either sensationalist or crudely adolescent. It's like Beavis and Butthead look at science and politics, except that Slate only manages to be vapid and gratuitous, not funny.

The Fray is pretty much the only reason that I still occasionally read Slate.

.Human races are evolving away from each other," Harpending says. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity. You will not stop the truth with your Neo-Stalinist persecutions of Salaten. Have you learned nothing from history?

Have you noticed who has been getting checked, and who has not? There will be a Fraywatch mention soon - not anything substantive about any controversy, or anything, but more along the lines of "Saletan sparked an active discussion...".

I'm guessing, based on what I would do if I were an online magazine editor of a craven nature. Welcome to the new world of market-driven infotainment.

That being said, however, Slate is in trouble. When bellweather posters like you, Isonomist, Archaeopteryx and Lyger are decrying the descent of Saletan's column into the depths of journalistic pandering, Slate should take note. One of my old favorites, ShriekingViolet, even showed up briefly to defend Saletan, and then quickly withdrew when she discovered his position was indefensible.

I've lost a lot of respect for Slate, but surprisingly, I've lost a lot of respect for the WaPo - the slide in quality seems to have coincided with their move from MSN.

Yeah, I've learned a lot too, and thoroughly appreciated your posts and those of the others you mention. And obviously (I just started another thread--stupid, Biologista, stupid!) I can't seem to pull my eyes away just yet. There are smart people here, but one does begin to wonder what the point is, when the guy with the megaphone who is doubtless feeding thousands of undergrads their essay material and racists their talking points, obviously pays no more attention than most of his readers do. Given the lack of editorial intervention, he seems no different from your average blogger at www.lookmaigotawebpage.com. (fictional site, I hope) But the pretty layout lends him credence he doesn't deserve, and to keep reading, even in just the fray, makes me feel vaguely like I'm contributing to the problem.

Agree with you on the move from MSN to WaPo--if nothing else the slide got a lot steeper then.

SV was one of my favorites when I first starting Fraying. Missed her recent foray. She somewhat took issue with Saletan's sort-of-defense of Larry Summers, so I'm surprised to hear she was defending Saletan in this mess.

There was a short story by Mark Twain about a reporter or editor who increases circulation by writing absurdly untrue stories. Wish I could remember the name of the story and more details, but in my sketchy recollection it seems to have guessed where journalism would eventually go.

It's not even propaganda - at least propaganda is deception for a purpose. These days, it's all entertainment - what grabs the attention of the most people, and holds it longest.

Lately I've been seeing more of the least-common-denominator around here, which is a major bummer - the prospect of having active conversations with intelligent people who disagree is still quite appealing.

I've gotta' go catch a plane, not_abel, but it's been nice seeing you around.

GeneralDisarray [formerly known alternatively as TenaciousK and FieldingBandolier]

Except I'd spend a lot more time here if Slate had a science writer as fascinating and accurate as some of those posting here.

When I was pondering Saletan's disastrous foray into these deep and murky waters. Except the line that came to mind had something to do with keeping your mouth shut and being thought a fool versus opening it and removing all doubt.

rushing in where angels fear to tread.

You've been kind enough to give WS the benefit of the doubt. I've found myself unable to be as kind. The nicest interpretation I can manage is to see him as kind of a a wise-ass class clown who lacks the humility, or at least the skepticism, to carefully scrutinize his own motives and prejudices.

I can try to accommodate that kind of failing in an individual. It is a little harder to understand the collective failure of the editors to exercise a modicum of responsibility in such an important matter.

Hit counts, that's the problem. We all want to talk about this, but we don't want to make it look like Saletan's articles deserved a lot of attention. Which, in a perverse way, they do. But really, we're just rewarding the behavior, and the only way to stop it is to stop, not only posting here, but clicking on his articles from the front page. Tough love, and I'm not sure it'll work. By now, Saletan's found his name mentioned in national magazines and newspapers. Heady stuff, if you don't read the articles too closely.

Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion.

The comment about Rushton is incorrect, stupid, and hostile.

One argument that Saletan never soaked his head in, however, was Flynn’s, because what Flynn discovered in his mailbox upsets the certainties upon which I.Q. fundamentalism rests. If whatever the thing is that I.Q. tests measure can jump so much in a generation, it can’t be all that immutable and it doesn’t look all that innate.

Last week, I talked to Flynn a couple of times. I asked him if the gains in IQ were or were not g loaded. After a period of repeating his historical ideas, he finally said "I don't know." He is not only a very interesting character, but he is intellectually honest, even when he is confused. I also talked to Raven for about an hour, including some questions about the Flynn effect as it applies to the Raven's tests. He refused to say that the gains were on g, but only noted that there were gains.

Flynn writes in “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22), his latest attempt to puzzle through the implications of his discovery. “How could such huge gains be intelligence gains? Either the children of today were far brighter than their parents or, at least in some circumstances, I.Q. tests were not good measures of intelligence.”

He told me that he thinks the gains are at least in part due to the changes in cultural values from generation to generation. He has the peculiar ability to assert diametrically opposite explanations at the same time and I think he does so out of genuine belief.

Ditto on the appeal of conversations with intelligent people who disagree.

Thanks for cluing me in on the nic--I'm either not around enough, or perceptive enough, to realize that GeneralDissarray was an old Fray friend.

Hope your trip (went)/(is going) well.

na