There’s some kind of racial paranoia at work here. Some segments of our society would like to believe they are on the top of the social pyramid, and want to justify (or invent) that status by whatever means possible. The Afrikaaners in the RSA were an extreme example. Driven into the interior by the English after the Boer War, the voortrekkers created an entire socio-religious culture that essentially placed them as God’s Chosen, above the English and certainly above the blacks. Once the Afrikaaners reclaimed political power later in the 20th century they made apartheid an integral part of South African culture.

I have not read all of Jensen’s research, but it’s clear that others would like to see in his conclusions exactly what they want to believe: whites are better than anyone else. It’s a just-so story with no real basis in fact, IMHO. Geneticists and ethnologists even contend that the whole notion of race has no genetic basis, only a cultural one. Skin color is like hair color. There are lot of blonds in Scandinavia, but we don’t argue that blond-haired people are smarter than brown-haired poeple. (Quite the opposite, given the number of blonde jokes.)

Scienceman has not responded to my reply. I hope that means he’s peddling his papers elsewhere.

That said, here are my responses to your comments.

It is easy to take the politically correct position that all measured IQ differences are due 100% to nurture.
I never contended that nurture was the sole influence on IQ scores or intelligence.

You either misunderstood my comments or are deliberately misconstruing them so you can have a strawman argument. It is not “politically correct” to assume nurture is the sole cause, but naive and unscientific. Clearly, genetics play a part in one’s intelligence (or hair color or skin tone). Watson’s comments (as well as what some assume were Jensen’s conclusions) suggest that nature is the only factor, and that environment plays no part in determining intelligence or IQ. My argument is that nature cannot be sole determinant and to suggest otherwise is also unscientific.

The phrase “politically correct” frankly pisses me off, since it only seems to be used by conservative thinkers with their own “politically correct” axes to grind. That is, it may be nice for liberals to say genetics is not important in such discussions, so as not to alienate any one group, but it may just as advantageous for some conservatives to please their particular constituency by saying genetics is the only story.

Huh? You claim to believe in science but then turn right around and declare that you already are certain that there is no biological connection to IQ differences among the races. So you are making a statement about your faith, not science.

Strawman argument again, Scienceman. There is ample evidence that shows IQ tests measure enculturation as well as intelligence. That’s all I was saying. Address my actual statements, not what you think you read.

Actually Arthur Jensen is considered at the top of the field.

By whom? Jensen’s work has been hotly debated among biologists, geneticists, and others who find fault with his assumptions, methodology and conclusions. Furthermore, I would suggest that some who prefer to believe blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites deliberately misuse Jensen’s work to further their own racist agendas.

Show one study that has ever devised a test that significantly closes the IQ gap in testing. There are none.

To be honest, I have not researched this point. It would be fairly easy to demonstrate, however, that a test written for a certain ethnic population (inner-city blacks, Hispanic migrant workers) and taken by a racially mixed population would leave the whites in the lower quartile. My contention is that relying on IQ tests as the sole measure of intelligence is unwise and unscientific.

Again, this is statement of faith. It is like saying “It’s time to bury the myth that the earth is round. It just ain’t so.” When scientific inquiry is denied, then our freedom is reduced. They used to burn people at the stake for questioning the established answers.

Oh, please. You cannot compare the question of the shape of the Earth to the question of the causes of human intelligence. The factors that determine the shape of a planet are few. The factors that affect intelligence are myriad. Your comparison is nonsensical.

As for denying scientific inquiry, you brought up the issue. I didn’t. It seems to be that you are already predisposed to believe race determines intelligence, and so could care less about scientific inquiry that contradicts your predisposition. So, who’s being more open-minded here?

The whole “burning people at the stake” meme is tiresome. The Holy Inquisition and the Puritans burned people at the stake for supposed violations of religious dogma. No one to my knowledge has ever been burned at the stake for scientific research. Galileo and Darwin, for example, lived to ripe old ages despite the religious foment they inspired. Using the stake as a colorful metaphor for the supposed suppression of your viewpoint is great for dramatic effect, but it is an exaggeration at best.

You accuse me of being dogmatic. Scienceman, look for the beam in thy eye. It seems you are as set in your assumptions as you accuse me — falsely, I might add — of being.

It is easy to take the politically correct position that all measured IQ differences are due 100% to nurture.

Personally I believe in the scientific method. I think that rather than declaring we know the answer regarding genes and IQs, that we should wait for the research to be completed.

Also Mr. Wheaton, you should check your facts:

“At best, IQ scores could measure a cultural (or environmental) basis for IQ test performance.”

Huh? You claim to believe in science but then turn right around and declare that you already are certain that there is no biological connection to IQ differences among the races. So you are making a statement about your faith, not science.

“(largely repudiated) work of Arthur Jensen”

Actually Arthur Jensen is considered at the top of the field.

“There is a correlation between IQ test scores and race, but IQ tests have long been identified as racially biased anyway.”

Show one study that has ever devised a test that significantly closes the IQ gap in testing. There are none.

“It’s time to bury the myth that race determines intelligence. It just ain’t so.”

Again, this is statement of faith. It is like saying “It’s time to bury the myth that the earth is round. It just ain’t so.” When scientific inquiry is denied, then our freedom is reduced. They used to burn people at the stake for questioning the established answers.

My view is that within 10 years they will find genes that determine the race differences in IQ. But this is only conjecture, just like “the myth that race determines intelligence” is only conjecture.

Sadly, the world is totally unprepared for this finding. This is mainly due to people like Mr. Wheaton who dogmatically declare that of course the answer is already known regarding genes and the average IQ of the races.