On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>> To sum it up, the quoted blog argues that Watson's
>> position is to affirm cognitive diffrences among races
>> without asserting superiority or inferiority of these
>> differences.
>
> But doesn't it also leap from showing differences in populations to
> assuming heritability?
And I should say too that it assumes that "race" is a meaningful way of organizing our understanding of that heritability?
Ok, I'll concede that IQ tests administered to Africans might yield average scores in the 65-70 range. What does that show? That being raised in an environment of poverty, malnourishment, illiteracy, and endemic malaria isn't the best prep for standardized testing? Or that Africans have bad genes?
Saletan has a couple of creepy pieces on this in Slate too. He misrepresents some of the studies he cites, and offers Charles Murray as a balance to a study by Brookings' Dickens showing a 5-point rise in black IQ scores over the last 25-30 years. Charles Fucking Murray. Things are taking a really nasty turn.
Doug