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?
[WS:] I think he addresses that issue in his blog, claiming evidence that race is not only a genetically meaningful concept, but also pointing to different distributions of genes associated with IQ. I do not have enough expertise to challenge that argument, but I also think that trying to do so would be counterproductive.
His argument holds its ex appeal only on the assumption that IQ is a sole predictor of the success in "western-dominated" institutions. Stated differently, he seems to claim that whites are not only better than blacks id doing math and related tasks, but that being better at math is a sole or at least main factor explaining success in real life and its institution. Without that assumption the argument looses its sex appeal, and becomes indistinguishable from a trivial statement that some people are better at some tasks while others are better at other tasks. Whites may be better at math, blacks might be better at playing football. Both statements are likely to elicit the "so fucking what?" response, unless one assumes that doing math or playing football is an indicator of success in real life.
I think, however, that this assumption is the "weakest link" in his argument. Claiming that IQ or g is a sole predictor of success in every day life strikes me as something not supported by evidence. Goleman (http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/) claims that "emotional intelligence" that involves abilities to empathize and cooperate with others is an equally good, if not better predictor of success as IQ. Again, I do not have the expertise to evaluate these claims, but it seems to be consistent with the fact that intellectual endeavors, as well as any other area of human life, are primarily social and collective acts, and thus the ability to cooperate with and communicate with others seems to be an important factors determining success or failure of such acts.
Now, if other than IQ or g factor is responsible for success, then we are dealing with interaction effects e.g. not the main factor alone, but a combination of several different cognitive abilities being a recipe for success.
That brings us back to the difference between a number cruncher and a football player. Since number crunching is a rather uni-dimensional activity, while football playing involves several different skills (strategic planning, team work, psycho-motor coordination), and since football players earn more than number crunchers, it seems that those who have the ability to play football tend to be more successfully adapted to every day life tasks than number crunchers.
That is the argument about mere existence of between-race abilities must be accompanied by the assumption that those abilities that the "master race" have mastered are only ones that count. Without that assumption, the differences do not mean jack shit - just like statement that kids tend to be better at video games than their parents and teachers.
Wojtek