@Corwin, I'm not sure what hate group you're referring to... perhaps you could provide a link? I would say that when it comes to touchy subjects such as racial or gender differences, politically motivated scientists are more likely to shy away because it can often result in serious consequences to your career and reputation. To even broach the subject is risky, and this author has been the target of many threats to his person and his academic career as a result of his writing. Quite a few genes correlated with a couple points of IQ have actually been uncovered, and the fact that most intelligence genes have not been located doesn't change the fact that twin studies have pretty much validated the idea that there is a genetic basis for intelligence. This is actually recognized by most scientists, if not all. The real controversial issue isn't if intelligence is heritable or genetically determined... it's if there is a difference in IQ between averages of races and/or whether the question should even be posed.
orathaic, indeed. As a social progressive myself, I find it disturbing that many of my peers who share the same goals, that is, social equality, hold this absurd idea so close to them. It comes from a long standing liberal tradition of Blank Slate humanity whereby the failings of an individual ought to be attributed to the failings of society and that if we properly manipulate the environment, humans can be shaped to become anything. This leads to ridiculous notions like a male could be raised as a female and comfortably identify with the latter gender. Genetics, linguistics, and neuroscience have all shown that humans are not at all Blank Slates, but some people hold on to the radical idea that people must be equal to be treated equally that they will deny the science that clearly demonstrates that we are not equal. I personally believe that this confounded notion has set back much social progress.
dexter raises a very important point. Subsaharan Africans on their own are more genetically variable than the rest of the human race. This is rather simple observation from an evolutionary standpoint as for the most part of Homo sapiens history we were all Africans. However, it is unclear how much this variation is functionally variant considering that most Africans are subject to similar selection pressures of climate and local diseases while other races are subject to quite different climates and diseases.
Indeed, the most striking differences between races are probably in disease resistance (which as probably been the largest selection pressure in recent human history) and their adaptatations to climate. Nobody doubts the variability of disease resistance between Europeans and say, Native Americans. I mean history shows the disastrous effects. HG Well's 'War of the Worlds' was an allegory of British imperialism in Africa and just like the aliens, the British were often repelled by their immune systems unfamiliarity to African pathogens. Nobody even doubts that black skin is a result of a hotter climate with more sunlight, white skin is a result of a colder climate with much cloud cover, and yellow skin is a result of even colder climate but more sunlight that selected for more fat deposits which obscure the redness of blood vessels, leading to "yellow" skin. Is it any real surprise then that there are other differences between races?
I mean, people ought to realize that prejudice based on the average traits of the group to which they belong are of limited value. Indeed, they demean the value of individuals and merit. It's not just race that can be applied to show differences within groups, taller people generally have higher IQ's, fatter people generally have lower incomes, and men with greater facial hair growth have higher rates of criminality. The issue isn't so much that difference in averages exist, it's that some groups have been designated as "us" and others as "them".
Imagine a society stratified by facial hair growth, where people would point out that 5 o clock shadows had much higher rates of incarcerations. Perhaps many would scream that these people are 'facialists' and that the rates of incarcerations are clearly the result of judicial bias towards bearded men. Maybe they'd start up an affirmative action program whereby if your facial hair growth exceeds some number of mm a week then you qualify for special admission considerations. The example is absurd simply because people are not classifed in outgroups and ingroups based on facial hair groups, at least not on our planet, but comparable differences in averages are there.
Cheating?
)
)
)
)
)