There are some basic realities that the "science" overlooks. First of all, race is a social category, not a genetic one. People can and do shift racial identities without any physical or genetic alteration. At the same time, there is massive and overwhelming evidence for the social impact of racial identity. That evidence is mostly ignored in discussions like these, because it would force significant social change if it wasn't.

Pastoralan, yes, environment plays a factor. But if you took 100 Nigerian babies at birth, 100 Chinese babies, and 100 Swedish babies at birth and raised them all communally, would you expect them to score the same in everything, all be the same speed, same height, same hair color?

I would expect that you would say no, you would not expect that. Why to people get so upset when you add 'same intelligence' to that list? I am not trying to be a racist. I am not suggesting WHICH would score best, but I have no down you would see trends among the groups. And since they were all raised the same, you can't say the test was biased.

'no down' should be 'no doubt'

"Does the comparison still hold despite a chimpanzee population bottleneck as well? "
@Chrispminis, I saw that too and I don't have the answer. Chimps reach puberty a little earlier than humans (8 to 10 years old) so that fact (plus possibly human cultural influences delaying child rearing) would allow for some difference due to there being more generations of chimps in a given time period... but that may not explain it by itself.

I agree, Dingleberry, that there'd be differences in the averages, but I also think that the difference between the Nigerian, Chinese, and Swedish averages would be much less than the range of values present in any one of those groups.

@Chrispminis: You're right. This type of debate is often tinted by political bias (left or right). Personally, I have no doubts genes play an important role. I am just not sure it is predominant compared to the impact of the environment. I do not find sience articles that can convince me one way or the other yet.
As for race, this word does not mean much to me. Humans have so many genes and characteristics that using only a few (skin color and other few physical characteristics) to categorize them is extremely reductive.

Stukus,
Stukus,
Agreed, although not my point. But then looking at the data, since there would be differences between the groups, with one group on average being higher than another, you would have no choice to conclude Group (Race) A is more intelligent than Group (Race) B. (Or if it makes you feel better, Group A scored better on the unbiased test than Group B.) That makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That statement, by itself, it not racist, though it could be used for racist purposes.

"Genetic Similarity Theory, which states that individuals tend to be more altruistic to individuals who are genetically similar to themselves (kin selection), and less altruistic, and sometimes outwardly hostile to individuals who are less genetically similar." - i heard that the results of this kind* of investigation (looking at video footage of tribal communities fighting) was horrible biased by the fact that the tribes actually lied about who they were related to when talking to researchers, and that when they went back and took genetic samples it was shown to be wrong (not sure if it was Rushton's work which was shown to have been done poorly...

It is interesting that some plant species will not compete with their neighbours if they share certain genes - similar to how normal human cells will not compete with each other for survival... and there is a super colony of ants which stretches over 6000 kilometers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1932509.stm) which all share a common genetic heritage and thus don't compete with each other...

(obviously in humans cancerous cells do stop following the orders of the body and tend to mess thigns up for their neighbours, usually when they have had mutations to their genetic material.... well before that cells which are identified as abnormal will be self-destruct via chemical signal from the immune system...)

It has also been shown that mating partners tend to seek out dissimilar dna to get complementary genes which are useful in providing offspring with a robust immune system. That is to say humans often go out to look for partners who are genetically different. (and that women can tell by smell what potential partner is genetically dissimilar - although i'm sure deodorant masks this effect - just as makeup masks the imperfections in human skin which are indicative of healthy genes and general health - via symmetry and general skin health respectively)

Anyway my basic ascertain is that there is more crossover of (lets say IQ) between races than there is differences between them. So while the average may vary the range is fairly wide and the vast majority of humans you meet will fit neatly into this range. (whatever about the rare outliers who aren't that interesting) Meaning racial profiling is less useful in the real world.

That said given the option where my only information is based on race i will use the only information available (even if it isn't that useful) If there are two people behind a curtain and one is female the other male (without me knowing anything about their respective races) and i am asked which is taller i am going to guess the male - does that make me sexist? no, but the way the question is framed means i can ONLY make a judgement call based on the gender of the subject.

I do not expect this kind of situation will come up that often in real life.

@stukus: yes it seems you pointed out the range thing in a much shorter post than i did; perhaps i add too much around the important points - stukus +1

"I agree, Dingleberry, that there'd be differences in the averages, but I also think that the difference between the Nigerian, Chinese, and Swedish averages would be much less than the range of values present in any one of those groups."

That's true, but the differences of averages are not negligible and will manifest themselves prominently at either extreme. A seemingly small difference in averages of say height between groups can lead to quite large differences in percentages in the very tall and very short categories. This has very real consequences such as the majority of people tall enough to play basketball are African American. In addition, in the competitive environment of human society, extremes often have their importance accentuated.

I will say that racial profiling is definitely overused. There are countless correlations between physical, mental, and behavioural traits but the vast majority of these are never used when judging another person. This is not to say that profiling has no practical use, it's just that when it comes down to it, it's probably more practical to simply get to know the person as their own individual rather than comparing their traits to a slew of correlations.