Let me see if I can remember what comes next—“I know you are buy what am I” maybe? I should have listened to my original feeling and ignored the whole thing.

Allergica, when somebody with alleged expertise in a field (Razib, probably, although they like pseudonyms) endorses flat-out junk science in their field, then they’ve demonstrated either incompetance or dishonesty. It’s perfectly logical and quite decent method; I can, however, understand why you might not like it.

Heh, says the original Mr ‘Knickers in a Twist’.

It’s raining and quite chilly today. Someone ring up Nature and get them to hold the front page slot for a decisive invalidation of all that global warming stuff.

Oxymoron. Had the smart ever managed to accomplish anything, the world wouldn’t be a sorry place it is now.

For those who believe that Western society IS meritocratic, anything that undermines the notion that the outcomes are FAIR is threatening. If we don’t all have an equal chance at winning the intelligence lottery, then a meritocracy becomes a caste-based society.

If you don’t believe that society is meritocratic, but that it should be, then you must postulate that changing social conditions could make the race FAIR. If some human populations (say, Ashkenazi Jews) are naturally more intelligent than others, then leveling the playing field is still going to produce a caste-based society. That is, if you believe that power and wealth should be handed out to the “winners”. But who but the philosopher-kings are going to warm to that idea?

There’s no compelling reason to believe that evolutionary pressures stopped operating on humans at some point in the distant past. It’s quite possible that there are differences in intelligence or intelligences between some populations. However, we can’t know for sure, since we don’t have a level playing field.

I suggest a grand experiment: let’s level the playing field. Make sure every human being has adequate nutrition and health care, top-notch schooling, and social encouragement to learn and excel. Let’s abolish hierarchy, so that no one comes from a denigrated class. Once we’re there, then we can check for variations in native intelligence :)

(A variation on Habermas.)

I`m sure you go to the trouble to check every fact and conclusion avowed communists present you with. I`m sure you never dismiss them out of hand.

This is why, for example, when discussing global warming, you never dismiss it as “greenery” intended to further the cause of communism. Such a method of disputing a theory would be unscientific and ad hominem, wouldn`t it?

As a few people have pointed out already, “Mr Firstname” is not an appropriate form of address in most English-speaking societies, particularly when you have no idea whether the person concerned goes by some other title, or no title at all.

I have no settled opinion on “The Bell Curve”, but I will just note that your grounds for dismissal (of GE and its owner through association with Murray) are thoroughly unsound both scientifically and logically (ad hominem, etc.). In the area of political rhetoric of course there are no such rules.

Which neatly illustrates one of Razibs, and GE’s, typical points about the absurd politicization of the subject.

Of course. Now how many parents will tend to have the experience you describe, vs the others ? There is such a thing as a statistical truth.

Why don’t you try calming the fuck down.

“Jane Galt” doesn’t even fucking exist. Argue with someone who isn’t an absolute idiot, or ignore them.

A tendency is not a guarantee.

Given that couples don’t poot out 100 kids, it only takes one dud child to really sink your brood’s average IQ. Given that so many couples have only one or two children, it’s entirely possible that a smart couple will have only low-IQ kids.

At which point the parents become devoted believers in everyone being special and talented in their own way, even if they aren’t ‘smart’.