"For example, very few people actually want to have few friends" 
 
Not true. Some people just do not want a million friends and it is their choice not to do so based on their personality. Several people i know (including myself) ignore up to half of their facebook friend requests. I believe in quality over quantity and don't want peripheral acquaintances or people i barely know to have access to my personal information (i.e. photos, contact info etc) I could just "limited profile" them, but the principle of having 2000 "friends" just does not appeal to my personality type. On the other hand, my brother (significantly more social) actually has almost 2000 facebook friends. He accepts all requests and also requests to be friends with people he's only met once or twice.  
I think it has to do with a certain openess of personality.

Another point to consider is the fact that women are more whole brained than men. better interhemispheric communication...generally means that women have better access to the "black box" 
 
It is estimated that we are only consciously aware of about 10% or less of what our brains process. Women seem to be a bit more aware of some of this other 90% giving rise to the famous "woman's intuition". This is probably why  
psychics, fortune tellers etc tend to be women. These may people who just happen to have access to a bit more of the black box. 
So generally, women tend to be more aware of a feeling of "otherness". Some feeling that there is some other power outside of our conscious control. This is likely what is generally interepreted as "God".

What's so unpalatable about it? Maybe if one actually framed it in a fair way, people may actually be more open to the truth. 
 
So if you say, dark skinned people may be more likely to be sex crazed and violent, while light skinned people may be more likely to be crazy and impotent, I think most people would not react to this negatively. They would realize that we all have our strengths and weaknesses 
 
However, what tends to happen is that the majority light-skinned scientific populace will likely obsess over the "aggression" while humanizing the "crazy" part by using phrases like "less resistant to stress".

Razib, 
Ethnic self-identification of Harvard black students 
 
The children of african and caribbean immigrants would generally self identify as African-american being that they are US citizens. If not, they would not qualify for affirmative action. Those reports greatly understate their numbers - this nytimes article puts their numbers at ivies at about 66% 
 
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6DD1E39F937A15755C0A9629C8B63 
 
You blogged on this a while back at  
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/week_2004_06_20.html 
 
June 24th 
 
McGraw 
I know the black populations of Atlanta and Washington D.C. are fairly prosperous in comparison. Does anybody know if they phenotypically differ from the black mean?  
 
Washington DC's overall black population has a bimodal income distribution. Lots of low income 20% white african americans and lots of 100% black africans. DC has the highest proportion of African Immigrants in the country. Their average family income is significantly higher than the country average.  
Lots of foreign blacks in Atlanta as well but that is likely not the driver of black prosperity there.

Razib, Arrowsmith, please provide links. 
 
You do realize that the IQ gap between northern blacks and southern blacks is about 5-7points. That is about half-way the black-white gap. If this were all due to admixture, this would mean that northern blacks are exactly biracial and all southern blacks are fully black. Ridiculous.  
 
By the way, it's been shown that most of the blacks at ivies are children of african and caribbean imigrants (ie mostly nigerian, ghanaian and jamaican kids) These kids tend to be even more "black" genetically than the domestic blacks. So clearly, admixture is not helping mixed race blacks that much in the intellectual sphere. 
Ask the ethiopians - they have the highest caucasian admixture on the continent, yet score in the low 60s - 10pts below the black africa mean.

Regarding blacks, those in southern states tend to, with exceptions, have less European ancestry than those in the north.  
 
Audacious, did you just make this up to prove your point? This is clearly incorrect.

I am quite willing to bet that you come from at least an upper middle class background.  
 
I think it is this, not IQ, that has allowed you and your siblings to achieve "success" - however you define it....given your criminal records and lack of education....

It is normal to be affected by violence. Perhaps what you call resilience I'd call callousness.  
 
Most people are affected by violence, but not everyone suffers debilitating depression simply from exposure to it. That is NOT normal. Not everyone who fights in wars becomes a self-destructive maniac as a result of PTSD. That is partially genetically determined. Some people have the ability to properly categorize past negative experience as just that; past experiences which do no necessarily have to recur. That doesnt make them callous. It's just self preservation. A clear evolutionary benefit.  
 
Imagine how awful life must have been in the environment our ancestors evolved in. Crying over every dead relative would have made you way to depressed to seek food and procreate.  
 
In fact, I expect that the short form of 5HTT has only become more commonplace recently as some of the selective constraints of our environment has been relaxed via relative peace and prosperity. So in other words, we experience less war and pestilence, so these people are no longer at a genetic disadvantage. In fact, the extra neuroticism the gene confers may be beneficial in todays world.....

Actually, the extent to which traumatic experiences cause anxiety is also mostly genetic. Some people apparently have greater resilience against an adverse environment than others. 
 
Here's a good popular press article on the topic 
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E1D6133FF935A15754C0A9659C8B63 
 
Tapping The Mood Gene  
 
A depressed patient tells me about her neighbor. He is suffering the crises that arise in the course of diabetes -- first foot pain, now vision loss. He has remained upbeat throughout. ''He's legally blind,'' my patient says. ''I don't know how he can stand it.'' Amid the wonder, I sometimes hear a suggestion that the man lacks self-awareness.  
 
To this question, how some people cope, scientists have just now proposed a tentative answer. Humans, it seems, are constructed differently: adversity depresses some, but not others.

Being one of the few girls on this thread, let me make another postulation. One which may make us women seem less irrational in who we are attracted to: 
 
Men with innate talent, good looks and a way with people tend to have been popular with girls (and probably everyone) their entire lives. They then develop dark triad personalities due to the fact that they are spoiled brats who have learned that their innate superiority can be used to manipulate.  
 
It doesnt make evolutionary sense for women to be almost uniformly attracted to bad boys given that they will be unlikely to stick around, so they must make up for this by providing better genes. So again it points to the fact that men with better genes tend to be bad boys...cos they can. Demand and supply is in their favor. 
 
I think you guys on this thread should honestly think about what you would do if every woman wanted you. Can you HONESTLY say that you would remain a monogamous paragon of virtue and eschew promiscuity?

Marc, 
 
You prove the point. These discussions are not about rationally discussing IQ differences between the races to get at the truth. It's more about working backwards to get at what we already believe and need to justify. Why discuss indian IQ, afterall, the indians behave themselves here.  
If it were really about getting at the truth, I would think science would be curious about why Indians, with average IQs that low could possibly outperform even the chinese in the US, which they do. I've heard some postulate that it's because the Brahmins are smart while the other indians are stupid, which i think is ridiculous. There's so much there to understand, but no one spends money on this kind of research, instead, the dead horse that is the b-w IQ gap is continuously beaten. Move on! 
 
Truth is anyone who's been to India and Africa would tell you that both places are similar in culture - mumbai and lagos are not too different except for the cows. Indians are even more obsessed with singing and dancing than africans and the two groups have a similar profile of diaspora: recent diaspora in the west are extremely accomplished (For example, the profile of Indians in the US is similar to that of Kenyans, Nigerians or Ghanaians )  
Both groups of ancient diaspora were both abused by white people (african americans and gypsies) and both defied whites rather than acquiesce like the native americans did. They also developed a counterculture which trys it's best not to "act white" and has been culturally influential, particularly musically (most of the best spanish music is gypsy influenced. Most importantly, both groups are still generally disliked by the overall population and associated with many social ills. 
 
So i would postulate that the people who don't care about examining these other avenues are the ones who don't really care about getting at the truth. They just need to justify why they hate black people...and gypsies

I don't think black people have a problem with rational arguments by people on the topic. One thing that they may find irrational, and likely a sign of an ulterior motive (possible rascism) is the obsession with the b-w iq gap. There are lots of people on the planet, so if some white person wants to convince them that blacks are genetically set at an IQ of 80, you may want to also discuss the fact that india and iran are set at around the same level too.  
 
Why the singular obsession with black people? Africa's not particularly important on the economic stage, so why won't intellectuals explore the dangers of Iran and it's "dull" populace wielding weapons of destruction. What about India's recent economic dominance? I read treatises on india versus china all the time, yet, not once has there been any major consideration of the fact that China's IQ is 20 to 25 higher than India's. A gap that's larger than the b-w gap which everyone consistently obsesses over. In fact, I would say that in the west, no one would think of making such a statement as it seems somewhat irrelevant and mean spirited. Question is why is that not the same when discussing black people? It's not silly to assume that whites havent quite gotten over their obsession with proving blacks to be inferior. It was the national sport until 50 years ago. Why would people stop now?  
If we are going to be rational about this, let's be fair and talk about everyone.  
 
So for example, this site has pretty much settled on the fact that most of the social ills in america are due to 30 million african americans wielding IQs around 85. Well, what will happen to the world once 1.2 billion indians with IQs of 81 start running around with lots of money. WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO!!

Your hypothesis does not make sense. Recent selection would only result in the manner you mention only if west africa suddenly switched from a dad society to a cad society, causing those with the genes to suddenly have more success at reproduction. 
 
A more likely theory is that life in Nigeria suddenly became hard and the people who survived were those who were less anxious and more optimistic about the future. The dad/cad split is likely a result of the change in the population rather than it's cause. 
 
Remember, the dopamine system is involved in several things like increased happiness, motor skills, mood, creativity, learning by experience, creativity,sleep. Lower dopamine on the other hand has been implicated in social anxiety, depression, parkinson's disease, decreased motor skills etc. 
 
It would seem that a society that's more stressful and difficult to navigate would require people to be high on dopamine. If you get all depressed cos your wife died during childbirth or your child died of malaria, you'll never get over it in time to get another wife and have more children. 
 
I think generally, African's have been shown to be better off in the mood department. The long form of the serotonin regulator 5HTT has also been shown to be more common in africans. This form has been associated with the ability to recover from life's stresses without resorting to depression or suicide.

One more thing, along the lines of razib's link, I once had an african man tell me that his percentages go something like this: butt 70%, 15% face and rest of the body, 15% personality. So seems these percentages mean very different things to difference people.  
 
COuld everyone be responding to diff evolutionary pressures?  
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.18/01-running.html 
 
Then there's buns. "They are one of our most distinctive features," Lieberman comments. "They are not just fat but huge muscles." A quick look at a fossil australopithecine reveals that his pelvis, like that of a chimp, can only support a modest gluteus maximus, the major muscle that comprises a rear end.  
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123163757.htm 
 
Human buttocks "are huge," says Bramble. "Have you ever looked at an ape? They have no buns." He says human buttocks "are muscles critical for stabilization in running" because they connect the femur ? the large bone in each upper leg ? to the trunk. Because people lean forward at the hip during running, the buttocks "keep you from pitching over on your nose each time a foot hits the ground."

I don't think that men want fragile women in an absolute sense, i think that men want women who are weaker than them. THerefore, if the man is extremely strong himself, he will want a women who is almost as strong as himself, but that is still a strong woman. If the man is weak, he will want an even weaker woman.  
 
As a woman, I find that the level of fragility the men I date respond to depends on their own level of security. I rarely cry at movies, but I notice the varied response from men when I do. The insecure ones seem extra pumped to comfort me, while the strong ones seem a bit disappointed at the show of "irrational emotion" to a scripted story line given my usual rationality. Yet these same strong men, don't mind as much when I show fragility around a major event and are quick to offer a shoulder 
 
So, I think the absolute level of fragility is not generalizable, but more, the level relative to the man.

No it wouldn't.  
 
They would still own the rights to the "procedure" which gets you from the non-mutant allele to the mutant one.  
 
In this case, they are simply patenting the technology which they use in identifying the mutation. If they invented the said technology, they should benefit from it, even if it disproportionately affects one group.