Kaufmann also waded into whether there are hereditary differences between different ethnic groups and nationalities. http://www.iqscorner.com/2010/08/flynn-effect-and-iq-disparities-among.html This prompted a response here. http://www.iqscorner.com/2010/09/williams-comments-on-scott-barry.html

I couldn't open the link to the 'IQ in the Production Function' paper, but found the pdf (below). I found the section about whether economic gains boost national IQ interesting: "The region of the world that has witnessed the most rapid increases in living standards the world has ever known is unambiguously East Asia. Surely, this region would be an ideal testing ground for the productivity-causes-IQ hypothesis. If most of the IQ-productivity relationship were reverse causality, then we would expect to see the East Asian economies starting off with low IQ’s in the middle of the 20th century, IQ’s that would rapidly rise in later decades, perhaps even converging to European IQ levels. In short, one would expect to see Solow-type convergence in national average IQ. However, this is not the case. Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2006) country-level IQ data shows that average East Asian IQ’s were never estimated below 100 before the 1980’s (Figure 4). These IQ scores come from South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, China, and an East Asian offshoot, Singapore. In all cases, IQ scores are above 100—even in a poor country like China. Thus, East Asians both started and ended the period with high IQ scores. Another place to look for massive IQ increases would be in a region of the world that experienced a dramatic increase in the price of its exports: The oil-rich countries of the Middle East. But a glance at that data, likewise, shows little evidence that being richer, per se, increases IQ within ten or twenty years:" http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/Immigrant%20IQ

***And I’m waiting for the first epigenetic thriller.*** Hehe.

I had this idea that narrow-sense heritability was the expected correlation between two individuals that would have exactly the same genotype, but would live in randomly picked environments. 
 
But if gene-environment interactions are accrued to narrow-sense heritability, I guess I was wrong. Perhaps you can add this to your list? Or is it subsumed by the "not independent of environment" point?

I thought the crisis Miller was referring to was one of conscience. That there are average race differences after all.

***the non-trivial area of research is exploring cross-national factors which effect the common vector which can be traced back to the post-world war ii era.*** 
 
Is there a television effect?  
 
***The dramatic surge in levels of violent crime in countries where TV is relatively new is clear to measure. Studies have been done on these countries, which have found a 10-15 year incubation period of TV arriving to the crime rates doubling.*** 
 
http://www.ginafordbooks.com/arigsigman.htm#q6

***he doesn't read very closely.*** 
 
The last two of Roth's factors could apply in that example too. 
 
Here is Pinker's essay setting out four possible reasons for the overall decline in violence. 
 
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

***James A. Donald -- sarcasm?  
 
If not, I truly have no idea what you are trying to say.*** 
 
Yes, he's mocking the inadequacy of Roth's factors.

Interesting article by Geoffrey Miller in the Economist: 
 
"Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races... 
 
... 
 
We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in ?The 10,000 Year Explosion? that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.  
 
If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species?including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world?s different economies." 
 
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737

Interesting discussion developing in the nature forum. Ebenstein responds to a criticism they have misrepresented the current position: 
 
"Sergio D. J. Pena says the article ?seriously misrepresents the current situation of research in human genetic diversity.? I don?t believe this is the case. Good evidence exists to support the following views: 
 
1) there is more genetic diversity at individual and group levels than thought a few years ago, 
 
2) some of this diversity is functional, 
 
3) human evolution, rather than having stopped in the past 50,000 to 40,000 years, may have increased. 
 
In addition to footnote 5, see footnote 2, with respect to global variation in copy number in the human genome, and footnote 6 for signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations, among other articles. 
 
http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/5623#

fyi. Lynn & Meisenberg comment on the Wicherts review of sub saharan scores. Wicherts found an overall average of 82. Lynn & Meisenberg conclude:  
 
"The three IQ data sets show that studies of acceptably representative samples on tests other than the Progressive Matrices give a sub-Saharan Africa IQ of 69; studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices and on the Colored Progressive Matrices give IQs of 66 and 71. These results are corroborated by the international studies of math, science, and reading that give an IQ of 72.4, adjusted down to 66 because these studies are based mainly on high school samples in the more advanced African countries. The average of the four data sets gives an IQ of 68 and should be regarded as the best reading of the IQ in sub-Saharan Africa."  
 
Intelligence Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 21-29

"If Hoste claims to be an "authority" in both anthropology and HBD then he will cause damage to sociobiology." 
 
I'm not sure that Hoste is making claims to being an authority. I thought his blog began quite well when it was solely focussed on book reviews and interviews (interviewees included the likes of Richard Lynn & Richard Nisbett).

It can be the source of new move. 
The Yawn move, when you are in the cinema. 
 
Now you can ask, excuse me, I have to listen to this song but my radio's dead. Do you think I can put my ears near your chest? 
LOL.