If you look at the cover through anaglyph glasses ("3D" red/cyan-blue lenses), one fellow near the left side rises above all the others - therefore the cover represents the triumph of socialism as we evolve to become more ant-like.

Gottfredson has several articles about health/intelligence (www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/): 
"Innovation, fatal accidents, and the evolution of general intelligence." 
"Thinking more deeply about health disparities." 
"Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why?" 
 
"Intelligence: Is it the epidemiologists' elusive "fundamental cause" of social class inequalities in health?": 
 
A third study prospectively followed 958 outpatients of an urban hospital for 2 years (D. W. Baker et al., 1998). Patients with 
inadequate TOFHLA (Test of Functional Health Literacy of Adults) literacy (35% of the sample) were twice as 
likely (31.5%) to be admitted to the hospital at least once during the 2 years as were patients with adequate literacy (14.9%).

FWIW, note which sex does what.

Perhaps even one or more of the article in chief's authors. 
 
Hawks responds to P-ter's post, among other things, here.

The Swedish Army has even started handing out combat-issue hair nets in preparation for mobilization. 
As a Swedish half-breed I've got my heated sox, goat equipment and glue-gun ready for the upcoming Summons to War.

...university stacks the search process is rather narrow and focused... 
 
Oh, I dunno about that - when I was one o' them colitch kids I used to wander the stacks and pick out books at pseudo-random. That's how I found "The Journal or Irreproducible Results" (EE section, IIRC), and flipped it open to an article about Superman's X-ray vision causing cancer, and another about how stacks of hoarded National Geographic magazines were causing Florida to sink.

Linda Gottfredson has some excellent information on the implications and politics of this issue, including Suppressing Intelligence Research, which is particularly apropos to the reaction of the "priest class" (ya gotta love that term) to Watson, etc.

Linda Gottfredson, Stephen Ceci and Eric Turkheimer on deck. 
 
Are their responses supposed to appear later on? Flynn's writing always seems to me to be meandering and tentative, as if he's trying to prove something for which no real proof exists. If anything his argument about genes vs environment shows that genes are actually more important than might be expected since "good" genes help produce a "good" environment, so, if anything, their effect is greater in real life than in controlled environments. 
 
FWIW, here is "The Flynn Effect for Different Countries", mostly Europe. Norway actually shows a decrease... 
 
And here's a paper discussing brain changes due to learning. (Taxi drivers, musicians, etc) 
 
Also, is there any info on which, if any, sets of people (e.g. dumbest or smartest) show the most/least change over time a la the Flynn effect? I seem to recall that the effect was largely restricted to the left side of the bell curve, but now can't find that info, or any mention of it.

Related topic from ScienceDaily: 
 
Several genes with strong associations to schizophrenia have evolved rapidly due to selection during human evolution, according to new research. 
... 
It also provides genetic evidence consistent with the long-standing theory that schizophrenia represents, in part, a maladaptive by-product of adaptive changes during human evolution - possibly to do with aspects of creativity and human cognition. 
 
I like this theory because it's the same one I conjectured-up years ago based on a loose analogy between the rapid evolutionary development of the human brain, and software development; i.e., if you release it "too early" it'll have more bugs, but if you spend the time fixing the glitches before release, the (buggy) competition will swamp you.

"One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic." -- J. Stalin and/or some other guy.

LRB article quoted above, there is a letter from Neubauer that states quite specifically that the decision to separate the twins was made by the adoption agency and that he only after the event decided to exploit the research possibilities. 
 
I don't doubt that's quite true - and it turns out the that parents were aware that a study was going on, too, but just didn't know what it was about...which is not uncommon is psych studies.  
(I didn't finish the LRB article because it was so lame, and missed Neubauer's letter there). 
 
This NPR article says: "Bernstein says she had hoped Neubauer would apologize for separating the twins. Instead, he showed no remorse and offered no apology." 
 
The media presentation of this incident smells like a typical case of Journalists' Logic: "Mengele studied twins, therefore anyone who studies twins is evil," probably compounded by hype for the book.

Wow, what an asshole this Neubauer guy must be. 
 
I got the impression that it was "policy" to separate twins for adoption, and that he merely took advantage of it. (I'm pretty sure, before the 1970s or so in the US, that it was normal policy to separate siblings who were adopted). Most of the references have a passive voice ("were separated"), so it's hard to tell who did the separating or made that decision. I can see how the twins would be PO'd about it, though, but I think the main issue wasn't separation, which probably happened absent any studies, so much as the lack of informed consent about being studied. 
 
Here's an abstract:  
"The first of the companion papers presented here offers the first in-depth historical overview of Dr. Peter Neubauer's controversial study of infant identical twins separated at birth, launched in the 1950s. The author, Dr. Lawrence Perlman, was a research assistant on the project while earning his doctoral degree in clinical psychology from New York University." (login needed to access the actual paper).  
 
Here's something funny from the London Review of Books: 
During the Sixties, in New York City, twins put up for adoption were separated and used for psychological studies under the direction of Peter Neubauer, who never told either them or their parents that they were twins, or that they were being studied. In our day, the political bias has resurfaced in the racist hypotheses and conclusions of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray?s The Bell Curve. One of the twins in Neubauer?s study later remarked, ?This is nightmarish, Nazi shit,? while the psychiatrist involved in the study confessed: ?In those days we were playing God.? Satan, I?d say, while we?re waxing mythological.

...in the early 20th century most whites went along with the consensus that non-whites should be exterminated, whether immediately (through genocide) or slowly (through sterilization).  
 
Do you have a reference for that? I doubt it's true because the exterminations never happened; it would have been very easy to accomplish in the case of the N. American Indians. 
 
From a philosophical perspective, the entire problem with this issue is that the burden of proof has been misplaced.  
 
Quite so. 
 
The doctrine of human neurological uniformity is the Russell's teapot of our time. Its Christian roots are obvious. 
 
I've wondered where that strange but popular idea came from, and tend to blame it on latent Marxism (modern Lysenkoism), maybe combined with Christian stuff, since the Marxist idea of treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals, and defining their rights and obligations, etc, based on group membership, is quite popular in the domains inhabited by the "burn the witch" crowd (academics and journalists). Plus, I don't think "population sameness" is a popular concept in many Christian countries, e.g. in Central and S. America. Part of the modern version of group identity involves every group being the same so that some groups can blame their problems on other groups, and thereby seek "social justice" from the others: the idea of "social justice" is weakened if not nullified if the groups aren't essentially identical.

We (non-Jewish Europeans) did try to wipe them out in the name of racial purity a mere 60 years ago. 
 
Acually "we" (non-Jewish, non-Nazi Europeans) did quite the opposite. ("We" being my parents, who were shot at and bombed). 
 
bandying about anecdotes about black employees really won't cut it. 
 
His statement struck me the same way at first, but perhaps he was trying to appeal to people's perceptions since information on the issue is suppressed and distorted in the general media. 
 
However, contrast Watson's blunt but reasonable (apologetic, even) statements with the lies, threats and insults from...a criminal, apparently.

From original post:  
And as for the idea that because two populations have different genetic profiles that means that they are "inherently unequal," that's depends on what metric you're using as a measure. 
Two families = two different groups with different genetic profiles, yet that never seems to be of concern to anyone beyond the personal level. Maybe because the groups aren't big enough. 
 
OTOH, there are people for whom race isn't a big deal, but they tend to verge on asperger's and not care too much about conformity. 
Heh. That'd describe me 15 or 20 years ago. Now the first part isn't very true: I used to think it was kinda interesting to work or hang out with blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Asian-Indians, etc, but now I'm leery about the first two until I get to know them pretty well (FWIW, I've done some weird jobs outside the academic/white collar arena).  
 
If you make that distinction, their view is coherent. 
Except for their claiming that "racism is bad, therefore we must practice racism." 
 
Affirmative Action = Racism and/or Sexism 
Yup. That's what I get for writing before coffee instead of afterwards. Google ["disadvantaged minority" women] for a laugh. 
 
On the West coast the East Asian get unfairly penalized 
I understand that's true in college admissions, but East Asians qualify for other perks, like SBA loans and special consideration in gov't contracts. The SBA used to have a webpage (now removed) with a truly ludicrous list of who could qualify for "minority" preferences (quotes because it included women) - because they couldn't come out and say "anyone but men of Euopean background." 
 
Anyway, the race thing got me started on other PC monstrosities - recently I mentioned the "germ theory" of homosexuality at the Reason mag website; since it's basically a liberal/PC mag and audience, the idea was mostly greeted with ignorant derision (which I expected), yet the same people were upset that "gender dysphoria" isn't considered a disease (for insurance and tax purposes); apparently the same same strange thought processes at work.

Here's something else - other than simple stupidity, can anyone explain how or why the "race deniers" are often obsessed with race and implementing racist (AA, etc) policies and practices? I don't understand how anyone who's smart enough to emit grammatical sentences can deal with the cognitive dissonance (enough so that it makes me wonder to how much verbal abilities are divorced from logical abilities, or whether emotional wishes simply override logic). 
 
Recent Debyshire: "The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, and social. ... Scientific objectivity is a freakish, unnatural, and unpopular mode of thought, restricted to small cliques whom the generality of citizens regard with dislike and mistrust." 
 
Izzat the answer?

But let me ask this- why is race so important? Why does it matter whether it exists or not? Why is there such a controversy? 
 
Whilst a physics grad sudent I got quite interested in the genetics underlying animal behavior, and semi-serious reading about the subject was a big hobby for a while (about 20-30 years ago). "Race" was something I'd almost literally never thought about, but that changed beause of two things you referred to: blaming everything bad in the world on "whitey" (almost as if those naughty white folk have the magical power to "salt the earth" permanently, just by having existed), and anti-white racism as practiced in most western countries under the cutesy names "affirmative action" and "diversity" (maybe include the idea of "failing schools," and a few other things). I'd just as soon that the subject never came up except in an abstract form. 
 
Am I wrong in my reasoning here? Really, could someone tell me why the existence of differing genetic profiles among human populations means an automatic causational factor in psychological makeup? 
 
It implies the possibility.

It seems to imply that, for humans, social status and organization are relatively more important in the long run than some small reward (investment). And perhaps "rational maximizer" should be "short-term rational maximizer."

Serious question: does the phrase "transsexual woman" mean a man (="an adult male person", where male ="bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei") disguised as a woman, or a woman disguised as a man? I always think it's the latter because of the biology, but the former is consistent with the popular misuse of the word "gender."

I may gain the confidence someday to go back and read the answers, guessing the questions as I go. 
 
After reading parts of two 'questions,' that worked for me.