Controversy Blazes So, if you're in the mood for reading a debate in which I take on all comers with a little help from David, check out this post by Atrios. After a bit of initial name-calling (I'm "repugnant" and a "loathsome toad"), the discussion got pretty civil - I was pleasantly surprised. The crescendo of the discussion happened when the following claim was made, included below with my reply:

Quite simply put, there is no objective observable data that would lead one to this conclusion [that intelligence is heritable and that blacks < whites < Asians in IQ ] without the previous bias that it is true. Ok. Suppose I did the following: 1) I figured out which genes were related to intelligence by DNA pooling and QTL mapping. 2) I determined that the structure of the brain's cognitive regions was as highly heritable as fingerprints, thus establishing a genetic basis for previously observed high heritability. 3) I determined which haplotypes were preferentially present in which populations. It seems to me that: 1) Number 1 tells me which genes contribute to intelligence. 2) Number 2 tells me that brain structure in regions associated with cognition is essentially entirely determined by genetics (heritability coefficients in the .95 range for areas associated with cognition - read the paper linked above if you don't believe me.) 3) Number 3 tells me which alleles are preferentially present in which populations. Together, 1, 2, & 3 will allow us to show that intelligence has partly genetic roots, is highly heritable, and differs across populations. Do you disagree? Molecular biology, unlike standardized testing, is less amenable to charges of bias.

I believe the most controversial articles in my previous post (the quote for which Atrios excoriates me and Den Beste disowns me) concern exactly those three points. As Den Beste says (emphasis mine):

I might mention that I find the attitudes in that post profoundly repugnant, and I reject utterly any suggestion that I agree with them but am afraid to public acknowledge it. There are genetic differences among people, and because of differing genetics some people are smarter than others, but it is impossible at this time to say that there are racially-correlated genetic differences which influence intelligence such that some races average smarter than others. It isn't possible to collect data on that subject which is not also influenced by cultural effects, so to assume that the differences in success rates by race is based on genetic influences (and thus are inevitable) as opposed to cultural ones (which can be corrected) is, at best, speculative. (I am deliberately avoiding any stronger characterization.)

I encourage readers to ask Steven how exactly the above data is influenced by cultural effects.