Emil O W Kirkegaard

The problem that has to be resolved in much more complex, more like this: Let's say there are two groups of chimps or otters or dolphins, and one group uses tools more than the other.

Is one group more intelligent? If so, how did they get that way? Is it training (eg, obsering other otters using tools)? Or is it evolutionary/biological/genetic?

Until that sort of problem has been completely worked out and is totally uncontroversial -- and maybe it has, as I wrote, I am no biologist -- it is really *scientifically* silly to attempt to do the same with humans, especially given knowns about damage such work has/can cause.

Of course, if the science ever does get to that point? Then McWhorter's points all kick in that amount to a big fat "what do we gain by learning this?"

Super strong science *might* provide a better answer than we have now. Maybe if we knew a lot more about gene-environment interactions we'd know a lot more about how to craft human-potential-maximizing environments to different people.

But even then -- that would be worked out at *individual* levels, not group levels.

Regardless, until we have such super strong science on all this-IQ, genetics, gene-environment interactions, etc., all highly worked out w/plants&animals-I endorse a moratorium on research attempting to evaluate bio/genetic diffs in race on almost anything (especially IQ). END.

Isn't this what opponents of research on sex differences say? Why should we study sex but not race?