In these IQ/Race discussions, why is the other side to the argument never given a fair shake? He gives all the affordability to Murray, Jenson - they are empirical and any biased comments were simply a misunderstanding.<br><br>The other side is presented as offended liberals, scared and uncomfortable individuals. But there are many geneticists and psychologists that disagree and have published works outlining such. This is an ongoing debate<br><br>Furthermore, if one is to make the claim that there is a hierarchy of G between different "races", shouldn't they first define "race" and demonstrate that it exists in humans at all? Modern biology does not support the assertion that biological, distinct races exist in homo sapiens. No population have been isolated long enough to evolve into subspecies, or a different race.<br><br>And finally, I always notice that these scientists do not want to discuss history, as if it would have no affect on a population's performance on these tests,(reply>), You can tell differences by simple observation. You’re a biology denier that desperately wants to believe in the “clean slate” theory of human development.,(reply>), The "different races" argument you make is silly. He doesn't need to define the biological race, because the science is on the social construct of race. AKA self-reported race. The people who took the tests self-reported as some race, and that self-reported racial category had different means of IQ.,(reply>), Agreed, we'll said.,(reply>), Im glad your level headed comment is here. There are a lot of unfortunate slippery slope comments. "see this is why we shouldnt allow immigration". "see this is why I want to preserve my indigenous population". "see this is why certain populations should be sterilized". The scientists of WW2 Germany were very intelligent but............