I’m a little taken aback at Dr. Haier’s inability to actually “steel man” the other side of the argument, even after Lex gives him multiple chances. He doesn’t seem to understand “steel manning” is.,(reply>), @Donald Taylor That was my thought exactly. He does a lot of hand waving about the causal mechanism for group differences in IQ. People exist in a social milieu that includes other social structures besides schools (neighborhoods, peers, and families--all part of the social environment!). Not to mention, the physical environment (e.g., environmental toxins that are found in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty). I understand assessing causation is much harder in social sciences, but still, he seemed so sure of himself without presenting his evidence that the difference is genetically determined.  I must say when he claimed to not be a "geneticist," I said "yeah that's the problem. You're making claims outside your expertise." It was also disappointing that Lex didn't challenge this assumption much. He basically took just took his word for it.,(reply>), @Dale Rohling the issue is whether they have indeed falsified the environmental explanation. their primary evidence for a genetic explanation is that the Head Start program didn’t work. at best they have only shown that a particular form of compensatory education didn’t work in the particular context in which it was tried. the notion that this would even remotely exhaust the possible environmental mechanisms for intelligence is laughable. this is not a left or right issue, but a scientific one.,(reply>), @Donald Taylor Curt Doolittle says once one falsifies a claim, what is left is as close to the truth as you’ll ever get. I hear the empty “arguments” against the claims of Murray/Herrnstein, and worse yet they provided zero evidence to support an environmental explanation of IQ. It’s wishful thinking at best and proves once again that the left will sacrifice the real for the sake of feel.,(reply>), @Dale Rohling as John Stuart Mill once said, “he who knows only his own side of the argument knows little of that”. the point being that in order to fully understand an issue, you have to fully understand the other side of the argument. therefore, if you can’t make the case for opposing view, then you likely don’t fully understand the problem you’re trying to solve.,(reply>), He is grounded to tell truth, not give people an “out”.