http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html

You're really quoting fucking NISBETT!!? He was refuted by Rushton and Jense.

Gottfredson (2005) is the only commentator who confronted head-on all the empirical, theoretical, and moral issues. The other commentators (Nisbett, 2005; Sternberg, 2005; Suzuki & Aronson, 2005) sidestepped the totality of the threeway race– behavior matrix shown in our Table 3. They invoked one or other of the culture-only refrains, that “race” is only “skin deep”; if not, then any difference is too small to matter; if not, then it is due to cultural factors such as statistical artifacts, insensitive tests, racism, stereotype threat, and poverty; if not, then it is poor form to talk about it. They also offered the usual culture-only promissory notes that the Black–White IQ gap can be reduced by economic improvements, interventionist programs, culture-friendly assessment systems, and nonweighted models of gene– environment interaction. Their examples only confirm what we described in Sections 2, 13, and 14: Culture-only theory is a degenerating research paradigm.

Reality, however, is stubborn. Jensen (1998, pp. 375–376, n. 33, 407– 408, 494 – 495) showed that gains in scholastic achievement do not equal gains in g, and the Black–White differences in g are as large as ever, even for measures of reaction time. Jensen’s conclusion dovetails with a meta-analysis by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) that we cited at the opening of our target article. They found a mean effect size of 1.1 standard deviations that ranged from 0.38 to 1.46 (based on a sample of 6,246,729 from corporate, military, and higher education samples) depending on the g loading of the test. On the question of whether the difference was diminishing, they suggested any reduction was “either small, potentially a function of sampling error . . . or nonexistent for highly g loaded instruments” (Roth et al., 2001, p. 323).

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen-reply-to-commentaries-on-30years.pdf

No way did you just quote Nisbett!!! Holy shit! HAHAHA.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm

AAA is not a science. Therefor, they have no authority on this matter.

The AAA Does Away With Science, Seriously

Section 1. The purposes of the Association shall be to advance anthropology as the science that studies public understanding of humankind in all its aspects. through This includes, but is not limited to, archeological, biological, ethnological, social, cultural, economic, political, historical, medical, visual, and linguistic anthropological research; The Association also commits itself and to further the professional interests of American anthropologists, including the dissemination of anthropological knowledge, expertise, and interpretation. and its use to solve human problems.

http://anthropology.net/2010/11/30/the-aaa-does-away-with-science-seriously/

tools.medicine.yale.edu/kidd/www/440.pdf

Psychologists and educational specialists with expertise in areas related to intelligence testing responded to a questionnaire dealing with a wide variety of issues constituting the IQ controversy. Overall, experts hold positive attitudes about the validity and usefulness of intelligence and aptitude tests. Tests are seen as adequately measuring most important elements of intelligence, although the tests are believed to be somewhat racially and socioeconomically biased. There is overwhelming support for a significant within-group heritability for 1(2, and a majority of respondents feel that black-white and socioeconomic status 1(2 differences are also partially hereditary. Problems with intelligence tests are perceived in the influence of nonintellectual characteristics on test performance and in the frequent misinterpretation and overreliance on test scores in elementary and secondary schools. Despite these difficulties, experts favor the continued use of intelligence and aptitude tests at their present level. Variation in responding to substantive questions on testing is largely resistant to prediction by a host of demographic and background variables, including within-sample variation in expertise.

http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~spihlap/snyderman@rothman.pdf

Those 2 also say this.

“Our work demonstrates that, by any reasonable standard, media coverage of the IQ controversy has been quite inaccurate,” the authors concluded.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-95353.html#ixzz3dN6sz0cB

Also, see Maintstream Science on Intelligence.

"Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."

"Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"

"That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment ... IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"

"Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade ... black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds"

"The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be the same as those for why whites ... differ among themselves"

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

After The Bell Curve came out in 1994, this paper came out. This is their findings.

This is just a start, I can find more articles and recommend some books if you'd like.

Lets see, you linked to me NISBETT, a piece talking about the AAA and race and IQ, and some other garbage on race and IQ.

What's next, going to link to me Lewontin's Fallacy? You going to link to Gould's Mismeasure of Man too? Man, this was HILARIOUS!!! Thanks for the laughs!!!