This would be one of my two hypotheses, the other being what Der Trihs mentioned, namely that IQ is not necessarily an unbiased be-all end-all test of “intelligence”, and that the test itself might be biased towards certain race groups.
The heritability of income and education is modest, not high:
Yes, this was discussed. The IQ gap increases with parental SES. Controlling for home environmental influences can statistically explain by adulthood 1/3rd of the gap. At younger ages these influences explain more.
No one is arguing that IQ tests are perfect measures of general intelligence. But the magnitude of the gap correlates with general intelligence, so the imperfection attenuates the size of the differences. That is, on a perfect measure, the gap would be larger than it’s typically found! As for bias, this has been tested over and over again. Typical findings on a tests in which a 1 SD differences is found (which, mind you, is about the magnitude of the difference between random individuals):
Edwards and Oakland (2006) Factorial Invariance of Woodcock-Johnson III Scores for African Americans and Caucasian Americans
And for decade after decade, bias and outright fraud have been the norm with such claims. I have no interest in indulging the malignant fantasies of racists.
Look, you can check the research for yourself. It’s rock solid when it comes to the predictive validity of IQ (within and between races), the neurology of general intelligence (mostly within races), the genetic architecture of general intelligence (within populations), and group differences in g. As for the latter, typical finding:
Good. Then don’t comment here.
As a “gotcha” that’s a complete failure.
I thought it was rather successful myself. 
An assertion like that requires credible documentation.
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
Der Trihs,
As soon as you call someone a “racist” you have lost the argument. What matters is not whether or not you think someone is a “racist,” but whether or not the person’s assertions are true.
I am about to close this thread and isue Warnings to a whole bunch of posters.
All the nasty comments directed to other posters regarding their intelligence, racism, etc., and all the snide and smug claims of one’s own superior position are now off limits in this thread.
Stick to arguing facts and leave ALL the personal commentary out of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Religion and political affiliation are far more heritable than intelligence.
So, is this intellectual rape, or are you just cruising for rough trade?
Just before the thread gets closed, an additional point;
MODERATING
Never, ever change the content of another poster’s post inside the quote function, for any reason. (which you did, but I am not referring to the quote above; I mean the point in your post where you used the quote tag function to write the same thing.) That is a warning offense. I will leave it to tomndebb to decide if you should get a formal warning for it, but do NOT do it again, in any forum.
RickJay
Moderator
You neither. And start no more GD threads. Go to the Pit and stay there forever, please.
No not really. Refer here:
Genetic influences on human psychological traits: A survey
The h^2 of religiousness is .3-.45 by adulthood; as one would expect, the h^2 of specific affiliations is 0. See table 1. Political orientation has a modest heritability. You can check the quantitative genetic results here. The broad heritability of intelligence is typically estimated to be about .7. Some argue that this includes active GE covariance (i.e., individuals seeking out cognitive niches corresponding to their dispositions).
Out of sheer bloody-minded sake-of-argument curiosity, let’s assume the answer is “yes”.
What should we do with this knowledge?
We should continue to move in the directions we are moving in. We should put an end to forced school busing, affirmative action, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. We should institute free abortion on demand. That is the only welfare program I have any enthusiasm for. We should continue to expand the prison population. We should put more criminals in prison longer and treat them more harshly.
The reason we are moving in these directions is that the voters are intuitively aware that what Charles Murray and others like him say is correct, even though most have probably not heard of them. There are few things stronger than an ideal whose time has come.
Apologies, but IMHO that sounds to me like a slippery slope to ethnic cleansing. That’s not what you’re leading to, I hope.