The problem I am having with DITWD’s original statement is that it strikes me as saying two different things. First, he says (with liberal snipping on my part):
“Gould & co state that there not only is not, but I think that they believe there CAN NOT be any differences between the races intellecually.”
I’m inclined to agree with the fine point in this discussion that it is essentially impossible to prove that anything is impossible (paradox intended) … thus I guess I reluctantly agree with DITWD’s questioning of Gould’s position that differences CAN NOT exist.
Also, the use of the word “difference” is significant. Groups of people living in relative isolation over many generations can result in differences in height, body shape, eye color, skin color, hair color etc. This seems to have given rise to the classic constructions of “race.” This would also explain why people who are generally grouped together as Negroid also exhibit huge variations among themselves (likewise with any other racial group). Groups such as the Pygmies have been isolated, and have developed a very unique characteristic in their size. As a society, our ideas about race seem to be changing and becoming more flexible, probably because in some measure we see more and more groups of people who cannot easily be classified into one of the traditional racial groups.
DITWD then goes on to say:
“It is certainly POSSIBLE than one race is slightly smarter, on the average, than another.”
This is where I have major problems, and I can see where DDG is coming from in her complaint. “Smarter” implies “better.” Just because something is different, does that mean it is better? Fair skin is different from dark skin, which is better? Eyes with an epicantal fold are different from eyes without one, which is better?
To quote Sua, there is no commonly accepted measure of intelligence. There seem to be different kinds of intelligence, and I am willing to believe that these same isolated groups of people might have valued some kinds of intellectual ability more than others, perhaps resulting in a greater frequency of those traits in subsequent generations. Depending on the needs and preferences of a society, possessing an almost photographic memory might be considered the sign of highest intelligence, while another group values a thought process based more on abstractions. This doesn’t even take into consideration culture, education and language. Again, this will break down as these people move out of isolation and have a more diverse gene pool contributing to future generations.
After reading this over, I realize it seems I am making a case for differences. What I am actually attempting to do is give this position the very greatest benefit of the doubt. In general, I think that any differences that might exist are slight, so slight as to be considered vestigal (meaning they have zero impact on how we live and function in society today), and extremely difficult to measure or evaluate on a purely genetic basis that would completely exclude culture and education.
So, different is ok. Smarter is not. I think most of the responses so far have focused on the idea of differences, and since this is the Pit, I will say that I think this quibbling over semantics has not been fair to the point that DDG was trying to make.