Whatever disagreements Turkheimer and Gottfredson have are entirely irrelevant and beside the point. The point is that you are posting a misconstrued and misstated opinion of an expert in support of your argument when he actually holds a completely different position, is offended at the argument you advance, and holds those advancing your position in deep, deep contempt. To put it mildly, it doesn’t help your argument.
The level of racist hate rhetoric is almost unbelievable in South Africa. They are inciting hatred and the murder of whites. 12 white farmers have been murdered in June so I don’t care about your chicken shit race and culture. My people built South Africa into the 15th largest economy in the world with the 9th largest stock exchange - my people are getting killed. And you should know something about apartheid: they had 7 kids in a family. And if you have 7 kids, it doesn’t matter whether you live in the USA or in apartheid South Africa - you would struggle feeding 7 kids. So I don’t feel anything for your race and your shit. I made a success. Living apart from you. You had to come work for me.
Please re-read my comment. I quoted the NY Times and Guardian articles in support of the generally accepted position that variation in intelligence is significantly due to genetic variation.
I was replying to the comment of gamerunknown which appeared to suggest this was an unusual or outdated position.
And the expert you quote finds your views on racial science repugnant and abhorrent.
So what? Some people find homos8xuality repugnant and abhorrent. Do we listen to them?
Ultimately, in the case of group differences it’s an empirical question. This kind of research may help resolve it.
So person whose opinion you were using to advance your argument actually strongly disagrees with you and finds your position repugnant and abhorrent. There is absolutely, positively no way around it. The best thing to do is to ignore it as inconvenient information to the contrary in one’s own argument and move on.
Again - re-read my original comment above. I cited the Pinker NY Times article along with the Guardian article to show the idea that variation in intelligence is significantly due to genes is uncontroversial. Those are two decidedly liberal even leftist papers.
Whether Turkheimer finds research on group differences repugnant is a matter of ethics. As I noted above - the question of whether such differences exist and what causes them, is an empirical question.
“The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic.”
So what was your thesis again? That Neanderthal DNA, serving no useful purpose, somehow makes Papua New Guinean, Han Chinese, and French people smarter than San and Yoruba?
Because I’d like to see some evidence to back that up.
-a-
You posted an expert’s opinion in support of your argument when that expert in actuality strongly disagrees with you, finds your position repugnant and abhorrent, and would no doubt be deeply offended by your use of his work to advance your argument. There is no way around it. Best to ignore it and move on.
You seem to think that I posted the Pinker NY Times article, citing Turkheimer, as saying group differences are partially genetic. If you read my comment - I quoted it, along with the research cited in the Guardian, in support of the proposition that individual differences in intelligence are due in part to genetic differences. This was in response to the comment that I don’t know of anyone under the age of 30 espousing a genetic view of intelligence though.
Do you understand now or do I need to explain this point again for you?
You posted the opinion of an expert in support of your argument when that expert wholeheartedly disagrees with you, thinks people advancing your position are not enititled to his encouragement or respect, and would be appalled that his work is being used to advance your position. You simply can’t get around it. Ignore it and move on.
@ pravnik
I see, you are a bot repeating yourself. This makes more sense now 
I won’t expect you to understand subtle points like an article simply being posted to show it is well accepted that genetic variation contributes to individual differences in intelligence. I was starting to think you might be a moron 
You’re halfway there. Ignore the fact that you quoted an expert completely, 100% categorically in deep fundamental disagreement with you, and then move on.
Did you get past High School?
Yes, considerably. Now, move on.
Why are we allowing the pig fuckers another thread to shit in?
Move on to what? You have completely misread my initial post above suggesting I was citing Turkheimer in support of group differences. I wasn’t. Both articles referred to individual differences. You need to read more carefully before getting snotty with people on here.
Move on to your next argument, i.e. drop this one. You’ve cited an authority in support of your argument that fundamentally disagrees with your main point. Ignore it, ignore me, and change the subject.
Well, it’s not like we need to ration the threads. We’re not suffering from a thread famine.
I’ve cited an authority in support of the argument that individual differences in intelligence are significantly due to genetic variation. As I’ve explained above - I particularly cited them from articles in relatively liberal newspaper articles to highlight the lack of controversy about that point.
If you want to debate the subject of whether group differences are genetic then you should head over to the Great Debates thread.