The Only Way to Interpret the Article Is That It's Junk Science

i think many times people who respond to charles murray's basic thesis, which is that one i c test have predicted validity for things we care about. But the claim you just made that murray puts that murray thinks this explanation for racial differences in i c is very likely to be mostly genetic. That is just untrue. It's untrue in the bell curve, untrue in the pod cast at several places in that pond cast,. We spelled out why even if intelligence was eighty per cent heritable, say, you could not say that the difference between groups was due to genetics. In fact, it could be a hundred per cent. And i used the analogy to height. You know...