“I still hold that the concept of “general intelligence” is socially constructed according to those “intelligences” that have been historically valued by Western Enlightenment culture.”

Indeed, that's nearly what James Watson is saying, too.

Better verbal and logical reasoning ability, as measured in general intelligence tests, are the single best predictor of a range of outcomes in the developed world. There is nothing transcendentally ideal about a higher “general intelligence” — it just seems to be an adaptive solution to the question of how to live well.

There appears to be a negative correlation nowadays between general intelligence and reproductive success, but such is a very recent phenomonon [1]. If one assumes that the roots of Western culture are old, one might imagine that Europeans have been existing in a social reality that makes general intelligence a good bet for passing on their genes.

But we know that this hasn't always been true. There's a very long term (on the scale of thousands of years) decline in human brain size, which implies a very long term decline in general intelligence. Further, different societies exist in very different environments (different pathogens, different economic-reward systems, different climates, etc.) where different trains may be more useful,

If so much in our world varies, why should we expect that evolution would have fixed mean of means of general intelligence (all other things being equal) within, say, one standard deviation?

sonofsamphm1c

Could you rephrase?

Curtis,

If you're asking what general intelligence tells us, it predicts such factors as income (on an individual level) and civil society (on a between-nations level), among many others.

That said, in social science all statistics are important only for explaining variation in a population. An important tool, but a limited one.

Razib,

Thank you for the correction. You are right, of course.

Jeffrey,

“As Dawkins and his film crew were packing up to leave, there was a brief altercation in the car parking lot. According to Dawkins, Haggard ordered Dawkins's crew off his land with the words, “You called my children animals,” and threatened legal action and confiscation of their recording equipment. Later, Dawkins speculated that Haggard was upset because Dawkins had talked about evolution in the interview.” [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

Though I do like that your post suggests I'm one standard deviation more intelligent than you are.

re: askhenazi jews, the range of results are on the order of 0.5 standard deviation units to 1 deviation unit above the white gentile mean. the results are contingent upon the sort of intelligence test. jews tend to do very well (1 standard deviation above) on verbally oriented tests, but far less well on those more geared toward visuo-spatial aspects.

I think, though, that both you and I can agree that the man makes for a damn good episode of South Park.

I SHALL CRUSH YOU LIKE A CLAIM ON MY BELLY!

I called Charles Murray dumb for burning a cross when he was in high school, for using an implausible excuse for his his youthful action, and for not divulging the cross burning incident in his books about IQ and race. He might even agree with me.

You are way off base.

I called Charles Murray dumb…”

?