you may reply "Well, but it's technically correct, even if did turn out (unlikely/no idea) the correlation only exists because race predicts/includes poverty/culture/social customs, which in turn causally [e|a]ffect IQ", while she would say "But then it's not race!".
I agree that there are a handful of valuable points one can make about the underlying causal diagrams. Suppose the diagram is X<-Y->Z: then the correlation between X and Z is indirect and acausal, where we should not expect that modifying X or Z will modify the other one. If the diagram is instead X->Y->Z, then the correlation between X and Z is indirect but modifying X may modify Z.
I disagree that those subtle points are the ones under discussion. It seems to me that this discussion is indirectly about the social acceptability of noticing the correlation between race and IQ, and that the technical points are used mostly for obfuscation. Suppose we were uncertain which of the two causal diagrams I described above were correct; we would still be certain that X and Z were correlated if Y is unmeasured, because that is the case in both causal diagrams, and responding to the claim that X and Z are correlated with "we don't know if X causes Y or Y causes X" is irrelevant.
Since there is no scientific consensus on race when poverty/culture/social customs have all been controlled for, we shouldn't speculate and rather work on the latter confounders, which can probably be improved with socially acceptable policies.
When I read "there is no scientific consensus," it sounds like "but there's still a chance, right?"
I would agree that it's easier to intervene in wealth, culture, and customs than intelligence, and that we already know of several obvious ways where interventions in those three can positively impact intelligence. I don't think Epiphany and I would agree on what interventions are most beneficial there, but that's a separate conversation that's not worth having here.
Idang Alibi of Abuja, Nigeria writes on the James Watson affair:
An intriguing opening. Is Idang Alibi about to take a position on the real heart of the uproar?
Darn, it's just a lecture on personal and national responsibility. Of course, for African nationals, taking responsibility for their country's problems is the most productive attitude regardless. But it doesn't engage with the controversies that got Watson fired.
Later in the article came this:
This intrigued me for two reasons: First, I'm always on the lookout for yet another case of theology making a falsifiable experimental prediction. And second, the prediction follows obviously if God is just, but what does skin colour have to do with it at all?
A great deal has already been said about the Watson affair, and I suspect that in most respects I have little to contribute that has not been said before.
But why is it that the rest of the world seems to think that individual genetic differences are okay, whereas racial genetic differences in intelligence are not? Am I the only one who's every bit as horrified by the proposition that there's any way whatsoever to be screwed before you even start, whether it's genes or lead-based paint or Down's Syndrome? What difference does skin colour make? At all?
This is only half a rhetorical question. Race adds extra controversy to anything; in that sense, it's obvious what difference skin colour makes politically. However, just because this attitude is common, should not cause us to overlook its insanity. Some kind of different psychological processing is taking place around individually-unfair intelligence distributions, and group-unfair intelligence distributions.
So, in defiance of this psychological difference, and in defiance of politics, let me point out that a group injustice has no existence apart from injustice to individuals. It's individuals who have brains to experience suffering. It's individuals who deserve, and often don't get, a fair chance at life. If God has not given intelligence in equal measure to all his children, God stands convicted of a crime against humanity, period. Skin colour has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.
And I don't think there's any serious scholar of intelligence who disputes that God has been definitively shown to be most terribly unfair. Never mind the airtight case that intelligence has a hereditary genetic component among individuals; if you think that being born with Down's Syndrome doesn't impact life outcomes, then you are on crack. What about lead-based paint? Does it not count, because parents theoretically could have prevented it but didn't? In the beginning no one knew that it was damaging. How is it just for such a tiny mistake to have such huge, irrevocable consequences? And regardless, would not a just God damn us for only our own choices? Kids don't choose to live in apartments with lead-based paint.
So much for God being "just", unless you count the people whom God has just screwed over. Maybe that's part of the fuel in the burning controversy - that people do realize, on some level, the implications for religion. They can rationalize away the implications of a child born with no legs, but not a child born with no possibility of ever understanding calculus. But then this doesn't help explain the original observation, which is that people, for some odd reason, think that adding race makes it worse somehow.
And why is my own perspective, apparently, unusual? Perhaps because I also think that intelligence deficits will be fixable given sufficiently advanced technology, biotech or nanotech. When truly huge horrors are believed unfixable, the mind's eye tends to just skip over the hideous unfairness - for much the same reason you don't deliberately rest your hand on a hot stoveburner; it hurts.