The Mismeasure of Man (1981), by Stephen Jay Gould, is a history and critique of the statistical methods and cultural motivations underlying biological determinism, the belief that "the social and economic differences between human groups -- primarily races, classes, and sexes -- arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology."[1] The principal theme of biological determinism, that "worth can be assigned to individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity", is analyzed in discussions of craniometry and psychological testing, two methods used to measure and establish intelligence as a single quantity. That the methods have "two deep fallacies"; the first is "reification", which is "our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities", such as the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the general intelligence factor (g factor), which have been the cornerstones of much research into human intelligence; the second fallacy is '"ranking", the "propensity for ordering complex variation as a gradual ascending scale."

In reading about this stuff today, I think the debate I thought I was having was over a point Chomsky raised 30+ years ago:

"[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) ... As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category ... In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the `justification' provided by the existence of racial discrimination."

That's really the interesting question for me. All of the back and forth today seemed to be an attempt to convince me (and the reader) that the Bell Curve was wrong, which was odd to me because I didn't start the day believing it was right.  I believed it was wrong this AM and still believe that.

I also started the day open to the possibility that there could be a genetic/IQ link and wondering if it was best for us to find the truth.

Sullivan is arguing that the scientific community has abandoned the research because of the PC police. Others argue that it was abandoned because no one cares about the topic. These both strike me as wrong. I think the answer is that the research is being done in a way that is more directly associated with other issues. Prenatal research, stem cell research, cloning, sociological modeling advances and a host of other tangentially related matters receiving all kinds of attention right now.  My point from the start wasn't about the Bell Curve or those ripping it apart.  That's all temporary relatively speaking.  The interesting point for me will be what happens when the answer comes to us from one of these other sources.  

I think my kids will live in a world where the answer is available. Less than a hundred years.