The fight is getting pretty entertaining. While I've got my problems with Gladwell, I think his main argument in this skuffle is exactly right:
As I thought should have been obvious, I don't think that the observation, or analysis, or discussion of racial differences is racist. The black-white achievement gap is real. The issue is what inferences are drawn from those observations of difference. There is enough uncertainty over what is meant by race, and enough uncertainty over what is meant by intelligence, and enough uncertainty over our ability to measure what we think is intelligence, and enough uncertainty over the science of measurement itself that--I think--it's perfectly fair to question the motives of those who want to jump to the conclusion that the key variable in explaining this enormously complicated question is the shade of someone's skin. Honestly. I thought we settled this issue in the 19th century.
I don't think you should be so sanguine about whether this argument has been settled.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0509691102v1
One of the more intriguing categories overrepresented in in-
ferred selective events is neuronal function. We define this category to include a diverse assortment of genes, including the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4), glutamate and glycine receptors (GRM3, GRM1, and GLRA2), olfactor y receptors (OR4C13 and OR2B6), synapse-associated proteins (RAPSN), and a number of brain- expressed genes with largely unknown function (ASPM, RNT1; see Fig. 4)....
In conclusion, we have introduced a simple probabilistic method to detect unusual genetic architectures associated with recent selection that does not require haplotype information. It is, there- fore, suitable for large chromosomal scans with large population samples. Homo sapiens have undoubtedly undergone strong recent selection for many different phenotypes, including but certainly not
limited to the general categories we have defined in this work (Fig. 5). Such inferred selective events are not rare (Fig. 3). The numbers obtained, however, are similar to estimated numbers obtained for artificial selection (by humans) on the maize genome (45). Given that most of these selective events likely occurred in the last 10,000 � 40,000 years, a time of major population expansion out of Africa followed by regional shifts from hunter� gatherer to grarian
societies, it is tempting to speculate that gene � culture interactions directly or indirectly shaped our genomic architecture (46, 47). As such, we suggest that such recently selected alleles may provide useful ��markers�� for investigating the evolutionar y migrations of our species, as an adjunct to studies using neutral markers. We also
propose that many of these alleles, because of their high prevalence and recent selection, should be considered likely ��functional candidates�� for association with human variability and the common disorders aff licting humankind.
"I thought we settled this issue in the 19th century."
That's the spirt of scientific inquiry! Why talk about or investigate these subjects, which might require some people to face facts they find unpleasant? No need - it's all been settled ages ago.
Strangely, only a few sentences before that Gladbags was saying there were all sorts of uncertainties. Which is it, settled or fruaght with uncertainty?
I don't understand how the author can admit that the black-white achievement gap is real while simultaneously denying that the definition of race is uncertain.