Some comments about "race" and "intelligence"

Dataset 2: Familial correlations for IQ

Expected results versus actual results. 

Expectation comes from classical “single polygenic model.”

Relationship	Sample or Population	Predicted	Actual
Monozygotic twins raised together	4672	1.00	.85
Monozygotic twins raised apart	65	1.00	.67
Dizygotic Twins Reared together	5546	.50	.58
Siblings reared together	26,473	.50	.45
Non-biological sibling pair (adopted/natural)	345	.00	.29
Non-biological sibling pair (adopted/adopted)	369	.00	.31

My data for the paper came largely from the Minnesota Twins study.

Now all we need for for the positer of the claim to explain what "race" is and one tests for it in order to produce a falsifiable theory of it.

Shortly after Burt died it had become known that all of his notes and records had been burnt, and he was accused of falsifying research data. The 2007 Encyclopædia Britannica noted that it is widely acknowledged that his later work was flawed and many academics agree that data were falsified, though his earlier work is often accepted as valid.^[17]

From the late 1970s it was generally accepted that "he had fabricated some of the data, though some of his earlier work remained unaffected by this revelation."^[17] This was due in large part to research by Oliver Gillie (1976) and Leon Kamin (1974).^[18][19] The possibility of fabrication was first brought to the attention of the scientific community when Kamin noticed that Burt's correlation coefficients of monozygotic and dizygotic twins' IQ scores were the same to three decimal places, across articles – even when new data were twice added to the sample of twins.

Identifiable population groups that correspond with racial labels are referred to by sensible people as "races." Denying that these population groups exist if referred to as "races" or insisting they be called "social constructs" instead are examples of linguistic sophistry designed to confuse and befuddle rather than clarify and enlighten.

What is social construction? Philosopher Paul A. Boghossian answers as follows:

"To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently. The inevitable contrast is with a naturally existing object, something that exists independently of us and which we did not have a hand in shaping.

"...If the preceding considerations are correct, social construction talk does not cogently apply to the facts studied by the natural sciences."

If scientists who study the genetic, skeletal, and neurological differences among human populations that evolved separately from one another for tens of thousands of years are engaged in “social construction,” then so are geologists who study rock formations. Call everything from galaxies down to sub-atomic particles “social constructs” if you want to, but doing so won’t make race any less real than anything else in the natural sciences.

The goal of “race as a social construct” dogma, as originated by leftist Richard Lewontin, was to undermine both the scientific study and common-sense understanding of race. It is corrupt terminology – or at least a corrupt application of it. “Social construct” talk is inapplicable to biology per se, including human biology and variations within it as expressed in the form of identifiable races.

The only possible referent of "social construct” is something that is actually constructed socially. Black History Month is a social construct since it can only be created by social forces. It is a cultural, not a biological, phenomenon. Black people are not social constructs, since their distinguishing biological characteristics exist independent of any social category ascribed to them.

Lewontin's Fallacy

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/06/lewontins-fallacy.html 

"What is not correct is the inference that race is  therefore a meaningless concept. This point has  been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge  geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the recent paper called ‘Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy’.  R. C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge  (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy..."

 -Richard Dawkins

Scientists Call for End to Race Denial

http://sciencefocus.com/forum/scientists-call-for-end-to-race-denial-t530.html

Do Human Races exist? [MrHerrIQ]

http://youtu.be/U7oUlegomQ4

Politically incorrect, biological truths about race. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqfNpGf7-r0