Not a helpful post

“In "Why Steve Sailer is wrong", I find the usually excellent Tyler Cowen has offered us his hopes rather than his best insight into the future of IQ and race. We wanted his wisdom and an explanation of cutting edge research in IQ and race and instead we got a pile of wishful thinking with more discussion of the controversy of racial differences than than science. I hope other readers of Anathem will join me when I call for a solid application of Diax’s Rake. Wishing for something to be true does not make it so. One theory he offers: “For instance it is quite possible that groups with higher measured IQs simply have been on an “improvement track” for a longer period of time. ” There hasn’t been much natural selection over this time scale. Therefore this is either a Lamarkian argument or a claim that groups vary in their environmental treatments of IQ. My understanding of the Flynn effect is that it is found predominantly on the lower half of the IQ scale and that the leading hypothesis was that it was a product of a more complex childhood environment, especially the technology we use and the complexity of the entertainment we consume. Since the Flynn effect works on the lower IQ fraction of the group, one would have expected it to close racial gaps if the Flynn cause was evenly distributed across racial groups. If it hasn’t, then what is the fraction of the explanation explainable by the cause of the Flynn effect being unevenly distributed, what fraction bu between group genetic variation, and what by other (non-Flynn effect) environmental causes? The average home of a minority in America closer to the wealth (measured in goods, not dollars) and complexity of a white middle class household than it has ever been, so I believe little of the continuing gap, if any is explainable by uneven distribution of Flynn factors.”