Reviewers can take any time they need to decide.
This is much improved. A nitpick:
Regarding their assertion that "In no case, though, do we see research on racial differences in intelligence as being a high-priority scientific topic,", to downplay the practical implications of this line of study is unwise and irresponsible.Double comma.
As for content:
Quote:
Hunt and Jaeggi claim that the issue isn't important because "Due to migration and intermarriage, the identity of different racial groups can change in a very few years." That depends quite a lot on what is meant by "a very few years"!You could give the example of Latin America. Hundreds of years of mixing and you still get:
The background and test score differences between indigenous and non-indigenous students give additional insight into the distinct challenges that indigenous students face. In every country, the test score gap between indigenous and non-indigenous students was greater in Spanish reading exams than in math exams, and the gaps in both subjects ranged between 0.6 and 1.1 standard deviations. (Hernandez-Zavala, M., Patrinos, H. A., & Sakellariou, C. (2006). Quality of schooling and quality of schools for indigenous students in Guatemala, Mexico and Peru (Vol. 3982). World Bank Publications.)
Quote:
Other areas, such as affirmative action, may also benefit from honest examination in this field.Hunt and Jaeggi are either being intellectually dishonest or myopic, as with so many others. In an HV post, I noted:
Number 4 in the social science’s top 10 list of “grand challenge questions that are both foundational and transformative” (Giles, 2010) is: “How do we reduce the ‘skill gap’ between black and white people in America?” Presumably, figuring out the cause of this psychometric intelligence differential would help when it comes to deciding how best to minimize it. The skill gap
is the IQ gap. Reducing this is said to be a grand challenge. It ranks #4! Given this, how could studying race and IQ be said to
not be "a high-priority scientific topic". Generally, sociologists and policy makers are obsessed with ethnic achievement=IQ=skill gaps; for example: Clark, J. V. (2014).
The Road to Excellence: Promoting Access and Equity to Close the Achievement Gap Internationally. In Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective (pp. 307-315). How can the skill = achievement = IQ gaps be a fundamental social issue and yet for Hunt and Jaeggi be of little importance. Hunt and Jaeggi likely don't want intelligence researches to
acknowledge that the differences of concern are intelligence ones -- I'm sure that they don't think that "skill gaps" are of little importance. Whatever the case, if they do, many researchers disagree with them as testified by the obsession with the "skill gaps".
There also is the important matter of "social justice". Boetel and I discussed this in our Nature of Race paper. Claims are made about group culpability. See
here. Given the situations, scientists have a
moral obligation of sort to investigate the etiology of differences.
....
It would be nice if you could mention some of the points made above. But I won't hold you to it. Correct the double comma though. After, I will approve.
