PSY550 Southern New Importance of Group Differences In IQ Discussion

Importance of group differences in IQ

Description

You will discuss the significance of group differences in IQ for understanding intelligence in this discussion.

Considering the article Can Research on Intelligence Genetics Be ‘Socially Neutral’? (Attached) and the intelligence textbook chapters, compare and discuss at least two group differences in IQ. Also, why are these distinctions important for comprehending intelligence?

CLASSROOM ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

Questions for Discussion (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should be at least 250 words long and address all aspects of the questions posed, including a minimum of one scholarly source.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., they add something new to the discussion, they engage others in the discussion, they have a well-developed idea), and they include at least one scholarly source.
Responses of one or two sentences, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and off-topic responses will not be considered substantive. Substantive responses must be at least 150 words in length.
I encourage you to incorporate the week’s readings (if applicable) into your responses.

Participation every week

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ are graded separately and do not count toward participation.
Along with the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
A scholarly source/citation is not required for participation posts (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments is part of your weekly participation. These announcements are made to ensure that you are aware of everything that is due this week.

The APA Format and the Writing Quality

Learn how to use APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for the majority of your degree’s writing assignments. For APA

paper templates, citation examples, and tips, go to the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, which can be found under the Resources tab in LoudCloud. Points will be deducted if the APA format is not used correctly or if the APA format is not used at all (if required).
Cite all information sources! Cite the source whenever possible. A citation is also required when paraphrasing.
I strongly advise you to use the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.

Utilization of Direct Quotes

At the Masters’ level, I discourage the use of direct quotes in DQs and assignments and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters students, you must be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other sources. Simply repeating someone else’s words does not demonstrate comprehension or critical analysis of the content.
It is preferable to paraphrase and cite your sources.

Policy LopesWrite

Please make sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me for assignments that must be submitted to LopesWrite.
Please review your report once you have received it. This report will highlight grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that are simple to correct. Instead of being counted off for these errors, spend a few extra minutes reviewing.
Examine your similarities. Did you forget to include a citation? Did you not paraphrase correctly? Is your paper dominated by someone else’s ideas rather than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, which can be found under the Resources tab in LoudCloud, for advice on how to improve your paper and SI score.

Policy on Arrival Late

The university’s late assignment policy is a 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also holds true for late DQ responses.
If you anticipate having to submit an assignment late, please contact me. With advance notice, I am happy to be flexible. Due to extenuating circumstances, we may be able to work out an extension.
If you do not contact me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will apply.
Unless we have worked out an extension, I will not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late.
No assignments are accepted after the last day of class, per policy. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the final day of class will not be graded.

Communication

The importance of communication cannot be overstated. You can contact me in a variety of ways, including:
Questions to the Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask questions about course content or assignments. If you have a question, chances are that one of your colleagues does as well. This is the class’s public forum.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum where you can ask me questions or leave messages for me. At least once every 24 hours, this will be checked.

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation

Welcome to class

Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to

I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.

Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.

If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.

Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.

Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.

I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Hi Class,

Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts.

Contact me if you have any questions.

Important information on Writing a Discussion Question

• Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references)
• There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article.
• Include in-text citations in your response
• Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information
• Follow APA-7th edition
• Points will be deducted if the above is not followed

Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor

• A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week.
• Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article
• Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references)
• Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count.
• Follow APA 7th edition
• Points will be deducted if the above is not followed

• Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points.
• Here are some helpful links
• The is a great resource

Welcome to class

Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to.

I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.

Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.

If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.

Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.

Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.

I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Sincerely,

Name:  Discussion Rubric

Name:  Discussion Rubric

an Research on the Genetics of Intelligence Be “Socially Neutral”? By D O R O THY R O B ERTS T he history of research on the genetics of intelligence is fraught with social bias. During the eugenics era, the hereditary theory of intelligence justified policies that encouraged the proliferation of favored races and coercively stemmed procreation by disfavored ones. In the 1970s, Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen argued that black students’ innate cognitive inferiority limited the efficacy of federal education programs.1 The 1994 controversial bestseller The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, rehashed the claim that race and class disparities stem from immutable differences in inherited intelligence, which could not be eliminated through social interventions.2 Today most scientists studying the genetics of intelligence distance themselves from this history of social bias by arguing that their research need not investigate intellectual differences between social groups. Rather, they argue, examining the heritability of intelligence can be socially neutral and may even help to reduce social inequities.3 I argue that research on the genetics of intelligence cannot be socially neutral. The original purpose of mental tests was to determine individuals’ “fitness” for social roles. Even if we divorce the heritability of intelligence from a eugenicist mission, measuring intelligence remains useful only as a gage of individuals’ appropriate positions in society. Research into the genetics of intelligence ultimately helps to determine individuals’ inherited capacity for particular social positions, even when researchers aim to modify the effects of inheritance. Moreover, intelligence has social value. Many aspects of mainstream U.S. culture treat people who are deemed to be more intelligent as more socially valuable than people who are deemed to be less intelligent. Research into the genetics of intelligence, therefore, helps to identify an aspect of the inherited worth of individuals. This feature of intelligence testing historically legitimated race and class hierarchies in explicit terms. Today, research on the genetics of intelligence—even if the research does not use social classifications—maps onto existing social hierarchies and the stereotypes about intelligence that support them. Efforts to improve individuals’ intellectual capacities or social mobility would be better served by nurturing the actual skills that intelligence is supposed to make it possible to develop and, more importantly, by more equitably distributing educational resources in our society. Such efforts need no genetic information— or even IQ testing—and are likely to be hindered by the hereditary concept of intelligence. Scientists doing basic research investigating the role genes play in the mechanisms of brain development underlying cognitive function may not be concerned with this social context. They may be interested purely in how genes and brains work generally in human beings. But as soon as their findings are translated into knowledge about heritable intelligence, their research will take on the social implications that inevitably result from ranking human beings by cognitive capacity and attributing their rank in significant part to their genes. The Purpose of Intelligence Testing Dorothy Roberts, “Can Research on the Genetics of Intelligence Be ‘Socially Neutral’?,” The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5 (2015): S50-S53. DOI: 10.1002/hast.499 S50 T he very origins of predicting intelligence are rooted in ranking people socially. Tests that measure intelligence were created to determine people’s “fitness” for September-October 2015/ H A S T I N G S CE NTE R RE P O RT Intelligence tests were not misused to support hereditary theories of social hierarchies; they were perfected in order to support them. social roles.4 Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, confused inherited social privilege with inherited intelligence when he wrongly assumed that the British elite achieved their stature owing to their innate “genius.”5 He argued that fitness in humans depended on “General Ability or Intelligence” and proposed “to show . . . that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance” (p. 1). The aim of the first mental test center in London, established in 1882, was to demonstrate that scores matched social status or “reputation.”6 In other words, intelligence testing became the linchpin for proving that social status was inherited. The quest to settle the debate over nature and nurture was a way of scientifically legitimizing the unequal social order and justifying intervention in a way that maintained that hierarchy. In the United States, the reification of intelligence as the primary indicator of human value facilitated the eugenics movement. Promoting the “hereditarian theory of IQ,” eugenicists claimed that the IQ test could quantify innate intellectual ability in a single objective measurement, despite the objections of the test’s creator, Alfred Binet.7 Binet developed the first intelligence test in 1904 for screening children in school for remedial instruction but rejected its use to measure innate cognitive ability. Just as damaging, intelligence became shorthand for moral worth as well as cognitive capacity. The introduction of “mental tests” at the turn of the twentieth century replaced physical measurements, such as cranial capacity, as the means of ranking human beings in terms of inferiority and superiority. In hindsight, we see that, far from being an objective measure used to rank people neutrally, the IQ test was a deeply biased measure used to legitimize discrimination against populations labeled by those in power as socially inferior. Psychologist Henry H. Goddard’s influential research on the heritability of feeblemindedness attributed the behavior of paupers, prostitutes, and criminals to inherited mental deficiencies. Psychologists also used the tests to demonstrate that blacks and recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were intellectually inferior to Americans of Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian descent. In A Study of American Intelligence, published in 1923, Princeton psychology professor Carl C. Brigham analyzed data from an army program that tested the intelligence of 1.7 million recruits, reporting, “At one extreme we have the distribution of the Nordic group. At the other extreme we have the American negro. Between the Nordic and the negro, but closer to the negro than the Nordic, we find the Alpine and Mediterranean type.”8 Brigham’s social bias seems obvious to Americans today most especially because the social definition and ranking of whites have changed. Thus, the very purpose of IQ tests was to confirm the current social order as naturally proper. Intelligence tests were not misused to support hereditary theories of social hierarchies; they were perfected in order to support them. The IQ supplied an essential difference among human beings that deliberately reflected racial and class stratifications in order to justify them as natural.9 Research on the genetics of intelligence was far from socially neutral when the very purpose of theorizing the heritability of intelligence was to confirm an unequal social order. Today, scientists who subscribe to genetic theories of intelligence distance their views from eugenics. They argue that research on the genetics of intelligence is now devoid of eugenicist motives and can serve to objectively and scientifically identify people’s intellectual levels without the taint of social bias. Indeed, some claim that, far from discounting educational programs for the less intelligent, considered incapable of being helped, their research can target interventions to those predicted by genetic tests to be helped by special training (see essays by Kathryn Asbury and by Matt McGue and Irving Gottesman in this special report).10 While eugenicists sought to use heritability studies to improve the human race, these researchers seek to use them to improve individual achievement. Yet genetic research into intelligence shares with eugenics a biological explanation of social inequality. Even if current studies are not aimed at confirming a natural order of social groups, they nevertheless are aimed at producing biological information relevant to individuals’ social positions. Why else care about measuring and predicting people’s intelligence if not to determine how suitable they are for particular classrooms, vocations, and occupations? As Ken Richardson writes, “Since tests were constructed to predict school achievement, which determines entry in the job market, there is an inevitable correlation between test scores and occupational and social status.”11 The purpose of identifying whether or not individuals are predisposed to some particular level of intelligence must be to fit them in some socially salient category. Moreover, identifying genes that are associated with intelligence is a way of determining which people are predicted to have higher or lower intelligence based on biological differences. This does not mean that people’s social roles will be used to predict their intelligence, as was done by eugenicists. However, research on the genetics of intelligence will likely—if not inevitably—be used to predict people’s biological suitability for particular social roles. SPECIAL REP ORT: T h e G enet ic s o f I n t elligen c e : E th i c s a n d th e C on d u c t of Tru s tw orth y Re s e a rc h S51 Intelligence, Genes, and Social Values A nother reason that this research cannot be socially neutral is that the study of genes is not hermetically sealed from social assumptions, norms, and values. Even after the Human Genome Project produced new knowledge about human genetic unity and diversity, many scientists have continued to employ racial classifications and ideologies in their studies with little critical thought.12 Nor can the meaning of intelligence be divorced from social values. Psychologists cannot even agree on what intelligence is.13 Even if an intelligence quotient expressed as a single number that is used in ranking people in linear order is a valid proxy for a very specific type of cognitive function— general cognitive ability, or g—it does not represent many other types of cognitive function.14 Most IQ tests measure a narrow range of intellectual skills, such as memory and general knowledge, or limited forms of thinking—mainly linguistic and mathematical—and focus on past learning, which reflects educational opportunities. There are many equally important kinds of intelligences, such as practical, emotional, spatial, and musical, that the tests ignore.15 The more complex we understand intelligence to be, the less likely we are to see IQ as sufficient to represent it or to expect geneticists to identify a gene or group of genes that predicts it. Instead, mental tests have been underestimating many individuals’ cognitive abilities in a socially biased way.16 Because the very meaning of intelligence is disputed and some people perform poorly on widely accepted tests for social reasons, research and tests privilege dominant social groups. Our society is deeply stratified along race and class lines, which affects not only the information children learn, but their very habits of thought, ways of thinking, and responses to stereotypes.17 We know that the mental test performances of groups improve along with the groups’ social mobility.18 The average IQ increases of Jews in the United States between the World Wars and in some nations since World War II, along with the decrease in mean IQ differences between blacks and whites over these periods, show that what is measured by IQ tests is not immutable but malleable in response to social changes. A recent review of new findings in the field of intelligence concluded, “We can be confident that the environmental differences that are associated with social class have a large effect on IQ.”19 This evidence refutes the myth of innate racial differences in intelligence and reminds us that genes do much less to explain observed differences in some social environments than in others. Moreover, the categories people fall into based on their IQs will be ranked according to greater or lesser intellectual ability. Could this ranking be recorded without any S52 social value being attributed to it? Herrnstein and Murray claimed in The Bell Curve that they weren’t eugenicists because they did not place any particular value on greater or lesser intelligence. They were simply helping to create a harmonious village where everyone is matched to the vocation for which his or her mental ability is suited, and everyone could be valued equally. One problem with this argument is that it is awfully hard to imagine a village in which all the people are equally respected in vocations determined by innate intelligence. We would first have to strip away a long history of cultural programming that equates intelligence with human worth and that degrades vocations associated with lower intelligence. We would also have to strip away the deep-seated stereotypes perpetuated for centuries that black people are naturally less intelligent than whites. But even if this were possible, there is reason to object to people’s being assigned to classrooms or occupations based on genetic predispositions. Eugenicists sought to relegate individuals to stations in life based on their presumed inborn traits, without the opportunity for change. Modernday proponents of gene-based tests for intelligence claim that their purpose is the opposite—to identify genetically which children would benefit most from different types of educational interventions. Because predicting intelligence genetically divides people into categories that are likely to be valued differently, it will push against equally distributing resources to benefit all children. Would our society be motivated to devote extra resources to help those predicted to have lower intelligence? This outcome of genetic testing is highly doubtful given the persistence of longstanding and glaring race and class inequities in public education. Moreover, by attributing children’s intellectual deficiencies to genes, this research diverts attention from the social impediments to children’s intellectual flourishing. Focusing on genes tends to encourage gene-based rather than environmental or social solutions to problems.20 Worse, opponents of equal education easily exploit genetic theories of intelligence by arguing that groups who score lower on IQ tests are incapable of benefitting from social interventions. Intellectual enhancement programs are more likely to address social disadvantages if they nurture the actual desired skills or behaviors that intelligence is supposed to produce, that IQ tests are supposed to measure, and that genes are supposed to predict. Mapping onto Existing Social Hierarchies F inally, research into the genetics map onto already existing social stereotypes about intellectual ability Dominant U.S. society is marked by of intelligence will hierarchies and the that support them. longstanding, wide- September-October 2015/ H A S T I N G S CE NTE R RE P O RT spread, and deeply embedded assumptions about the inherited intelligence of social groups. In particular, many white Americans believe that black people as a group are innately less intelligent than whites.21 A central component of white supremacist ideology is the view that black people are naturally fit to be subservient and naturally unfit for citizenship. In 1785, Thomas Jefferson rationalized denying equal rights to enslaved Africans on grounds that “the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind.”22 More recently, prominent U.S. scientists and journalists, including Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Herrnstein, Murray, and Nicholas Wade, argued that black people’s disadvantaged social status stemmed from inherited cognitive deficiencies.23 Ilan Dar-Nimrod and Steven J. Heine argue that essentialist biases lead people to view genetically influenced outcomes as inescapable.24 For many Americans, evidence that intelligence is inherited also supports the view that racial differences in intelligence must be inherited. Even if researchers do not use race as a variable and have no interest in or expectation of finding race-based genetic differences, their findings will be interpreted in this influential social context. Given the powerful backdrop of racist notions of intelligence, it is impossible to conduct research on the genetics of intelligence without risking its use to support racist stereotypes. The belief that intelligence is heritable and can be predicted by tests has legitimated unjust social hierarchies and justified social policies designed to maintain them. There is no evidence that genetic tests for intelligence are necessary or will help to improve education for people from disadvantaged social circumstances. To the contrary, the genetic theory of intelligence will “cut off all possibility of proper nurturance for everyone’s intelligence”25 and provide a justification for the very social structures that prevent the equitable sharing of educational resources. The weight of the evidence—historical, biological, and philosophical—is that research into the genetics of intelligence cannot be socially neutral and, indeed, will intensify social inequities. Acknowledgment I would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Sonita Moss. 1. A. R. Jenson, Educability and Group Differences (New York: Harper & Row, 1973). 2. R. J. Herrnstein and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994) 3. E. C. Hayden, “Taboo Genetics,” Nature 502 (2013): 26-28. 4. K. Richardson, “Wising Up on the Heritability of Intelligence,” Gene Watch 24, no. 6 (2011): 15-18. 5. F. Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Law and Consequences (1869; repr., London: Forgotten Books 2012). 6. Richardson, “Wising Up on the Heritability of Intelligence.” 7. S. J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981). 8. C. C. Brigham, A Study of American Intelligence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 1923), 197. 9. J. A. Belkhir and M. Duyme, “Intelligence and Race, Gender, Class: The Fallacy of Genetic Determinism,” Race, Gender, Class 5, no. 3 (1998): 136-76; Tukufu Zuberi, Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001). 10. K. Asbury, “Can Genetic Research Benefit Educational Interventions for All?,” The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5 (2015): S39-S42; M. McGue and I. Gottesman, “Classical and Molecular Genetic Research on General Cognitive Ability,” The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5 (2015): S25-S31. 11. Richardson, “Wising Up on the Heritability of Intelligence.” 12. D. Fullwiley, “The Molecularization of Race: Institutionalizing Human Difference in Pharmacogenetics Practice,” Science as Culture 16 (2007): 1-30; D. Roberts, Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-First Century (New York: New Press, 2011); A. Morning, “Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?,” Sociological Theory 32, no. 3 (2014): 189-207. 13. R. J. Sternberg and D. K. Detterman, What Is Intelligence? (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986); R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, and K. K. Kidd, “Intelligence, Race, and Genetics,” American Psychologist 60, no. 1 (2005): 46-59. 14. Gould, Mismeasure of Man; Richardson, “Wising Up on the Heritability of Intelligence.” 15. H. Gardner, “Cracking Open the IQ Box,” American Prospect (Winter 1994). 16. D. Ramos, “Paradise Miscalculated,” in S. Fraser, The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America (New York: Basic Books, 1995): 62-69. 17. Gardner, “Cracking Open the IQ Box”; L. Suzuki and J. Aronson, “The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, no. 2 (2005): 320-27. 18. R. E. Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (New York: Norton, 2009): Nisbett et al., “Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments,” American Psychologist 67, no. 2 (2012): 130-59. 19. Nisbett et al., “Intelligence.” 20. T. Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics (New York: Routledge, 2003); I. Dar-Nimrod and S. J. Heine, “Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA,” Psychological Bulletin 137, no. 5 (2011): 800-818. 21. S. Plous and T. Williams, “Stereotypes from the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25, no. 9 (1995): 795-817; C. M. Steele, S. Spencer, and J. Aronson, “Contending with Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype Threat and Social Identity Threat,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37 (2002): 379-440. 22. T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. W. Peden (1785; Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1955), 201. 23. Jenson, Educability and Group Differences; J. P. Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1995); Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve; N. Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (New York: Penguin, 2014). 24. Dar-Nimrod and Heine, “Genetic Essentialism.” 25. S. J. Gould, “Curveball,” in The Bell Curve Wars, ed. Fraser, 11-22, at 22. SPECIAL REP ORT: T h e G enet ic s o f I n t elligen c e : E th i c s a n d th e C on d u c t of Tru s tw orth y Re s e a rc h S53 Copyright of Hastings Center Report is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.