Hunter Wallace and others in the traditionalist/pro-Western movement have come out strongly against “measuring skulls.” They make cogent arguments against attaching the race-IQ issue to political and ethnic interest. As such this is worth clarifying: My interest is not in convincing anyone that this or that subpopulation phenotypic difference has a partial genetic etiology, but rather in forcing an empirical test of the genetic hypothesis and resolving this issue once and for all. To do that, it is necessary to demonstrate (to the public and misinformed members of academia) that this is a yet unresolved issue of pressing social importance. Levin (1997), Jensen (2000), Gottfredson (2005), Sesardic (2005), and Hunt and Carlson (2007) have laid out the case for bringing closure to the issue; those interested are left to bring the matter to public consciousness and to challenge those believers in the reigning paradigm to subject their prejudices to investigation. This issue, for the most part, can be resolved in a matter of months. With regards to the questions of evolved ancestral differences, Reed (1997), Rowe (2005), Hunt and Carlson (2007), and Lee (2010) have already discussed the proper tests to resolve this matter: hybrid comparisons using modern genotypic analysis. This, of course, would not rule out the possibility of ethnoracial differences; as Hans Eyesenk pointed out, differences could have emerged as a result of differential reproduction patterns and migration selection. Such tests would, nonetheless, go a long way towards ending debate. As for Hunter’s concern, I agree. The race-IQ issue needs to be detached from that of both ethnic and political interest. The best way to do that is by settling the issue.
I moved my meditation on the H^2 hypothesis to: Race, genes, and disparity. I will continue to update that as I come across new evidence and arguments.