[ QUOTE ]
Really? Where? Wikipedia, Scientific American, and other pop science reviews? I'm trying not to insult magazines like SA - I like them a lot - but you can't have a lot of this argument if those are your only sources. For example, you seemed to miss the entire Peters - Rushton (and others that spawned off because of it) debate in the 90's.
You may read on it while you're on the can or drinking at the Klan meeting but this stuff is my career. Look at some original research.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read New Scientist and the New York Times. Most of my basic understanding comes from there. I have read some of the Peters-Rushton letters (which are over a decade old BTW), and they're the typical psychology journal [censored] - each side attacking the results and conclusions of the other until further research is the only way to settle the dispute. Well, further research has been done. Multiple times.

The results speak for themselves. Did you even read the points in my post (or the Wikipedia article - FULLY REFERENCED WITH LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH), or did you instead decide to attack my credibility and sources without addressing any of my (very valid) points? If this is your career, I hope this isn't an example of how you conduct yourself in your teaching or debates.