Don’t like biological research? Call the scientist a racist

[Bugenhagen]

Actually I remember Sociobiology was in the upstairs landing library next to Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods.

They lost me when they openly admitted they think the consequences of discussing IQ and race are "toxic." That's not searching for unbiased truth. Toxic to what? The illusion that liberal policies are trying to create with affirmative action, which by the way leaves most of the black distribution curve stranded in age old problems.

You can say the same about Stephen Jay Gould, who E.O. Wilson described as a "charlatan." He was writing on topics out of his field as well.

Murray's work is far more detailed and professional than any of them. That's why he's a scholar at AEI.

You would do well to read James Flynn's book "Are we getting smarter". It explains why you are slipping into a stage IV. Here is an easier to digest summary:

"What becomes of low- and high-IQ adults when they’re old? The answer is complex. Verbal intelligence peaks in middle age, then slowly declines.

But there is a substantial “bright bonus”: People with high IQs decline far less than people with low IQs. If you’re in the top percentiles of the population, your verbal intelligence will be about as good in your 80s as it was in your teens. For analytical intelligence, however, there is a massive “bright tax.” People peak in their teens, then decline.

The higher their initial IQ, the greater the atrophy. The most analytically powerful teens end up being the most analytically powerful
retirees, but even the brightest eventually become mediocre."

 

[ipatent]

You would do well to read James Flynn's book "Are we getting smarter"

I've read all the major works.