What aggregate data shows us about abilities of groups does nothing to predict an individual's performance whatever group s/he belongs to. That is a truism. Another truism is that the totality of evidence shows that genetics plays a significant part in the determination of many behavioral traits, including what we call general intelligence (eg., monozygotic twins reared apart, intelligence tests consistent from an early age, consistency of group intelligence tests), and this is what Gould fought against. When I met him and debated him in the 1980s, he acknowledged a small genetic component to intelligence, but felt that environment was the key. This--to me--is Lysenkoism updated and a bit compromised, but Lysenkoism nonetheless. He was a "scientist" who placed ideology above science, and a self-appointed spokesman for science, to me, an unforgivable combination.
He was a polemicist who, through half-truths and misrepresentations attempted to give credence to his collectivist mentality. May he RIP.
The nature-nurture debate is about how much of who we are comes from genetics and how much from environment. Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckism, is a belief that "nurture" characteristics are passed to offspring. That is, "nurture" in one generation becomes "nature."
Didn't know that?
I suspect that if you debated Gould, you claimed he dented your fender.