What a racist idea. Sounds like you think black folks are less intelligent than white folks...Or maybe I am misreading you and perhaps you think Asians and East Indians are more intelligent than "white" people...
Please elaborate on your thinking on this subject.
Oh, please. Let's not get into accusations. What I "think" about it is irrelevant.
I was addressing Gould's book, in which (as I recall) his "proof" that such racial differences do not exist consisted of discrediting various methods of intelligence measurement.
While this approach does discredit some of the historical arguments in favor of racial differences, it does little to address the scientific questions surrounding the presence or absence of racial differences in intelligence.
Please elaborate on your thinking on this subject.
Gould's claim was that there is no racial component to intelligence.
The problem is that evolutionary theory provides no means by which Gould can categorically rule out a racial component for intelligence. Under evolution, racial physical differences might evolve for whatever reasons, in response to some environmental pressure.
Evolutionary theory also claims that intelligence is an evolved physical trait, which is driven by some environmental pressure.
In order to claim that there is no racial component to intelligence, one would also have to claim that that the pressures that lead to physical evolution do not also affect the evolution of intellectual capability, and vice versa. That's a pretty difficult claim, since (for example) it's obviously possible to trade between intelligence on the one hand, vs. endurance, speed, or strength on the other.
As I recall, Gould did not address the evolutionary side of things at all, but only the testing aspects. As such, he avoided the real question. Given his vocal advocacy of evolutionary theory, his failure to address evolution in this case is rather mysterious.
At this point let me reiterate my caveat: it's been years since I read the book, and I may be misrepresenting Gould's conclusions. I'm remembering my objections to his conclusions, and basing my comments on that recollection.