copy-paste

This book totally avoids engaging in the mainstream scientific literature on the validity and heritability of IQ (about 80% by adulthood) and the validity of "race" as an evolutionary biological construct despite an enormous body of medical, anthropological, anatomical, and psychological data on group mean differences which are largely under genetic control.

Zimmer, like many on the Left, must preface any discussion of the heritability of IQ, the sensitive matter of IQ and race (ppg 312-317), and race as a biological construct by first referencing Galton (on multiple pages), Goddard (on multiple pages) and Burt (ppg 298-99) as racist and incompetent scientists and then frequently trots out the "E" word (Eugenics is discussed early and often in the book) to deeply taint the idea that anyone researching these areas or publishing on them fall into the realm of pseudoscience and evil "scientific racism". Zimmer states as fact on pg. 315 regarding studies on IQ and race differences - "For the most part, though, psychologists and geneticists alike have rejected them". This is simply false, the mainstream scientific literature is very clear on race and IQ differences being significant and heritable and this fact is widely accepted in psychology and in particular the study of intelligence (see Prof Richard Haier's 2017 book "The Neuroscience of Intelligence").

Zimmer also references the tired Lewontin fallacy (pg. 208) of "there's more genetic differences within groups than between groups..." in order to obfuscate the fact of there being biological human "races" (or fuzzy genetic group clusters if you will). Yes, there's more genetic difference within groups than between them, but never is it discussed what those differences are or what impact those differences have on a group's mean. In other words, it's easy say that there's much more genetic variation in height between all Han Chinese men than there is between Han Chinese men and Danish men, but that simply obfuscates the fact that the mean height difference between the two groups is very substantial - on the order of six inches.

Zimmer inserts ideological narratives as factual statements to avoid confronting these uncomfortable topics and suggests that there's an invalid state of science on them. Zimmer knows very well that he must not offend by examining the actual body of science of these areas lest he jeopardize his gig with the NYT and his journalistic reputation by even giving off the slightest whiff of race being a biological construct (see the blowback to geneticist David Reich after his recent NYT Op-Ed), or of IQ being largely heritable and a valid predictor of one's life outcome despite SES or socialized environment. This is simply politically anathema to the Left and the sensibilities of his employer and target audience.

And what do You want?