`  ``Totally ignores``? The whole of the third paragraph deals with it. As for incorporating other ``official`` statements, I think the one on ``Biological Aspects of Race`` from the AAPA is a bit more on-topic, even than the AAA statement on ``Race and Intelligence``. The latter is a minute (3 sentence) social policy piece pleading to ``the academy, our political leaders and our communities`` to reject the notion of race. Fine, but I'm more interested in what the experts think, not in how the AAA in its role as a pseudo-political instrument wants to direct social policy. The AAPA piece has substantially more ``meat`` to it, though I think we have to ask whether this article is going to benefit from its inclusion. The question as to whether or not the concept of ``race`` in reference to intelligence is a valid one which can be substantiated by data is one best left answered by the people who measure intelligence. The opinion of an anthropologist is going to be dependent upon the data delivered by fields such as behavioral genetics, not vice versa. That's the key point. Anyway, if we look at the AAPA statement, approximately 3 of their 11 points might be relevant to this discussion. I list them below:  §2. ``Biological difference between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular traits varies greatly.`` (pg. 714)  §10. ``There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritances.`` (pg. 715)  §11. ``Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. The genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The people of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.`` (pg. 715)  §2 tells us pretty much the same thing as what we learned from Neisser et al.   §10 is perhaps tangentially relevant, but really addresses the question as to any ``racial`` basis for elements of culture (language, economy, political structure, etc.) which, of course, there is none (the AAPA is simply stating the obvious here, as no one is arguing that such things could have a basis in biology). At the same time, it's trying to avoid saying that the common conception of ``race`` does, to some degree, correspond with the observed physical variation found in human populations - which is commonly accepted - but doesn't quite want to say it, as that's too close for comfort to sounding like there actually are some biological distinctions between ``races`` - which there are, though the whole point here is to de-emphasize them to the point of meaninglessness. Fair enough. I can see what the AAPA is trying to accomplish, and as a social policy, I can recognize its value.   §11 is the closest this statement comes to our topic. Interestingly, it describes intelligence as ``one of the biological traits of our species``. Did they screw up a little here? I'm not going to harp on it. Notice that they simply skirt the issue, though, without getting right down to it. But really, what should we expect from anthropologists? They've taken the ``right`` overall position, which is a vast improvement over the ``science`` of the late 19th century, and I suppose they are to be commended on that point.  Can the overview be improved through the inclusion of this kind of material? I highly doubt it. But I submit this to the discussion of the other editors.   `