I don't know if you could have picked a worse quote to back up your point than footnote #1.
While it is likely true [0,1] that the mean/median of one group is more genetically intelligent-capable than the mean/median of a different group, the variance is going to make it so that there are extremely intelligent outliers in both groups. And if we're focused on intelligence and its products, the potential of those outliers being wasted due to slavery/poverty/racism/etc is the travesty being pointed out by the quote.
[0] Intelligence capability obviously relies on genetics. In the most obvious way, the genes of ursa americana result in a much less capable brain than the genes of homo sapiens. So, unless maximum "intelligence-capability" is the thing most strongly selected for (doubtful), genes that cause higher intelligence capability are going to be correlated with other genes that developed at the same time. But actually measuring that, in some objective way? I'd say you're better off focusing on the other end of trying to define what "intelligence" even is, at the computational level, and then the organizational level, before you can even think about judging the contributions of the biological substrate level.
[1] The reason this is generally ignored or even rejected is that it's an utter red herring. At most you can say it influences individual outcomes by a tiny bit, while being overwhelmingly swamped by the larger issues of culture, nurture, environment, access to resources, and overarching personality. Meanwhile, less intelligent people love to reference their race as evidence of their own intelligence/virtue/etc, because happenstance attributes of their existence are their primary "accomplishments". So it's best to not add fuel to that fire.
I apologize, I should have included more context. While the quote by Gould is obviously true in a literal sense, Gould himself was in the business of debunking "biological determinism" [1]. In that light, the quote is an admission that he does not care about truth, that his research is a mere means to, or foundation for, a political end. I.e. Lysenkoism.
[1] Calling it "determinism" sets up a clever strawman by giving the impression that only genes matter, and environment has no effect. Strengthening the strawman case is how his book on the subject devotes many pages to debunking 19th century science. And doesn't even get that right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassess...
While it is likely true [0,1] that the mean/median of one group is more genetically intelligent-capable than the mean/median of a different group, the variance is going to make it so that there are extremely intelligent outliers in both groups. And if we're focused on intelligence and its products, the potential of those outliers being wasted due to slavery/poverty/racism/etc is the travesty being pointed out by the quote.
[0] Intelligence capability obviously relies on genetics. In the most obvious way, the genes of ursa americana result in a much less capable brain than the genes of homo sapiens. So, unless maximum "intelligence-capability" is the thing most strongly selected for (doubtful), genes that cause higher intelligence capability are going to be correlated with other genes that developed at the same time. But actually measuring that, in some objective way? I'd say you're better off focusing on the other end of trying to define what "intelligence" even is, at the computational level, and then the organizational level, before you can even think about judging the contributions of the biological substrate level.
[1] The reason this is generally ignored or even rejected is that it's an utter red herring. At most you can say it influences individual outcomes by a tiny bit, while being overwhelmingly swamped by the larger issues of culture, nurture, environment, access to resources, and overarching personality. Meanwhile, less intelligent people love to reference their race as evidence of their own intelligence/virtue/etc, because happenstance attributes of their existence are their primary "accomplishments". So it's best to not add fuel to that fire.