This article presents replies to published comments on the authors' original article (R. L. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, and K. K. Kidd. G. Carey cited in his response to their article a study by Tang et al. (2005) showing that "of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity" (p. 268). At Carey's invitation, the authors are glad to provide a counterresponse. Correspondence between self-identification and biological characteristics does not form a suitable basis for assigning people to "races." Moreover, it appears that Carey's (2006) response to their article can be explained, at least partially, by his incomplete understanding of the data, analyses, and results presented in Tang et al. (2005). With regard to D. I. Templer's response, the authors do not give much credence to the M. Snyderman and S. Rothman (1988) survey. If the survey were done in 1908, probably there would have been even more emphasis on genes. If scientists in earlier times were surveyed on the causes of fire, they might well all have agreed that phlogiston was responsible. In another era, they would have agreed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Implicit theories are useful ways of ascertaining popular folk beliefs, including those of scientists, but they are not scientifically definitive. As to Rushton's (1995) findings, the authors are not clear on what conclusion is to be drawn from the correlations--that people with larger cranial capacities are more likely to move away from the equator, that moving away from the equator produces greater cranial capacity, or that both larger cranial capacity and distance from the equator are dependent on some unknown third variable. Finally, in response to C. L. McLafferty, the authors agree that the dichotomization of nature and nurture is a somewhat artificial analytical division that has been at times misused. Whereas they might not fully accept the revised classification proposed by McLafferty, they agree that the nature-nurture division has outlived its value. Nor is there a simple continuum between fully nature and fully nurture--the relevance of variation in nurture depends on the mean and range of variation in nature, and vice versa (Lewontin, 1974).