Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[Rhea]

Why do you predict drastic change? Seems even if what you claim is true, there would still be far more variation within these groupings than between them.

And we already have some people that are smarter than others. Why would a correlation with race make our reactions to that any different?

This.

 

[Unbeatable]

Thank you. If you are a black person who suspects that the racial differences in intelligence really are genetic, then that may put you in an awkward social position (even if it is just a suspicion). A white person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as either evil, stupid, or both (that has generally been my experience as a young white man in America), but I expect a black person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as stupid and a gullible tool for evil white racist propaganda or whatever. Any interesting experiences related to that?

No. It's not the sort of thing I would bother going out of my way to talk about. I don't even really understand why this is a hobby horse of yours. I understand the HBD guys-- they're basically white separatists. They look at the world, and everything they see is an omen of the disaster that they think society is heading for as a result of the social progress of the 20th century. They see the high-average-IQ races as competition and the low-average-IQ races as parasites. Race is a crucial component of their identities, and a lens through which they see everything. So it makes sense that they just can't avoid talking about it.

The lens through which I see everything is much different. It's a combination of moral/existential nihilism, incompatibilism, psychological egoism, philosophical pessimism, and transhumanism. These are the views which put me in an awkward social position, since they're woven so deeply into my worldview that it's difficult for me to talk for long about anything without saying something which contradicts someone's deeply held tribally-reinforced myths.

Scientific racism has no such personal relevance for me. It's just statistical trivia. Intra-group differences are still much greater than inter-group differences. It's only the tribalists and other intellectually dishonest/lazy sorts who are inclined to make an issue of inter-group differences.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Scientific racism, among other things, is the belief that races of people differ in average intelligence largely because of genetic differences. And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept. Not just because of the universal taboo against it in the western world, as though it is the distillation of all that is evil, backward and stupid. But also because of a fear of a persisting global problem that will only get far worse with time. It means races will never be equal. They will always be at odds in economics and politics. Further, when most people finally accept this reality, it seems highly likely that the consequences for society will be little more than awful. For a lover of science, it is easy to get wrapped up in the idyllic belief that: if only everyone would accept the accurate science, we would all better solve problems and live better happier richer lives. With scientific racism, the opposite is plausible: accurate knowledge may be highly disruptive and destructive. It won't happen with a lot of scientific racists arguing endlessly on the Internet, but it will happen when the genes for intelligence variations are identified and found to vary in frequency among races. Rhetoric can no longer dismiss or spin the significance of such a scientific discovery, and most people will finally be convinced.

I won't ask you to fully accept my perspective. I will put aside all the arguments about whether or not it is correct. Accept this idea temporarily only for the purpose of a thought experiment: hypothetically, it will be proved with genetic mapping that races of people have the average intelligence scores they do mostly because of genetic differences. Though brilliance exists in every race, some of the averages are: whites with 100 IQ, American blacks, Arabs, and Latinos with 85, Pacific Islanders with 90, Northeast Asians with 105, Ashkenazi Jews with 110, and African blacks with 70 (each of these numbers represents the peak of each respective bell curve). Further, hypothetically, it will be proved that these genetic intelligence variations mostly cause the differences in wealth among races. So, two questions:

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Would you drastically change your politics? Would you join racist organizations? How would you react?

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along race lines? Would there be greater racial hatred? Xenophobia? Wars? Jim Crow laws? Racial police brutality? Race riots? Lynchings? Genocides? What would be your fears?

Perhaps such evidence would give rise to stronger anti-discrimination laws, education better tailored to the individual. Maybe bringing such a realization to the forefront of honest conversation will drive us to more judge an individual on their own merits.
Like many issues, perhaps agreeing on what a problem is will give rise to an effective solution.

 

[arkirk]

Thank you. If you are a black person who suspects that the racial differences in intelligence really are genetic, then that may put you in an awkward social position (even if it is just a suspicion). A white person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as either evil, stupid, or both (that has generally been my experience as a young white man in America), but I expect a black person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as stupid and a gullible tool for evil white racist propaganda or whatever. Any interesting experiences related to that?

No. It's not the sort of thing I would bother going out of my way to talk about. I don't even really understand why this is a hobby horse of yours. I understand the HBD guys-- they're basically white separatists. They look at the world, and everything they see is an omen of the disaster that they think society is heading for as a result of the social progress of the 20th century. They see the high-average-IQ races as competition and the low-average-IQ races as parasites. Race is a crucial component of their identities, and a lens through which they see everything. So it makes sense that they just can't avoid talking about it.

The lens through which I see everything is much different. It's a combination of moral/existential nihilism, incompatibilism, psychological egoism, philosophical pessimism, and transhumanism. These are the views which put me in an awkward social position, since they're woven so deeply into my worldview that it's difficult for me to talk for long about anything without saying something which contradicts someone's deeply held tribally-reinforced myths.

Scientific racism has no such personal relevance for me. It's just statistical trivia. Intra-group differences are still much greater than inter-group differences. It's only the tribalists and other intellectually dishonest/lazy sorts who are inclined to make an issue of inter-group differences.

What's more, these differences are mainly in the content of the intellect and cultural much more than genetic. Ever wondered how smart the troops are at Duck Dynasty? Pure white, christian trogs. Actually they are previously clean shaven butch haircut young men that found a goldmine in a beard and stupid mannerisms straight from the comic books.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Scientific racism, among other things, is the belief that races of people differ in average intelligence largely because of genetic differences. And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept. Not just because of the universal taboo against it in the western world, as though it is the distillation of all that is evil, backward and stupid. But also because of a fear of a persisting global problem that will only get far worse with time. It means races will never be equal. They will always be at odds in economics and politics. Further, when most people finally accept this reality, it seems highly likely that the consequences for society will be little more than awful. For a lover of science, it is easy to get wrapped up in the idyllic belief that: if only everyone would accept the accurate science, we would all better solve problems and live better happier richer lives. With scientific racism, the opposite is plausible: accurate knowledge may be highly disruptive and destructive. It won't happen with a lot of scientific racists arguing endlessly on the Internet, but it will happen when the genes for intelligence variations are identified and found to vary in frequency among races. Rhetoric can no longer dismiss or spin the significance of such a scientific discovery, and most people will finally be convinced.

I won't ask you to fully accept my perspective. I will put aside all the arguments about whether or not it is correct. Accept this idea temporarily only for the purpose of a thought experiment: hypothetically, it will be proved with genetic mapping that races of people have the average intelligence scores they do mostly because of genetic differences. Though brilliance exists in every race, some of the averages are: whites with 100 IQ, American blacks, Arabs, and Latinos with 85, Pacific Islanders with 90, Northeast Asians with 105, Ashkenazi Jews with 110, and African blacks with 70 (each of these numbers represents the peak of each respective bell curve). Further, hypothetically, it will be proved that these genetic intelligence variations mostly cause the differences in wealth among races. So, two questions:

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Would you drastically change your politics? Would you join racist organizations? How would you react?

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along race lines? Would there be greater racial hatred? Xenophobia? Wars? Jim Crow laws? Racial police brutality? Race riots? Lynchings? Genocides? What would be your fears?

Perhaps such evidence would give rise to stronger anti-discrimination laws, education better tailored to the individual. Maybe bringing such a realization to the forefront of honest conversation will drive us to more judge an individual on their own merits.
Like many issues, perhaps agreeing on what a problem is will give rise to an effective solution.

When has this happened?

When in history has saying that one group is inferior to another led to treating the supposed inferior group better? When has a declaration of supremacy led to fairer and more just society?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Thank you. If you are a black person who suspects that the racial differences in intelligence really are genetic, then that may put you in an awkward social position (even if it is just a suspicion). A white person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as either evil, stupid, or both (that has generally been my experience as a young white man in America), but I expect a black person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as stupid and a gullible tool for evil white racist propaganda or whatever. Any interesting experiences related to that?

No. It's not the sort of thing I would bother going out of my way to talk about. I don't even really understand why this is a hobby horse of yours. I understand the HBD guys-- they're basically white separatists. They look at the world, and everything they see is an omen of the disaster that they think society is heading for as a result of the social progress of the 20th century. They see the high-average-IQ races as competition and the low-average-IQ races as parasites. Race is a crucial component of their identities, and a lens through which they see everything. So it makes sense that they just can't avoid talking about it.

The lens through which I see everything is much different. It's a combination of moral/existential nihilism, incompatibilism, psychological egoism, philosophical pessimism, and transhumanism. These are the views which put me in an awkward social position, since they're woven so deeply into my worldview that it's difficult for me to talk for long about anything without saying something which contradicts someone's deeply held tribally-reinforced myths.

Scientific racism has no such personal relevance for me. It's just statistical trivia. Intra-group differences are still much greater than inter-group differences. It's only the tribalists and other intellectually dishonest/lazy sorts who are inclined to make an issue of inter-group differences.

Thanks. I will explain why this is my hobby horse. Years ago, I read Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I loved the book, because it had the first unified plausible explanation I had seen for why there are economic inequalities among races: biological diversity that can be domesticated and transferred along a horizontal stretch of a latitude (from East Asia to Europe), but not along vertical stretches of a longitude (Africa, Polynesia and the Americas). Nobody needed to wonder why I was interested in this book--it was expected merely of someone who liked to make theoretical sense of anything. Though I loved it, the theory had holes. For example, how would it explain persisting modern racial inequalities in school achievement? It is data that Diamond completely ignores. Diamond introduced his theory as an alternative to the racist theory, and he did it with the odd claim that "races" are biologically meaningless, but I knew from my knowledge of the theory of evolution that populations within a species can and do diverge in their genetic frequencies, so why not humans? Would not "races" correspond to "breeds" or "subspecies" in other species? My interest in the racist explanation was ignited by the oppressive taboo against it--where there is a zealous squad of firefighters, there is fire--so I checked out the book at the library that was unafraid to present the theory: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. The book made the case very elegantly that intelligent scores matter, they are genetically heritable, and they are responsible for the economic differences between classes and races. The authors cited Rushton, who wrote Race, Evolution and Behavior, which provides a likewise-elegant explanatory biological theory for the data. All the data made sense to me for the first time. I can explain now the inequalities among human races, with a theory that actually makes maximal unified probable sense. Bill Nye said, "When you are in love, you want to tell the world," after he changed his opinion about the science of genetically-modified foods, and that is my reaction with respect to the science of race (though Nye very much disagrees with me on the matter of the science of race).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Though I loved it, the theory had holes. For example, how would it explain persisting modern racial inequalities in school achievement? It is data that Diamond completely ignores.

Because it's the result of socioeconomic factors, not racial factors. Once you control properly for the socioeconomic factors race drops out as a predictor of how well a student will do.

so I checked out the book at the library that was unafraid to present the theory: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. The book made the case very elegantly that intelligent scores matter, they are genetically heritable, and they are responsible for the economic differences between classes and races.

Intelligence certainly is heritable. That doesn't mean there are substantial racial differences, though.

 

[Trausti]

No. It's not the sort of thing I would bother going out of my way to talk about. I don't even really understand why this is a hobby horse of yours. I understand the HBD guys-- they're basically white separatists. They look at the world, and everything they see is an omen of the disaster that they think society is heading for as a result of the social progress of the 20th century. They see the high-average-IQ races as competition and the low-average-IQ races as parasites. Race is a crucial component of their identities, and a lens through which they see everything. So it makes sense that they just can't avoid talking about it.

The lens through which I see everything is much different. It's a combination of moral/existential nihilism, incompatibilism, psychological egoism, philosophical pessimism, and transhumanism. These are the views which put me in an awkward social position, since they're woven so deeply into my worldview that it's difficult for me to talk for long about anything without saying something which contradicts someone's deeply held tribally-reinforced myths.

Scientific racism has no such personal relevance for me. It's just statistical trivia. Intra-group differences are still much greater than inter-group differences. It's only the tribalists and other intellectually dishonest/lazy sorts who are inclined to make an issue of inter-group differences.

Thanks. I will explain why this is my hobby horse. Years ago, I read Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I loved the book, because it had the first unified plausible explanation I had seen for why there are economic inequalities among races: biological diversity that can be domesticated and transferred along a horizontal stretch of a latitude (from East Asia to Europe), but not along vertical stretches of a longitude (Africa, Polynesia and the Americas). Nobody needed to wonder why I was interested in this book--it was expected merely of someone who liked to make theoretical sense of anything. Though I loved it, the theory had holes. For example, how would it explain persisting modern racial inequalities in school achievement? It is data that Diamond completely ignores. Diamond introduced his theory as an alternative to the racist theory, and he did it with the odd claim that "races" are biologically meaningless, but I knew from my knowledge of the theory of evolution that populations within a species can and do diverge in their genetic frequencies, so why not humans? Would not "races" correspond to "breeds" or "subspecies" in other species? My interest in the racist explanation was ignited by the oppressive taboo against it--where there is a zealous squad of firefighters, there is fire--so I checked out the book at the library that was unafraid to present the theory: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. The book made the case very elegantly that intelligent scores matter, they are genetically heritable, and they are responsible for the economic differences between classes and races. The authors cited Rushton, who wrote Race, Evolution and Behavior, which provides a likewise-elegant explanatory biological theory for the data. All the data made sense to me for the first time. I can explain now the inequalities among human races, with a theory that actually makes maximal unified probable sense. Bill Nye said, "When you are in love, you want to tell the world," after he changed his opinion about the science of genetically-modified foods, and that is my reaction with respect to the science of race (though Nye very much disagrees with me on the matter of the science of race).

That is such an obvious conclusion that the effort to suppress it is bewildering. What is the evolutionary / natural selection principle which sets humans apart when it comes to differences arising by geographic, temporal, and cultural reproductive separation? This is a rhetorical inquiry because no such principle exists (save political or religious dogma). Dogs are a fine example. No reasonable person would dispute that there are numerous breeds (with disparate appearance, behavior, and intelligence), despite all of these breeds falling under the umbrella of "dog." And look how quickly their differences came about. German Shepards have been around for what, 110 years? The famous grey foxes experiment in Russia produced tame foxes within a generation or two; not just tame, but exhibiting the same arrested infantile features we associate with domesticated dogs. Obviously, the grey foxes bred in the experiment are behaviorally different than their wild cousins, i.e., the result of reproductive separation. Why are humans so special? How is it that ~100,000 years of geographic and cultural reproductive separation does not impact, at all, the intelligence and behavior of the varied human races/breeds? Of course, it did. The differences between dogs and their wolf cousins is a glaring example of how, in a short time, intelligence and behavior can markedly diverge through cultural selective pressures. (A domesticated dog responds to the point test; the wolf ignores it.) And the break of dogs from wolves occurred maybe 11,000-16,000 years ago - or a faction of the time passed when humans broke up to form their races/breeds.

As to the OP, regardless of the honest acceptance that humans races developed intelligence and behavioral differences in their 100,000 year separation, this should not be used to discriminate against any person on that basis. Evolution and natural selection is ongoing, happening right now. It may be that a certain human race/breed in general is represented to the left of the bell curve; yet each one of us is an individual. Each one of us is an endangered species - no one shares our exact DNA makeup, not even our twin after awhile. Membership in a racial group does not mean all the generalities associated with that group apply to you. The cultural selective pressures of our own time may differentiate you, for better or worse. We should be treated as individuals and evaluated on that alone.

 

[Toni]

No. It's not the sort of thing I would bother going out of my way to talk about. I don't even really understand why this is a hobby horse of yours. I understand the HBD guys-- they're basically white separatists. They look at the world, and everything they see is an omen of the disaster that they think society is heading for as a result of the social progress of the 20th century. They see the high-average-IQ races as competition and the low-average-IQ races as parasites. Race is a crucial component of their identities, and a lens through which they see everything. So it makes sense that they just can't avoid talking about it.

The lens through which I see everything is much different. It's a combination of moral/existential nihilism, incompatibilism, psychological egoism, philosophical pessimism, and transhumanism. These are the views which put me in an awkward social position, since they're woven so deeply into my worldview that it's difficult for me to talk for long about anything without saying something which contradicts someone's deeply held tribally-reinforced myths.

Scientific racism has no such personal relevance for me. It's just statistical trivia. Intra-group differences are still much greater than inter-group differences. It's only the tribalists and other intellectually dishonest/lazy sorts who are inclined to make an issue of inter-group differences.

Thanks. I will explain why this is my hobby horse. Years ago, I read Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I loved the book, because it had the first unified plausible explanation I had seen for why there are economic inequalities among races: biological diversity that can be domesticated and transferred along a horizontal stretch of a latitude (from East Asia to Europe), but not along vertical stretches of a longitude (Africa, Polynesia and the Americas). Nobody needed to wonder why I was interested in this book--it was expected merely of someone who liked to make theoretical sense of anything. Though I loved it, the theory had holes. For example, how would it explain persisting modern racial inequalities in school achievement? It is data that Diamond completely ignores. Diamond introduced his theory as an alternative to the racist theory, and he did it with the odd claim that "races" are biologically meaningless, but I knew from my knowledge of the theory of evolution that populations within a species can and do diverge in their genetic frequencies, so why not humans? Would not "races" correspond to "breeds" or "subspecies" in other species? My interest in the racist explanation was ignited by the oppressive taboo against it--where there is a zealous squad of firefighters, there is fire--so I checked out the book at the library that was unafraid to present the theory: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. The book made the case very elegantly that intelligent scores matter, they are genetically heritable, and they are responsible for the economic differences between classes and races. The authors cited Rushton, who wrote Race, Evolution and Behavior, which provides a likewise-elegant explanatory biological theory for the data. All the data made sense to me for the first time. I can explain now the inequalities among human races, with a theory that actually makes maximal unified probable sense. Bill Nye said, "When you are in love, you want to tell the world," after he changed his opinion about the science of genetically-modified foods, and that is my reaction with respect to the science of race (though Nye very much disagrees with me on the matter of the science of race).

In other words, when confronted with a theory that ran contrary to your own deeply held prejudices, you sought out writers whose works would confirm your own bias.

Rather than this thread actually being a 'thought experiment,' it seems to be merely an attempt to justify your own desire to lump people into certain boxes or categories which you find meaningful. The main attraction to this seems to be to remove the necessity of actually thinking at all. Instead, one can give a very cursory glance to determine the level of melanin and the texture of hair and presence or absence of epicanthal fold and follow an arbitrarily set algorithm and voila: you have determined absolutely everything that you need to know about the individual before you, no thinking and certainly no openness of mind or heart required. The person is neither a person nor an individual but rather a collection of taxonomic characteristics which determine their intellectual, social and economic strata.

How utterly lazy.

If you are honestly interested in whether or not human 'races' represent subspecies of humans, perhaps you should ask one of the basic questions which determine whether something is a subspecies: If all environmental pressures were removed--in the case of humans, that would include geography, socioeconomic barriers, political barriers, cultural barriers and more that I am not taking the time to include: if humans reproduced randomly with other humans without regard to any of the societal pressures and influences we all operate under: would these characteristics which you find to divide humans into subgroups: would melanin levels, hair textures, eye shapes, etc. remain distinct or would they simply revert to a more singular appearance?

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose a dumb idea is smart? Does this mean the idea was smart all along, or did we get stupider and now the dumb idea has more appeal?

 

[Frikki]

Denying unpleasant reality doesn't make it go away. It just makes you choose a sub-optimal response to it.

Edit.

 

[Unbeatable]

Thanks. I will explain why this is my hobby horse. Years ago, I read Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I loved the book, because it had the first unified plausible explanation I had seen for why there are economic inequalities among races: biological diversity that can be domesticated and transferred along a horizontal stretch of a latitude (from East Asia to Europe), but not along vertical stretches of a longitude (Africa, Polynesia and the Americas). Nobody needed to wonder why I was interested in this book--it was expected merely of someone who liked to make theoretical sense of anything. Though I loved it, the theory had holes. For example, how would it explain persisting modern racial inequalities in school achievement? It is data that Diamond completely ignores. Diamond introduced his theory as an alternative to the racist theory, and he did it with the odd claim that "races" are biologically meaningless, but I knew from my knowledge of the theory of evolution that populations within a species can and do diverge in their genetic frequencies, so why not humans? Would not "races" correspond to "breeds" or "subspecies" in other species? My interest in the racist explanation was ignited by the oppressive taboo against it--where there is a zealous squad of firefighters, there is fire--so I checked out the book at the library that was unafraid to present the theory: The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. The book made the case very elegantly that intelligent scores matter, they are genetically heritable, and they are responsible for the economic differences between classes and races. The authors cited Rushton, who wrote Race, Evolution and Behavior, which provides a likewise-elegant explanatory biological theory for the data. All the data made sense to me for the first time. I can explain now the inequalities among human races, with a theory that actually makes maximal unified probable sense. Bill Nye said, "When you are in love, you want to tell the world," after he changed his opinion about the science of genetically-modified foods, and that is my reaction with respect to the science of race (though Nye very much disagrees with me on the matter of the science of race).

In other words, when confronted with a theory that ran contrary to your own deeply held prejudices, you sought out writers whose works would confirm your own bias.

I don't see what part of his post says that these were his deeply held prejudices. Could you perhaps highlight it?

 

[Toni]

In other words, when confronted with a theory that ran contrary to your own deeply held prejudices, you sought out writers whose works would confirm your own bias.

I don't see what part of his post says that these were his deeply held prejudices. Could you perhaps highlight it?

It seems obvious given his posts in this thread (and others). Also from his first post, his embrace of 'scientific racism' which is defined in Wiki as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Scientific racism is the use of scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races.[1][2][3]

'Scientific' racism relies on phenotype, physical anthropology, the supposed 'science' of using the size and shape of a cranium to attribute intellectual and moral characteristics, and other primitive attempts at taxonomy rather than any actual genetics. Given the source material for the support of his 'theory,' I have drawn the conclusion that his beliefs must be deeply held in order to ignore much more scientific evidence which refutes his theories.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I agree with Wikipedia's definition only half. A scientific perspective does not consider subjective evaluations as "inferiority" or "superiority," and any case that ends with a conclusion of those subjective evaluations is not science but politics. Nor does scientific racism require that races be "discrete." The theory of evolution requires that subspecies have overlapping genetic frequencies. There is no discrete genetic separations until speciation. Political racism requires discreteness, but it is contrary to scientific racism.

 

[repoman]

I am sure that what I will say now has had full threads about it here already, but here goes.

I think that the harsh demands of new and changing geography since the African diaspora is the major reason for changes in human behaviour of these population groups. not just raw processing power, but all other genes controlling personality and social traits needed - cooperation, impulsivity, long term planning ability. But were those environments really much more demanding than the cradle of humanity?

If africa was truly easier (or at least constant in the demands it placed on people) then personality changes from genetic mutation would have less selection pressure. Why fix what isn't broke? In fact, more mental outlay than needed might hurt you in other ways. Maybe being neurotic comes from having excessive mental firepower.

I think that the time since the diaspora seems a bit short for a lot genetic changes to happen, but I am not an expert.

If say Nigerians and Japanese had been separated for a million years i would expect to see huge personality differences.

 

[Angry Floof]

Given the variations within groups, as Jolly pointed out, I don't see how it matters. What would this information change for people who are not looking for something to support what they already believe? I see only bigots even paying attention to it.

For people whose regard for all peoples is inclusive, there's nothing in variances in intelligence that would exclude anyone in terms of fairness, of respect, of freedom of autonomy, of opportunity, or of feelings toward people in general.

Am I missing something here or would such "evidence" not really mean anything relevant to anyone other than bigots or maybe some with academic interest?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Perhaps such evidence would give rise to stronger anti-discrimination laws, education better tailored to the individual. Maybe bringing such a realization to the forefront of honest conversation will drive us to more judge an individual on their own merits.
Like many issues, perhaps agreeing on what a problem is will give rise to an effective solution.

When has this happened?

When in history has saying that one group is inferior to another led to treating the supposed inferior group better? When has a declaration of supremacy led to fairer and more just society?

Excuse me for sullying this sea of pessimism. Pardon my pie-in-the-sky optimism. To think our elected officials might see the potential ramifications of such evidence and try to get in front of it. White Americans will surely expect African Americans to be put in their place. Civil order will break down. All hope is lost.

 

[Starr]

For the sake of argument, if there really were significant differences in average IQ between races, the answer in my mind would be simple: intervention. Supporters of "scientific racism" often discount the Flynn Effect as the cause of racial differences that are found, but I wouldn't be too sure. The human brain is highly malleable, and the abstract reasoning that IQ tests look at has clearly been going up as we expose children in each generation to more and more abstract concepts. If there were some innate racial differences that gave certain races a leg up in developing those abstract reasoning skills, I think the gap could be closed by a focused intervention training racially disadvantaged groups in abstract reasoning skills from an early age.

For the sake of argument of course. I've yet to see a study that properly controls for all confounding factors when comparing the IQ of racial groups.

 

[Duke Leto]

Ah good, another fucking degenerate bag of human excrement to add to my Ignore List.

Been loathesome, ApostateAbe, rot in Hell.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When has this happened?

When in history has saying that one group is inferior to another led to treating the supposed inferior group better? When has a declaration of supremacy led to fairer and more just society?

Excuse me for sullying this sea of pessimism. Pardon my pie-in-the-sky optimism. To think our elected officials might see the potential ramifications of such evidence and try to get in front of it. White Americans will surely expect African Americans to be put in their place. Civil order will break down. All hope is lost.

When?