> No. Perhaps it's even the other way around What? I don't know what rock you've been living under since the 1960s, but overt and blatant racial discrimination

> No. Perhaps it's even the other way around What? I don't know what rock you've been living under since the 1960s, but overt and blatant racial discrimination in policing or sentencing is a) a blatant violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; b) illegal under and number of federal and state statutes; and c) something we've already tried (both constitutionally and unconstitutionally) throughout the years and it's never worked. (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) >> Second, there are plenty of objective arguments in my posts here that any racialized theory of intelligence is not worth to studying, and you're ignoring all of them. > No. Name one concrete policy proposal motivating this research. One way in which the world would change if we had an answer (which, BTW, we already do -- the effect is negligible even setting aside the fact that the question doesn't even make sense). I've already explained Affirmative Action is more about reconciliation for pre-civil-rights era structural violence, or just a carte blanc commitment to diversity. Neither of which is informed by the proposed research. (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) I've explained numerous times that history (i.e. as close as we get to empirical evidence in societal decision making) suggests that making decisions based upon these beliefs is a bad idea. (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) And of course the fact that we've already made racial discrimination in law enforcement both unconstitutional (in multiple ways) and illegal (in multiple ways) because of the observed harm these policies caused (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) > We know that ideologies that pretend people are equal have gone terrifyingly off the rails -- especially when they succeeded in controlling what was allowed to be said. Frist, what harm? The only concrete harm I've heard from anyone so far is Johnny McSuburb (believing he was) turned down for a college scholarship because some black kid from the hood matched his test scores. Calling that a real harm is ridiculous when stacked up against e.g. the "scientifically" justified sterilization programs of the 1950s. And that's limiting ourselves to some of the more benign examples of the policy impacts of racialized "science". Far worse has been done in the name of "scientifically proven" racial superiority theories, even just in the United States. (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) Second, restricting IRB approval isn't "controlling what was allowed to be said". It's controlling what federally funded researchers can try to validate using public money. So I fail to see what concrete harm you're referring to. (BTW, I'm repeating myself and this is called an argument.) The fact is, espousing "scientific proof" of claims that one race is intellectually superior to another is not new. Similar claims have be made and then used in the past to commit outright atrocities. It is difficult to see how the demonstrable harm done by taking these claims seriously outweighs the basically non-existent benefits we would get from having an answer.