4 ms·

You appear to be making an ideological argument — I have no interest in engaging with that. It seems deeply hung up on one particular and erroneous conception

You appear to be making an ideological argument — I have no interest in engaging with that. It seems deeply hung up on one particular and erroneous conception of race, while ignoring that there is an extant broad scale trend into clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed. Historical conceptions of race were completely incorrect about the mechanics — but that’s different from there being no underlying phenomenon. So the conclusion seems to be that racial essentialism is dumb (and I’ve said as much in every post), but that there are real biological trends and groupings that correlate to sets of features. Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception. Instead you’ve picked semantic nits with strawmen.

eesmith 8y ago
You write: "Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception." Since the last paragraph of my previous comment addressed that question, I will assume that you didn't read what I wrote. As I pointed out, researchers have long established that there is no meaningful correlation of "intelligence" with the "clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed". That is, they started with exactly the assumption you thought they should, then found that it was not supported by the evidence. Hence, why I wrote that the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic" is because scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid. Where is the strawman?