>As strange as it may sound, the entire scientific community is not in fact conspiring to hide inconvenient right-wing truths from the common people, and if the

>As strange as it may sound, the entire scientific community is not in fact conspiring to hide inconvenient right-wing truths from the common people, and if they do happen to overwhelmingly lean left that does not entail the existence of such a shadowy cabal. A one sided, self reinforcing status quo does not require a conspiracy. All it takes is a majority of well meaning researchers to create a self-reinforcing situation wherin research along certain perfectly legitimate avenues is strongly discouraged through emergent social pressure. After spending a decade pursuing a PHD, it's hard to justify sticking your neck out when the consequences are potentially career ending, and the result is that in Western society we effectively shun any discussion of the influence of nature in favor exclusively of nurture. >When evoluyionary biologists express skepticism towards claims made by behavioral "geneticists" or "evolutionary" psychologists, they are in fact pointing out the shoddy assumptions and flawed methodology, independently of whether the conclusions are morally abhorrent or not (they often are, but it's orthogonal to the point). You don't think it strange to have an unquestionable default position where any study showing innate differences among populations is immediately dismissed as having poor methodology when the results are inconvenient? Is this not indicative of a strong institutional bias? Particularly when all of these same puzzle pieces are taken as legitimate when viewed individually in "safe" contexts? For example, no one argues against the existence of the warrior gene, that cat is out of the bag; but any whispers of different effects on genetic subpopulations and people bend over backwards trying to minimize the influence of such a factor on individual behavior [1] while totally ignoring the measurable consequences for distribution statistics. Here's a legitimate potential consequence of ignoring such questions: if it turns out, hypothetically, that a particular subpopulation is more or less likely to be aggressive in tense situations, wouldn't that necessitate an adjustment in policing practices to ensure fairness in the justice system? What about optimization of treatment for psychological conditions like depression? The assumption that human behavior is purely a product of nurture is not supported by a multitude of individual scientific facts, but institutional social bias is such that no reputable institution is willing to unify these factors, even when doing so is likely to produce more optimal outcomes for all of society. While well meaning, this is ultimately bad science potentially underpinning bad social policy.