>For reasons I don't fully understand, there's a lot of folks in the social sciences these day that seem to be waging war on the very concept that you can descr

>For reasons I don't fully understand, there's a lot of folks in the social sciences these day that seem to be waging war on the very concept that you can describe intelligence generally The fallout from eugenics gave social science a complex. Innate difference and especially innate superiority of one person over another is taboo. The field is poisoned by motivated reasoning. >At the height of the controversy, during the 1970s to 1980s, the debate was highly ideologised. In Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature (1984), Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin criticise "genetic determinism" from a Marxist framework, arguing that "Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology ... If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and production workers." The debate thus shifted away from whether heritable traits exist to whether it was politically or ethically permissible to admit their existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Determin...