I agree with your statement that the social impact of discussing racial/sexual differences on a wide scale could be harmful among the masses who wouldn't take t

I agree with your statement that the social impact of discussing racial/sexual differences on a wide scale could be harmful among the masses who wouldn't take the time to ponder and process the information in a balanced and gradated manner. And you could also be right that significant differences don't exist on a genotype-based level beyond different populations being vulnerable to certain diseases, knowledge for which we have incontrovertible proof. However, my intuition (and the closely guarded intuition of many sociologists, anthropologists, geneticists and other academics who don't buy into the mainstream narrative that human groups are all exactly equal despite several millenia of evolutionary branching) is that the genotype plays a larger role among observed differences than is commonly accepted. Thus, the argument that some groups of people 'do worse on average than other groups because they believe they will do worse' is not as strong as 'some groups of people do worse because they are on average inherently less capable at performing on a certain task, whatever their level of self-belief in their performance at that task,' an argument for which much evidence exists. Note that I am not stating we should change social policy or even necessarily our current cosmopolitan world view based on this information.. I'm just pointing out a fact of reality which is glossed over with emotion and fear by starry-eyed academics. The counterpoint among intelligent people is to claim that it is not a fact that genotype-based differences exist and that to think they do is not only wrong but also harmful. Much the same way creationists dispute a missing link of evolution though and falsely conclude that God must have done it all, just because we don't have every possible piece of evolutionary data on the chain from single-celled amoebas to Homo Sapiens doesn't mean we can't form a highly probable link of progression between the two based on the large amount of available evidence we do have. I forget the Latin term for it so I shall refer to the above as the fallacy of ignorance: in the absence of complete enough information to satisfy a logical positivist, it is impossible to draw a likely conclusion at all. Among anyone who is interested in what's true about reality, no subject should be taboo, and one should be guided by evidence and truth alone. Is this ridiculous and naive? That's a subjective value judgment, a judgment which I think becomes increasingly arbitrary the more open minded and intelligent the person thinking about the topic is. tldr: Truly open minded and intelligent people (which are quite rare) who can approach controversial subjects with subtlety and even-keeled rationality should follow the truth wherever it leads them, even if it's to conclusions society deems 'improper'. Then they should hide these conclusions from almost everyone they speak with. lol.