/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7899259
>>7899279
Daily reminder that empirically analyzing races is only controversial to idiots who have to identify themselves based on race (this goes for both sides of the spectrum)

There are plenty of actual, significant biological differences between minorities other than skin color. IQ is just another trait that deserves to continue being analyzed regardless of whether it hurts people's feelings or not. And while there are definitely smug shitheads who will argue back, "but mr anon I'm blacker than coal and I could solve the Fermat conjecture high on DMT!" good for you. Your anecdotal exception to the rule is never statistically relevant. There's plenty of very intelligent and respectable human beings of every race, color and creed. Doesn't change the unavoidable fact that a distribution might show the AVERAGES have clear winners and losers.

>>7899256
>taxonomic significance
defined by what, exactly? All domesticated dogs are the same species too. That's such a shitty, pedantic argument even if I understand why you'd use it to shut up white supremacists who otherwise fuck up this entire argument.

But if anything, you especially can't denounce IQ by race by pulling the "we're just one species" card out of your ass when cultural activist groups are constantly crying that their racial identity is being oppressed. Homogeneity is a consequence of equality, fucking deal with it. Personally? I don't give a shit if race is a social construct or not (it's not, it's a biological construct that has social implications), it still needs to be studied instead of just sweeping questions under the rug for the sake of morality.


tl;dr question, if scientific advancement produced serious evidence to support the theory that (insert the minority you are most racist against here) had the highest potential for intelligence, would you be against IQ analysis too?