[nommm-nommm]

Nobody has a problem with finding and researching group differences.

The problem is when you find them claiming they are genetic and innate while being completely blind to all the other things that can cause those differences. The bigger problem is when you go looking for differences specifically so you can "prove" the group is inferior. Usually inferior to the group you belong to.

It's like finding that null pointer and coming to the conclusion that the pointer is null due to nature and that's just the way it is. Nothing I can do about it.

[rewqfdsa]

So it's okay to conduct research so long as you like the findings? Read the books mentioned in this thread and others. IQ is 60-80% heritable. Of course there are environmental effects (consider, say, fetal alcohol syndrome), but for the most part intelligence is strongly heritable, and intelligence (or whatever you want to call g) is strongly correlated with life outcomes. These are facts. If you think that facts go on to "prove" the "inferior[ity]" of certain groups, that's a problem with your interpretation. It's easier to just deny the facts, isn't it?

I do have high hopes for what we can "do about it". These hopes rest on genetic modification. There's no reason in principle that the next generation, or the one after that, couldn't be made all geniuses. It'd solve a huge number of problems. But first we have to recognize the fact that intelligence is largely hereditary!

[nommm-nommm]

I noticed you removed the part of your comment where you claimed that everyone is treated equally.

And no, I never said (or implied) "it's okay to conduct research so long as you like the findings." It's perfectly ok to conduct research even if you are disgusted by your data. (and I've heard some researchers say they have been disgusted with their data) However, this type of research has a long history of being conducted solely to "prove" racial inferiority.

[ohsnap]

I really don't think there is any hard science to say 60-80% is heritable. It's all soft science as people can disagree and agree on that all they want. Until someone can build a computational model of brain function related to the genome (inc. RNA) it is an open question.

[shalmanese]

By studying a) identical twins who are raised together, b) fraternal twins who are raised together, c) identical twins who were adopted and raised apart at birth and d) fraternal twins who were raised apart, it's possible to tease out the effects of nature and nurture.

For example, you're far more likely to be schizophrenic if your identical twin is schizophrenic compared to your fraternal twin. This strongly suggests that schizophrenia has a major heritable component as no other explanation would account for this. This is as much "hard science" as anything else we study.

[ZeroGravitas]

Interestingly "fetal alcohol syndrome" has a history of being misdiagnosed as genetic and this false conclusion being used to support eugenics before the true cause was established.