Race Realism is not an attack on dignity

Are you saying only that the scientific findings shouldn't be taboo or are you saying that stratifying society based on those findings shouldn't be taboo?

Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?

One thing I have an issue with is that it's called 'race realism' as opposed to 'ethnic observations'. The reason I have an issue with 'race' as opposed to 'ethnic' is that you are pooling everyone of the same race into one category, that always will lead to irrational racism that ignores environmental causes for common traits. On the other hand, the reason I have an issue with 'realism' is that it is not only arrogant but doesn't make clear what the thing is. If it's just observations, there'd be no reason to need to call it that unless you were some edgy racist trying to prove a society wrong that loathed racism.

At this time, “race realism” as its currently presented by multiple individuals and organizations is primarily a pseudoscientific (and above I broadly explain the why) attempt to justify those groups own prejudice, rather than an honest attempt to determine what aspects of our genes and environment are responsible for our ability to succeed; and how do they differ between different groups. 

As I kinda said at the end; the issue with me specifically is not that such actual differences are impossible, or should not be discussed; but that those who promote this form of race realism aren’t actually doing that.

Or in other words; those who are advancing “race realism”, are trying to piss on people’s heads and tell them it’s raining,

Explicitly objecting to that approach, and explicitly calling them out in it does not imply or suggest that I am adverse to talking meteorology, or trying to argue rain cannot exist.

would extend to physical and cognitive abilities as well

 race isn't a social construct... 'race realism' is using science that on its own shouldn't be deemed racist

You can tell that many liberals secretly believe that race realism/human biodiversity is real because they form a taboo around discussing the issue. Taboos and euphemisms typically form not because people are convinced of their positions, but because they are afraid of/ashamed of their own true beliefs which are not the beliefs they publicly proclaim.

the problem is that there is no meaningful application for it other than to justify deliberately  maintaining racial inequities under the guise of scientific legitimacy.

There’s always a useful application for truth. If it’s true that traits are not evenly distributed between groups than inequality between groups is not racist.

Fair enough, so humor me a bit. An average Han Chinese person and a Zulu person look very different. The null hypothesis should obviously be that adaption didn't stop with differences in phenotype, and would extend to physical and cognitive abilities as well. Do you believe this, and if not why not?

But beyond that, the problem is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe genetic differences in racial groups would ever be different enough to account for any significant portion of racial inequality. There’s no race gene, and there’s no practical way to separate ones genetics from the impact society has each individual based on what they look like. The “science” on this will always be flawed, so it will always come down to what your personal biases make out of it.

There's so much dna mixing  that it's really hard even to find a pure race today. Almost everyone in the modern world is a mutt to varying degrees.

What we consider to be "race" is socially constructed, but traits aren't evenly distributed among each group. This is a problem that should only exist for policymakers...normal people can just treat everyone they meet as individuals. There's enough variation that you can easily just do that, which is what all normal people do

So let’s start out with addressing something important; the people suggesting race realism, often put forth pseudoscience implying that some small correlations are indicative of causation for things like this.

Right now; there’s is no indication whatsoever that race is even a substantial component in determining what your ultimate IQ is; and yet a lot of individuals are still making that argument and pretending as if these claims are somehow rooted in science.

Regardless of what any biological component of IQ ends up being; this form of argument, built on this type of premise is still clearly unreasonable. Which was my point.

Now; if it turns out that due to immutable biological factors of a given race, some policy can’t work - I think that’s a good reason not to have that policy: but there are so many impractical ifs implicitly involved. For example; there would have to be an implicit genetic issue that is determinative of IQ: rather than giving a predisposition towards IQ - it must be immutable, in that a given intelligence cannot be attained by changing environmental factors; it must be determinable - so one doesn’t simply assume that an underachiever is underachieving because they have the wrong genetic disposition, as opposed to other environmental factors.

The final issue is that various “success” indicators and IQ being fundamentally linked is one example of assuming correlation is causation. While I could probably buy into the claim that no amount of training or learning will make me the next Einstein; and that levels of IQ has an impact on profession and thus earnings; but I don’t think it’s even close to a given that there is a causal link between IQ and things such as criminality, etc, as opposed to sharing broad correlating environmental factors.

Which is exactly why race realism is an attractive topic for every racist. How nice to not have to bother thinking about our history and it’s lasting effects on our society when you can just deem the minority race to be inferior, blame it all on Mother Nature and then call it a day.

Yeah dude.

55 IQ is functionally the same as 140 IQ.

Saying otherwise is a real "tenuous association" with "limited correlation".

Nice dude.

This doesn’t appear to be an argument.

Let’s ignore the name calling, for a moment let’s broadly explain the fundamental issue with your belief.

The presumption that differences between races is solely down to hereditable factors

you have to be able determine the genes that account for intelligence and how much - which we can’t

to be able to understand the impact of environment on intelligence, what environmental impacts and effects prevent or promote intelligence (so we can correct IQ for environmental factors)

to be able to assess the broad distribution of these genes across racial groups to determine whether there is an actual disadvantage - which we haven’t.

The reality is that the interaction between environment, genetics and intelligence are so complex and difficult to disentangle that it is impossible to validly assert exactly what the true impact of genetics actually is; such that the conclusion that the only valid correlating factor is race is simply an attempt assert ones own prejudice is justified; especially given that we do know there can be a massive impact on intelligence from various environmental factors. 

No, the science is objective and could probably be determined within the next decade or so

The bolded part is just a bare assertion. It very well could.

there is no reason to assume that adaptation resulting in phenotypical differences stopped at the brain.

The only path this conversation goes down is to excuse our history and blame all of our inequalities in on Mother Nature. 

And once we answer that question… so what? What policy difference would that possibly make? Are we going to declare one race to be inferior to the others and base policy around that idea, perhaps to give the inferior race an advantage to make up the difference?

That’s obviously an absurd proposition, which is kind of the entire point. The only path this conversation goes down is to excuse our history and blame all of our inequalities in on Mother Nature. So when someone who refuses to acknowledge that history wants to go down this path instead while proclaiming they’re not racist, that just wreaks of disingenuousness.

Fair enough, so humor me a bit. An average Han Chinese person and a Zulu person look very different. The null hypothesis should obviously be that adaption didn't stop with differences in phenotype, and would extend to physical and cognitive abilities as well. Do you believe this, and if not why not?

The fact that you don't think an argument, which was made with the implications of your argument, doesn't count as an argument, is quite amusing LOL.

You've unwittingly conceded, so thanks.

It's just an accurate label of what you do.

You bs people with sophistry. You're an anti-white shitlib looking to go into semantic funhouses to distract from real arguments.

This is what you always do, and you're about to do it again here.

“No race realist argues this and I certainly didn't argue this -- horrible strawman you're making here.

Obviously, the environment and genetics play roles in making humans. The debate is to what degree.

You're too busy sniffing your own farts to understand the arguments of the other side.”

“The average Black person's intellectual "potential" is lower of that than Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews”

“According to your logic, they would all be the same species because we couldn't 'find the genes' to explain all differences.

I'd argue that intelligence is about 80% hereditary

The short answer, focusing specifically on the cognitive (though it does broadly apply elsewhwre) is that while I have every reason to believe that various alleles for intelligence are generated through mutation, are selected for, and have spread through various geographic populations via drift and selection, there is no reason to believe that the occurrence and prevalence of these alleles should correlate directly with the presence of certain other alleles for facial structure and skin tone. 

Given this, and given that we can show environmental factors that we have been able to causally establish impact intelligence; it’s way, way more likely for racial IQ gaps to be overwhelmingly the result of the environmental differences. With only a very limited geographical - rather than racial - distributions in IQ attributable to genetics.

Selection pressures haven’t been the same everywhere though, to the point that there have been pretty radical differences in phenotype. There is also pretty large differences in admixture with other hominids, Europeans and East Asians having high Neanderthal admixture which is close to zero among sub Saharan Africans. Don’t know what affect this has or on what but it has to mean something. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the alleles for traits intelligence, athletic ability, sense of rhythm, sense of direction, pain tolerance, etc are perfectly evenly distributed 

From what I’ve read IQ is estimated to be around 50% heritable. So it is definitely important to improve the environment for disadvantaged people to make sure that they can reach their full potential. But there could well come a time in the future when by all reasonable accounts the environmental issues have been solved and the chips still might not fall in the way people want them to. I just want people to be prepared for that possibility

So often I find people criticize Race Realism by trying to tie it as inherently racist in nature,

When science discusses that men are, on average, more aggressive than women, or women are, on average, more empathetic than men it is not seen as inherently sexist,

nor is it seen as justification for sexism.

It is understood that just because men and women are different in some aspects that it doesn't change the moral value of the individual, the dignity of the sexes is not in threat.

However, when people try to talk about how people of different races might be, on average, different due, in part, to nature it is seen as inherently racist, an attack on the moral value of the individual, etc.

it is the idea that some of the difference in outcomes between races stems from real qualities about nature. Look at the world's best sprinters, for example. Regardless of the culture they are raised in (aka, a variety of nurture elements) there is a tendency for one particular race to be "over-represented" among these world class sprinters.

Why does this happen? If Race Realism is true it does not follow that any race is morally of greater importance, it just means that there are differences. It doesn't justify racism, just like differences between men and women doesn't justify sexism.

Yet that is consistently brought up by many who oppose the idea of Race Realism.

Race Realism is essentially metaphysical realism applied to race, and that there are different races. The idea that 'race is a social construct' almost always stems from a sort of metaphysical anti-realism.

Dr. Steven pinker is obviously not a racist, and he takes the view that there are genetic differences between races that lead to different outcomes via nature. One of the things he points out is that Jews, regardless of where they live in the world, tend to have higher average intellect than the population around them, and he attributes this, in part, to genetics.

Distribution of intelligence  would be expected to correlate at some geographic level, rather than at a broad racial level. Like, say, Masai being smarter than Zulus; Anglo Saxon’s being smarter than Slavs; rather than correlating on a larger racial basis.