First, moral frameworks exist for a reason and aren't the realm of "church-lady hyperventilation". For example, most plausible instantiations of the crime policies suggested above are blatantly unconstitutional.

Second, there are plenty of objective arguments in my posts here that any racialized theory of intelligence is not worth to studying, and you're ignoring all of them. As one small example, over multiple posts, you and peterfirefly have failed to name one concrete policy option for which an answer to this question is remotely necessary.

If anything here is irrational, it is your insistence on studying a correlation that has no value beyond justifying racially motivated policies. If the last 2000 years teach us anything, it's that for any concrete social problem you'd want to solve, a solution motivated by the belief that one race is superior to another is not going to be the optimal solution.

> pretending that race is some utterly inscrutable field

Belief in superiority on a collection of phenotypes roughly correlated to what we call "race" today pre-dates Darwin by 100+ years. AS a matter of historical fact, the "scientific" notion of race today came about as a post-facto characterization of latent racial superiority theories that existed prior to the scientific era.

So yes, race is inscrutable from a scientific perspective because it is not -- at base -- an idea of scientific origin.

Here is what we do know.

We know that Every. Single. Time. any society has made a decision motivated by the belief that one race is objectively better than another race, the result was a social order that could not be described with any word other than evil.

We know that for hundreds of years, crackpots of varying scientific literacy and persuasiveness have evoked the en vogue scientific ideas of the day to claim the inferiority of a group of people with an astoundingly invariant set of latent racial characterizations. And we know that at every point in history, their crackpottery is eventually identified -- even if science doesn't advance enough to demonstrate the crackpottery until years later. (the somewhat pathetic aspect of the crackpottery displayed in this thread that rjkyle is so kindly addressing is that it all has already been disproven, and yet... so don't pretend this is about "scientific truth" or "intellectual inquiry")

We know that even if it were reasonable from to outset to choose a given phenotype over all others to study, it would go against the grain of everything we have learned in the last 2000 years to use any notion of inferiority between races as a basis for decision making.

We know that even if that characterization had a causal link to intelligence, there are far better and less noisy predictors of intelligence.

So, there is no reason to study this correlation. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Nothing good can come of it. If history is a guide, not even intellectual understanding.

Anyways, I'm done engaging with you and peterfirefly now. The belief that one "race" is superior to another is detestable, and to claim that there could exist definitive scientific evidence for such a claim fundamentally misunderstands what science is and ignores a rich history of such claims in the history of science