> when I choose to date a woman (in part because of her beauty), I consider her my social equal. I also believe beauty gains a woman status and influence. Do you disagree with these two claims?

I have no idea whether you consider the women you date to be your social equal or not -- it is none of my business -- but I don't think it is necessarily the case that every man (or woman) considers their romantic partners their social equal. As to the other claim, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no question that beauty is a source of power. But you'd need to be blind to think that it is a greater source of power in our society than other qualities. Note, also, how beautiful women are often brought down (just a pretty face etc.), whereas powerful men are not discussed in the same way (nah, he's just an ugly billionaire).

> I'm beginning to think that what you call "scientific racism" is what I'd simply call "science" applied to humans. Do you believe it differs? If so, how?

What "I call" scientific racism is what is known by historians as scientific racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism. The difference (aside from question of whether actual science is involved or not) is the following:

Just to be sure, first of all let me say that I do not believe (based on the evidence at hand) that scientific-racist claims have any merit whatsoever, and based on the history I studied, I am quite certain that even if there were some truth to them, the effect size is negligible compared to social effects. But, for the sake of argument (although it makes me sick to my stomach), let’s suppose that scientific-racism’s claims are absolutely true. There is a crucial distinction to be made between the veracity of a claim and the importance of discussing it.

There’s a parable (by Kierkegaard, I think) about a man who escapes from an insane asylum and, determined not to be sent back, decides to appear sane by only saying true statements. To everyone he meets, he says, "The earth is round. The earth is round," which, naturally, gets him sent back. Or consider Trump’s statement about Carly Fiorina’s looks. I think most people would agree that the important question about the event is not whether Fiorina is actually ugly or not, but why Trump saw the need to make that statement, regardless of its empirical truth. Often, finding the need to say something tells more about the speaker than about the object of the statement. In Trump’s case, it was an expression of how he thinks women should be valued.

Given the treatment of, say, blacks in the US, the question of whether and by how much blacks are innately stupider than whites is completely uninteresting to me. What is interesting to me is why some people think the question of their innate abilities is so important to merit discussion and/or investigation at this point in time. After all, there is much to be done to treat people more fairly and with more dignity even before getting to the question of their innate worth. Once all people are treated with the dignity they deserve, we can try addressing every person's individual abilities. We've invented technological solutions to short-sightedness; maybe we can find technological solutions to stupidity, too.

So to answer your question: scientific racism often has motivations that are completely different from those behind most science.

Expecting your next question, let me say that the reason racism and sexism are studied collectively yet innate abilities should be studied at the individual level -- putting aside the obvious answer of respective effect size and variability -- is this: it has been found as conclusively as anything in social science, that many social forces are best studied collectively, just as gas molecules are; that's just how they work.

> in you believing I'm a white supremacist.

I honestly don't understand this. I don't believe you're a white supremacist; I don't know you personally at all! You just keep claiming to be a white supremacist, maybe not using those exact words, but by repeating textbook scientific racism claims. I could insist not to be a billionaire, only to have a billion dollars in my bank account, and to talk about "your definition of billionaire". Scientific racism has a pretty well accepted definition, and your well publicized views coincide with it well.

> highbrow dismissal and vague hints that some uncited authority supports your views.

What views? That you're repeating classic scientific racism claims? The Wikipedia page has dozens of relevant references.

Also, I don't understand your point about "highbrow dismissal". If I were to tell you "just use logic! Quantum mechanics can't possibly be true!" would your educated response be considered highbrow dismissal?