Despite your well thought-out response, you didn't address my point: Vox has shown a strong proclivity for censorship, and there's no reason to believe they will stop at social media platforms when arguing for inclusivity.

I'm happy to address your comment though, because I'd like to relieve you of the mental gymnastics you're engaged in:

> there's no consensus whatsoever that all or even most of that is due to any sort of "genetic factor", and the plausible contribution of something like that is well within the "too small to matter" range!

Where did you get this information? A quick glance at the "Heritability of IQ" Wikipedia page [1] clearly states that "the heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73% with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%."

There are probably hundreds of twin/adoption/family studies on the heritability of IQ within and between races. This is simply one of the most researched topic in this field, and claiming that it's "too small too mater" and "there's no consensus whatsoever" seems disingenuous to me.

For example, some scientists have claimed that the heritability of blacks is significantly lower than that of whites [2], and this is due to poverty, the history of slavery, etc. This was addressed by Osborne [3] with his Georgia Twin Study comparing 123 black and 304 white pairs of twins (12-18 years old). Osborne used three different aptitude tests and found an overall heritability of 50% for both blacks and whites. Another study done by Rowe [4] studied the correlations of background variables and outcome measurements using cross-sectional correlational matrices with both independent variables (homes, peers) and outcomes (achievements, criminality). The black and white matrices were almost identical.

The scientific consensus is that IQ (specifically g) is both environmental and genetic.

> Besides, these distributions are such that they can only ever matter in the large, as in "explain other large-scale social phenomena"; they don't tell you ANYTHING about any individual person that you couldn't garner way more easily and more reliably within a few seconds of interaction or even observation.

I totally agree with you here. You can't judge an individual by group averages.

I should also add, I'm not saying people are subject to a kind of race/IQ determinism. But in large-scale, yes these things matter.

> Most people (as in 99.999%) who bring up "race-IQ" connections as if they were some sort of forbidden truth are either white supremacists or clueless memebots, spreading a memetic infection of white-supremacist origin without even realizing that this is what they're doing. It's pure race baiting and white supremacy, not a serious attempt at social debate.

This appears to me as an attempt to discredit those with uncomfortable arguments. If the truth is uncomfortable, we still have to address it and pursue it. There are people who dedicate their entire academic career to studying these questions, with the goal of people discussing and arguing over their work.

The science shows that there are racial differences in IQ. In fact, it also shows that east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews on average have much higher IQ scores than whites. Am I a Jewish-supremacist for bringing that up?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[2]: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Cooley/Cooley_1897.html

[3]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/1980-osborne-t...

[4]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1994-rowe.pdf