> I intentionally chose programming as an example because it's an intellectual pursuit. Yes, people of different ethnicities can have different physical characteristics; that much is observable. But the idea that intellectual capacity is an essential difference between racial groups is /the/ white supremacist argument. Ie, the idea that white people are inherently smarter than black people. It's their justification for racial dominance.

How are intellectual pursuits different from sports pursuits, especially when it's one specific intellectual pursuit? And again, you make the jump from "white people are better at programming than black people" to "white people are more intelligent than black people".

> That is true, but it leads to statical variance across the board. If, for a large enough sample and controlled for mutable factors, white people are more successful at programming than black people, that is an essential trait. Given that we agree that race isn't an objective reality, race can't have essential traits, and thus statistically significant, categorical differences between outcomes must be caused by mutable characteristics like experience, education etc.

No, I think we disagree here. Race isn't an objective reality, but people still can have immutable differences between groups. For example, people with darker skin tend to lack vitamin D more easily in certain latitudes. This is an immutable difference with people with lighter skin. But that difference is a spectrum, and given a specific individual, you can't always put him in a "light skin" or "dark skin" group. What I reject with the idea of race is that everyone belongs to a specific race, and that you can draw clear lines between them. I don't reject the idea of immutable differences between people. I'm personally colorblind. I can't do anything about it. This makes my vision of color strictly worse than most people. But that's one characteristic. I also have brown eyes, which means I'm a bit less sensitive to the Sun than people with green and blue eyes. I belong to the "colorblind" and the "brown eyes" categories of human. But there's no "race" for that. White people have brown eyes and are colorblind. Black people too. But not all of them.

> How does a racial group be better at one field, categorically, unless either a) there are social differences like culture or access to education or b) there are essential, immutable differences between them? The important factor in racist reasoning is the idea that black people are less intelligent than white people. It's not true, but it's used to justify relegating them to a lower class.

Again, I don't understand why you're defending the idea that if there are immutable differences between people, one group must dominate the other. It's possible to accept that one group is better at something than the other without thinking that this group should dominate the other. And one field is not everything. I don't know many popular black programmers, and I don't know many popular white rappers. Who is the more intelligent here? Who should dominate who here? No one.

> We want this society now, except that differences in intelligence are not caused by race. So it's reasonable to investigate circumstances where outcomes are significantly different in order to understand what mutable systems and institutions could be changed to even the playing field so that capable black and white people can both succeed on merit.

I don't think we know for sure the origins of differences in intelligence between people. For example, IQ is highly inheritable, but malnutrition also reduces it a lot. That would mean that even if IQ was perfectly distributed in society between classes (which I don't think it is), the lower classes would slowly have a lower IQ because of malnutrition unless there's some sort of "safety net" against malnutrition. IQ isn't a perfect proxy for intelligence, far from it, but it's a start.