RE: Race and IQ, The Alt-Right, and the Post-Racial future of humaity
To me, "race" and "subspecies" have always been neutral terms. There are groups of people with a dark skin, and groups with an epicanthic fold, I can observe that, so I assume the differences are real. I also assume these differences are genetic. So what? The genetic (and IQ score) overlap between groups is huge and dwarves the differences, but there are differences, and differences can be used to classify, just like you can make a distinction between an Eastern Purple Finch and a Pacific Purple Finch. In that sense, "races" or "subspecies" are real.
The problems start when you not only attach an a-priori value judgment to "race" or "not-my-group", but also act upon that judgment.
Fight the bigots, not the terminology; some of use use it in a neutral way.
Differences between appearances are real. There are also tall and short people, fat and skinny people, and so on. So the racial categories are really arbitrary in that we selected certain specific physical features to represent the different races when if you look carefully you will see even among the same race people are very different.
Look at white people and you will see it's not like all white people look the same or have the same features between different ethnicities or families. Look at black people and you will see a huge range of different looking black people, different in terms of skin tone, height (pygmy), hair type, yet because of some ridiculous 1% rule or 1 drop rule, these people are all grouped together as black.
So my point is, white and black don't necessarily represent anything meaningful genetically. It does represent a common appearance in certain parts of the world. It is true that in Europe most people have pale skin and in Africa most people have dark skin. But it is also true that there are many other differences between people in Europe, in Africa, and other places, and for what reason were certain traits chosen as being the most distinctive features to be called the "race"?
The gene mutation which allowed for pale skin has been found. Just as the gene which allows for the digestion of milk has been found. And the warrior gene (associated with violence) has been found. But the gene or genes for intelligence has not been found, just as the gene or genes for being gay have not been found, so to say it's a genetic basis would require identifying the gene first before reaching that conclusion.
So my point is that if science hasn't found the gene for intelligence then on what basis are the people who believe in this theory arriving at the conclusion that 1) race is real and based on genetics and 2) intelligence is based on genetics? Find the gene maps which prove race and genetics are more correlated than not (so far the exact opposite has been found) and find the genes which correspond to high IQ. If there is no hard scientific evidence then it's a faith, a religion.
The terminology if it is faith based rather than science based is promoting the ignorance which empowers bigots to stay bigots. In order to fight bigotry which is a form of ignorance you have to first find the truth. Any truth must be based on scientific facts and evidence, not faith. Race isn't currently based on the state of the art conclusions of geneticists, nor are the groupings of race providing any significance to IQ because if it did then we would have a way to isolate the genes for intelligence by the racial groupings. Apparently no one has found the genes associated with high IQ which means race and IQ if you believe in the hierarchy being real, is more than likely a cultural phenomena rather than genetic. Maybe Jewish and Asian cultures promote the kind of abstract logical thinking and motivation necessary to do well on tests, due to some specific events which happened unique to the history of the Jewish or and Asian culture. IQ may in fact even be triggered by environmental factors after birth.
References
Bigots don't need incorrect (use of) specific terminology to promote ignorance, and they don't need empowerment to stay bigots. They are bigots first, the rest is formulated as needed. If it isn't "race", they will find something else to define "people unlike us we don't like much". We all do to some extent, but most of us don't act upon it. Bigots do, and there lies the crux, not in scientifically or politically correct use of terms.
Cultural Marxists are always looking for something to label racist. Labeling people bigots based on their beliefs is a tired process of mind control that keeps the sheep comatose.
I think bigotry is the symptom of the disease (ignorance). Some people are voluntarily ignorant, some are involuntarily ignorant. I am concerned about the people who are involuntarily ignorant. Access to truthful knowledge is the only cure for the disease.
Terminology matters a lot. This includes the Census which I've never liked or agreed with.
This column and the paper on which it is based goes into more detail about how epigenetics (testosterone exposure in the womb) might explain differences in sexuality between twins.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=010
IQ score starts with being white first then you start adding foreign admixtures into the mix then the scales tend to tip. Asians survival is based on instincts first and instincts say to survive with your own kind. White Intuition has been muddled with brainwashing that there is only one race.