Quote Originally Posted by Ward View Post
Ok, I wrote my first post in this thread without actually reading the article. Got to it revise a bit.

David Reich doesn't do much to dispel the stereotype about Jews speaking in forked tongues. He certainly penned the article in such a way for it to have zero impact on the status quo.

Take this statement:

What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes.

Given the data that we can gather from human history, twin studies, performance tests, animal husbandry, and simply looking at the world around us, how can the notion that racial differences are more than just superficial be automatically dismissed as "insidious" and unsupported by evidence? Where is the evidence against it? Where is the science to support egalitarianism? And how is it that egalitarians are not the "insidious" ones as they gamble and sacrifice societal well-being for the sake of virtue signaling and feelings of moral supremacy?

By merely admitting the possibility of cognitive racial differences, Reich is just trying to give his side the appearance of open-mindedness and objectivity. Neither he nor the NYT would ever do anything to rock the multiracial boat.
Personally it's my impression that Reich believes in the credibility of race more than he lets on in the article (even if it may be just some Jewish superiority thrill). Despite all of his qualifiers and statements in support of egalitarianism, the reaction to his article, based on comments, is still largely negative. If it were written any less in tune with the status quo you can imagine the kind of reaction it would get, though in that case it wouldn't be published in the first place. But overall focusing on his motivation is mostly irrelevant. An article in the mainstream media beginning to question the long-held conviction that "race is a social construct" is a considerable step forward.

Actually, for quite some time now one of our societal ills has been the widespread notion that racial science equals "pseudo-science." Most of our people seem content to disregard certain sciences so long as they're living comfortably.
I agree in a broader sense about the hypocritical use of scientific evidence when it favors a liberal agenda and its dismissal when it doesn't, but more specifically I'm referring to the enthusiasm that the brand of liberalism currently dominating the political landscape undoubtedly has for scientific advancement. I do think at some point these race-deniers will be forced to grapple with the increasingly more and more apparent reality of racial diversity.

I agree with you, but that attitude also needs to be extended to differences in intelligence. We need to be open to the idea that even a seemingly insignificant difference in average group intelligence (and/or temperament) could in fact be the main reason for the differences between, say, Germany and Haiti.

And the onus in all of this, when you have popluations of humans separated from each other for tens of thousands of years, should really be on egalitarianists to prove no difference. Somehow it's gotten to be the other way around.