> So who would even do such research? The best you could find is some meaningless difference in mean scores that is likely swamped by environmental factors.

Yes, I too find it easy to avoid doing research when I assume what that research is going to find out ahead of the time.

> So it's hard to fund research with no purpose, that scientists aren't particularly interested in conducting.

But that's not what happened. They didn't just decline to fund such research. The NIH banned it on their data set even if you had your own funding. You don't explicitly ban things that people are not interested in doing. e.g. the NIH doesn't ban using the data set to perform research on astrology. If I want to do research on the difference between Libras and Scorpios and I come up with the money, the policy is "OK, you do you."

The paradox of intolerance suggests we should (if all else fails) suppress those whose seek to suppress others.

How is that relevant? Is Lasker seeking to (let alone succeeding at) suppressing voices that disagree with his own?

He might not engage with his critics (e.g. David Bessis) but AFAICT he's not doing anything to suppress them.

How, exactly, was Hitler following the science? Can you point to the specific scientific research that is to blame?

OK, then let's do it right. But I think you know that isn't really the issue here. Nobody is putting out studies on correctly defined races by genetic groupings and intelligence either because the topic is still considered heresy. Your point that the commonly used definition of race is inaccurate is simply deflecting from this fact.

Genetic diversity within continental races, including that of Sub-Saharan Africans, are mostly a consequence of genetic drift.

While genetic diversity between races are from selection. Thus the inter-racial genetic differences are more likely to manifest in trait differences that humans find more meaningful (which I use purely in a descriptive manner, not prescriptive), such as physiological (medical, metabolic), psychological & behavioral (personality), cognitive (intelligence), and of course physical (appearance, athletic).

The intra-racial differences that arise from genetic drift result in things that are still tangible genetic differences, e.g. ABO blood group frequencies, but don't map well onto characteristics that human societies place emphasis on as much.

And to address your point that:

>The genetic diversity of "black" alone exceeds the rest of the world combined.

This is because the level of genetic diversity as influenced by genetic drift is primarily a function of population size, and Africa being the origin of the Homo sapien species, and probably the Homo genus as a whole, has always had the highest level of effective population size. Thus genetic drift in Africans is least likely to be able to cause allele fixation on particular genes, and so such diversity is better preserved. But as already mentioned, these forms of genetic diversity is less likely to impact the observed traits that most humans, both academics/social scientists and your average joe, find "meaningful".

Many sub-Saharan African populations, such as Bantu-speaking West Africans, exhibit relatively lower genetic diversity compared to the Khoisan people, who typically have light brown skin. The Khoisan lineages diverged from those leading to Bantu and other sub-Saharan groups around 100,000–150,000 years ago, making them one of the most ancient human ancestries.

>Race is not a genetic concept, it's social.

Is this also true for other mammals such as cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses?

[flagged]

This criticism seems to mostly be that he is associated with bad people who say naughty things. Maybe he is a bad scientist, but where are all the well designed scientific studies that show his conclusions are wrong? That's what I care about, but they don't exist because you would never get funding and even to propose running such a study would be career suicide.

Interesting comparing these two entries:

https://grokipedia.com/page/OpenPsych

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych

You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. That is an obvious lie. Of course it means something scientifically because it refers to a genetic grouping. e.g. black people are much more likely to have the genetic disease sickle cell anemia. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that statement but if it were a gene related to intelligence you people would lose your minds.

If it isn't a scientifically valid concept, then why did the NIH label the genetic data by race?

Some medicines work better or worse depending on race. Based on the scientific methodology, your statement is incorrect.