As far as I know phrenology measured all kinds of things and claimed correlations. But they used highly dubious data (even for their time) and the field is now too unpopular to try (something similar) again with better methodology.

And I would say that the racist claim is that there is observable correlation and that genetic explanations are about as probable as other explanations. But I suppose many non-genetic explanations (eg cultural differences) would also be counted as racism, since in these kinds of discussions race and culture are often jumbled together.

▲

tacitusarc 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wouldn’t the racist claim be that because some group has a lower average IQ, they deserve fewer rights and freedom and less dignity?

The implication that if one group was shown to have a measurably lower intellect they are less “human” somehow is really worrying.

	▲	tsimionescu a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, that would be ableist, or maybe eugenics. And the way IQ is used in modern racist discourse is not this. Instead, the claims are "black people are not less well off on average because of racism in society, either old or current, they are less well off because they are dumber (have lower IQ) on average, so it's only a consequence of that, as dumber white people also tend to fail to get as much success". This is the argument being made, at least publicly, by most modern day scientific racists.
	▲	adrianN 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It is my understanding that it's only racist if the group somehow aligns with a race, but I don't know a good term for that belief when it doesn't align with races.
	▲	OroPla a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is it racist, that we put gorillas in a zoo instead of a school because gorillas as a group have lower average IQ? Would we treat Gorillas this way if they had similar or higher average IQ? What does it mean to be human?