If the message is a truth you don't like, attacking the messenger changes nothing.

> If the message is a truth

Do you have any evidence to support this so-called "truth"?

There is strong evidence that IQ differences between human groups are environmental and not genetic [1][2][3].

Based on the easily googled wide availability of this information and given the environmental causes of IQ differences, I wonder if an easy scientific corollary is that racists must have environmental factors behind their inability to comprehend the established science in this matter. LoL

[1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322874121

[2] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

[3] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029772

▲

Lum2 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

« IQ differences between human groups are environmental and not genetic »

What about running? Down to race? Some races better at (bipedal) racing than others? Or down to environmental factors (availability of open land or whatnot)?

Note I don't care about so-called "IQ" (the very concept seems moronic to me); running performance, on the other hand, can be measured accurately.

▲

ninjagoo 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> What about running? Down to race?

> running performance, on the other hand, can be measured accurately.

So do you have any science to back up your hypothesis? That certain human groups are better than others at running? And that the better performance isn't tied to geography or other environmental factors?

	▲	Lum2 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		« any science » — What? Is that supposed to be a joke? Ever heard of the olympics? Ever seen any world-class competition, in sprint or marathon? The former is dominated by West Africans (or the descendants of the negro slaves shipped to America), and the latter by East Africans. It is clear as day.

▲

OroPla 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I am talking about the truth that consensus and science are different.

	▲	ninjagoo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I am talking about the truth that consensus and science are different. Yes, same. Do you have any evidence for this so-called "truth" that scientific consensus is not science? It's like claiming that the scientific consensus that 1+1 equals 2 is not science. Or that the scientific consensus that the Earth goes around the Sun is not science. Oh wait, that latter bit is probably triggering for a bunch of people... but probably not for real scientists, though.