Race is clearly a social construct that doesn't really hold any explanatory power in modern societies. This should be obvious because there is no objective way to determine one's race.

The term has absolutely no clear use in any meaning; it barely makes sense in the most extreme of circumstances i.e. if you live in a predominantly "white" town and categorize everyone else as "black" or "asian". It doesn't make sense nor has any meaning for people who have received a basic education and understand science and history.

All categories are absiolutely not social constructs. If we categorize people by height or blood type then these are categories that can be objectively defined.

Whereas with race you have no clue which race you belong to, you cannot prove or determine what race I belong to. You don't even have a fixed list of races to chose form. Hence, social construct.

I am used to it. People pushing these race & intelligence narratives are almost always vicious authoritarians.

ancestry != race

>Races have differences in terms of averages.

Races cannot be objectively defined, therefore this line of thought will get you nowhere. For example, "African" is not a race, neither is "Jamaican".

Bell Curve - An extremely popular best seller. Yet we are told that this kind of books are forbidden. This is done in bad faith.

The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence - yet the "race researcher" mentioned in this post is inventing imaginary oppression.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ - there are no separate or distinct "races". A "race" is a sociopolitical classification, not a genetic or biological one.

Measure the "intelligence" (a difficult thing in itself) of groups that cannot be objectively defined is destined to fail.

Also: Race is a social construct

Such research has been done and was done for a long, long time. Its not forbidden.

Its just that the scientific consensus points to these ideas being wrong.

The author refuses to accept this and just wrote a paper to complain and smear those who disagree.

If the author could actually do research and provide insights into the intelligence of "racial groups" that would be science. He would be providing new insights and challenging our understanding of these matters.

But he can't do this, so he goes after his fellow colleagues.

>He was claiming that programs based on an environmentalist approach are doomed to failure

That is not for him to decide. Let the scientific process decide what will and will not fail.

>because no-one has researched if genetics are linked to intelligence

This is patently false. There has been so much research and debate over this. Even for laypeople, Charles Murray's books were always bestsellers.

People have a right to complain about this culture warrior worming his way into such a high office. He is pushing demonstrably wrong opinions, this isn't science - not to mention he poisons the mind of people like you.

>If this guy’s ideas are incorrect

He is not providing any new ideas. He is complaining that other people are ignoring "intelligence research" and claiming that some Very Bad Thing could happen if they continue to ignore it.

This doesn't sound like a paper on intelligence but more on a paper against academics whom the author disagrees with. He is not talking about genetics or intelligence. He is complaining about an imaginary stifling of intelligence research despite the massive amounts of intelligence research that exists.

This is basically a meta-discussion, its not science. The author is a culture warrior that does not seem to accept that his side of the argument lost; having little science to back up his beliefs, he now turns to attack those who disagree with him.