whether we are disabled (as a genotype or a phenotype), what we believe in, who we choose to associate with, how we spend our time, etc

without this you don't have much. given this its all academic, which is just fine

Why the quotes? Are you just generally down on the social sciences?

I strongly disagree with the rationalist fallacy that science must progress unfettered by social or political 'ideology'. The very notion that science is ideologically blanched, that it exists in some asocial vacuum, is naive at best, disingenuous​ at worst, and misguided always.

To paraphrase John Wheeler on spacetime: Society tells science how to move; science tells society how to curve.

I honestly think that Trump is the application of postmodern concepts to politics on an unrelated precedented level and many people on the left who supported these ideas find them horrifying when they are used to bolster positions that are not theirs.

You want science better represented in society and politics? Get more scientists involved in society and politics. http://www.314action.org/home

As far as how I 'want' it to be influenced, I think civil society should be entitled to discuss the implications and validity of research that is done (in this case, racial or ethnic factors in 'standardised', culturally based tests of 'intelligence'), as well as set large scale priorities as to where effort should best be focused, like in your examples.

> Race X has lower intelligence and higher aggression > Therefore, we must take measures against X to prevent them from committing crimes or making bad decision.

Consider the case of the mentally disabled. They have custodians that can make decisions for them, such as what they must do, where they must live, and what they must avoid.

The line that race realists typically cross, is that they extrapolate supposed IQ differences and start treating people of other races as if they are mentally disabled (i.e. not giving them rights).