Re:DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views ...
by eesmith on Tuesday January 15, 2019 @01:34AM
(#18909225)
You write: "Absolutely none of your replies have addressed the question of if traits like intelligence are correlated to clusters that roughly correspond to the traditional conception."
Since the last paragraph of my previous comment addressed that question, I will assume that you didn't read what I wrote.
As I pointed out, researchers have long established that there is no meaningful correlation of "intelligence" with the "clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed". That is, they started with exactly the assumption you thought they should, then found that it was not supported by the evidence.
Hence, why I wrote that the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic" is because scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
Since the last paragraph of my previous comment addressed that question, I will assume that you didn't read what I wrote.
As I pointed out, researchers have long established that there is no meaningful correlation of "intelligence" with the "clusters that roughly correspond to the groupings people had naively assumed". That is, they started with exactly the assumption you thought they should, then found that it was not supported by the evidence.
Hence, why I wrote that the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic" is because scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
Where is the strawman?