I agree with you about your last statement! I think it's actually a pretty interesting comparable to BMI. BMI: useful epidemiologically, across large populations, but much less useful individually. IQ: much less useful across large populations, but useful as a diagnostic/clinical tool in individual settings.

It's been well established among many academic circles outside the politicized atmosphere in the West that average IQ variances amongst different countries and ethnic groups is very much real and accepted including the man himself who discovered DNA and subsequently ostracized and labelled a bigot for his discovery.

This is not to say environment/economics/individuality can't play a factor but seems to be negligent when you consider outlier groups Ashkenazi Jews and East Asian diaspora.

No, it hasn't. What ever else you want to say about the research results you're describing, "widely accepted in the field" is not a thing you can hope to say about them. The objections scientists have to these kinds of statements is fractally deep.

Claims that politics are preventing genetic and psychometric research also seem to drive practitioners in the field pretty nuts; there is clearly and obviously a ton of this research happening "in the west", it just doesn't say what race science activists want it to.

I owe another thread a deeper answer than this, so I'm keeping this brief.

Actually, there are several meta-analyses published in mainstream journalsthat demonstrate broad consensus on heritability estimates across different populations and average IQ levels. While there's healthy debate about specific methodologies, the core findings about genetic influences on behavioral traits have been replicated extensively and almost certainly free from political knee jerk reactions in recent years.

Yes, research continues, but funding priorities and publication incentives do shape which questions get investigated and for past few decades these researches were taboo and funding taken away from those attempting to study it.

I'd encourage looking at the actual publication record rather than characterizations from either "activists" or critics. The data tells a more complex story than the simplified narratives on either side.

No, they haven't. The opposite thing has happened (I owe another thread details): as we've shifted to genomics, the estimates have cratered. This isn't an "activist" thing.

You know you're in trouble when people start implying that actual genomic and quantitative psychological research in academic labs is suspect because of "taboos". In fact, since you made that point, and since I really shouldn't be digging into this before responding to the other person I said I would respond to: I'll leave it there.

All you've done here is just offer your conjectures not facts. I understand, you have a business to run that hinges on the reputation of your political ideology not actual SLA uptime.

In case anybody was wondering whether you were commenting in good faith.