Me neither. Lots of them deny that certain differences between humanity exist however, and that's just biology.

Eg. Fe-/male and racial differences. They exist, yet they cannot be admitted to and any reference to them will have the political left call you a nazi, racist, sexist and pedo to boot, because the other terms are already less impactful from overuse

It’s one of those topics where there’s a kernel of truth, but most people who insist women or Black people are scientifically different are not doing so out of any interest in science. So the small percentage of people who just want to make a valid point get lumped in with the much larger group, and unfairly tarred.

Perhaps because, to many people, it seems wrong to set policy based on marginal differences in the aggregate when the policy will affect individuals, and also because people doubt the motives of those who are highly invested in proving a scientific basis for negative stereotypes.

I wonder who makes assumptions that these differences are marginal and refuse or deny any studies that conclude otherwise. The left version of climate change if you will.

You make a good point in that there are large, slow-moving, but statistically significant effects in climate change, gender, and race.

You out yourself pretty badly in implying that individuals can be ignored in gender and race in the name of aggregate statistics.

There is similarity, there is not sameness, and like I said… the people who are fascinated with proving statistical differences in gender and race usually have ulterior motives. Just like climate deniers.

> any reference to them will have the political left call you a nazi, racist, sexist and pedo to boot

I think this boils down to the fact it's typically just a thin veil for motivated reasoning.

What's the veiled motivation of a white person who says that Asians are intellectually superior to whites?

Leftists see racism and sexism everywhere - their ideology focusses on that and they pick up on any excuse they can to label people as that. It's actually a horrible way to treat their fellow humans.

Because the same reasoning behind that statements implies that certain races are innately inferior to others. You chose to write "Asians" and "whites" here - why not make the same statement with "whites" and "blacks?"

Saying "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" is a thinly veiled way to say "and whites are superior to all other non-Asian/white races."

And the claim that "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" isn't even correct "because of race." I'm not aware of any real study that attributed racial identity to measure intelligence. Cultural differences? Socioeconomic differences? Country of origin? Sure. Race? Used as a proxy for the former.

Racial identity is a good proxy for ethnicity which studies do show affects IQ.

And that's the most anti-scientific attitude a person can possibly have, what you just said.

> Eg. Fe-/male and racial differences. They exist, yet they cannot be admitted to and any reference to them will have the political left call you a nazi, racist, sexist and pedo to boot, because the other terms are already less impactful from overuse

This is a pretty weird take. I'm a liberal with a lot of liberal, progressive, and even socialist friends, and basically nobody has a problem with recognizing the statistical differences between men and women.

There's plenty of discussion about how much of those differences are innate biology vs environment, though. And there's discussion about how much overlap there is between men and women - often, there's a lot of overlap, which makes stereotypes not so useful. But the existence of differences? Oh, sure, yes, of course there are differences.

So I'm not sure if you're suggesting something you're not saying ("racial differences in intelligence are innate, not environmental"), or if one of us is out of touch with what 'leftists' think.

ETA: I say "one of us" because ofc I may also be wrong! Most of my friends are well-educated, and both that and selection bias may skew my experiences away from normal

Totally, but there’s a lot more to science than just evolution.

Sure, but that's one of examples OP gave and it doesn't match my experience. Doesn't leave a great impression of the rest of the argument.

For the record, I provided a counterargument and it got flagged and downvoted.

It's quite common for people on the left to categorically deny that evolution could explain any cognitive group differences between human populations.

I think it’s less that it’s impossible but more that we don’t have any clue as to what causes differences among groups and many people use such measured differences as evidence for pretty deplorable ideas. There’s much more evidence for social determiners than anything biological. Everyone outside of Africa shares a single ancestor 20,000 years ago. There’s far more genetic diversity within Africa than the rest of the world. That alone is often enough to disprove many theories regarding racial differences since our intuitive understanding of “genetic difference” is so flawed.

Past research has a eugenicist bias because early statisticians were eugenicists seeking evidence for the ideas. I would argue that’s why the social determiners research is valuable to help offset that.

It's closer to 70,000 years. If not, then explain the Australian Aborigines.

Oh good point, sorry got the years mixed up in my head somehow.

> I think it’s less that it’s impossible but more that we don’t have any clue as to what causes differences among groups

I think we have a lot of clues, but scientists who dare say so get heavily censored by largely left-wing media and academics. Even in this forum my comment above got heavily downvoted and flagged.

> Past research has a eugenicist bias because early statisticians were eugenicists seeking evidence for the ideas. I would argue that’s why the social determiners research is valuable to help offset that.

Current bias goes clearly far in the opposite direction, which is bad. There is no "offsetting" with the past which would make an existing bias less bad.

It’s not suppressed though, it’s just that the current evidence points in one way and much less in the other. There are plenty of review papers you can read to see how people weigh the evidence which you can of course disagree with: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00678-r

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000131

Because if you give an inch to that line of thinking, it leads to broader dehumanization and mass tragedy.

No matter how noble your intentions are, if you reject science then you're anti-science. Leftists need to learn to admit that about themselves instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What is true is already so.

Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.

Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.

And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.

Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.

People can stand what is true,

for they are already enduring it.

(Eugene T. Gendlin)

This is a good point.

There are times where lefties will deny science in an effort to avoid mass atrocities, which I think is a fraught situation.

Inversely, righties tend to deny science in order to justify mass atrocities (like industrial-scale animal suffering or cataclysmic extinction events).

These are basically the same thing! /s