The first interesting question here is in whose interests is it [...]
That's an interesting question, but I'm not at all sure it's the first. Making it the first question seems like the same intellectual failure mode as Bulverism. In a hypothetical world (which may or may not be or resemble the real world) in which there are absolutely no systematic differences between "races" in anything other than superficial appearance, it seems to me there could still be all the same strong pressure against such research. (In particular, I don't think it's credible that the people generating such pressure have all already evaluated the evidence, realised on some level that "race realism" is definitely right, and started objecting to the research just for that reason.)
how would you know?
All I know is that the bits of evidence I've looked at -- which, indeed, may be unrepresentative for some reason -- looked bad to me. E.g., estimating that some country has an average IQ of 80ish on the basis of interpolating values from other nearby countries and treating that estimate as data; estimating national IQs on the basis of small and probably-unrepresentative samples.
Yvain wrote a kinda- literature review a couple of years ago
I had a look and failed to find it. Got a link?
The Bell Curve
Whose reliability is pretty controversial.
liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan
My recollection is that one thing he was notable for was being a gay Republican. I'm not sure "liberal" is a great one-word description of him. (For the avoidance of doubt, "not best described in one word as 'liberal'" is not a criticism in my idiolect.)
At this point I usually switch to tentacles.
Alas, I have none and must make do with hands.
Don't you think that the topic is important?
Depends on what "important" means. I'm pretty sure that whatever the truth is on this issue, knowing it with more confidence would make rather little difference to my life.
I probably wouldn't recommend honestly discussing it from an account easily linked to your Real Name.
It's not hard to link this one to my real name, and I have already honestly discussed it here in this thread. I don't anticipate any terrible personal or professional consequences, but we'll see.
Got a link?
It's in his explanation of NRx piece. To quote from there ("biological hypothesis" is the one which says biology strongly affects IQ):
...I don’t want to dwell on the biological hypothesis too much, because it sort of creeps me out even in a “let me clearly explain a hypothesis I disagree with” way. I will mention that it leaves a lot unexplained ... For a sympathetic and extraordinarily impressive defense of the biological hypothesis I recommend this unpublished (and unpublishable) review article. I will add that I am extremely inter
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: