This doesn't look like science.
There a lot of pseudoscience around IQ too, probably starting with the very concept of IQ for measuring "intelligence" (for which we would need a strong definition anyway)
Is this claim really ridiculous? A quick search yields convincing results that hints at scientists questioning the concept:
- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.h... "Scientists debunk the IQ myth: Notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient by singular, standardized test is highly misleading"
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund... "IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds"
There are many things wrong with how IQ is tested, and even how the whole notion was born.
(note that between my comment and yours, I had edited that sentence a bit, it's not worded as strongly now - this is because I don't doubt much that IQ was scientifically researched, so saying IQ is pseudoscience may indeed a bit far-fetched, but I still think the whole notion is quite broken)
The fact that those articles got it wrong from the basic definitions should indicate there is a problem with the interpretation. If you look at the actual first study link, for example, it doesn't debunk IQ but highlights logistical problems of pen & paper testing and sample size. What they then do is present an alternative measurement based on brain scans. They also do this intentionally to avoid controversial questions of heritability, race and gender that people associate with IQ measurement, as laid out by their introduction.
Yes:
You are moving the goalposts.
Earlier you said:
> It's not making an argument, it's describing. And describing is not taking action.
The example I provided shows how describing alone is enough to be accused of being an eugenicist. Rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter.
I'm not willing to engage further, our last argument two weeks ago [1] didn't end well and history seems to repeat itself. This won't lead to an interesting discussion.
edit: like last time, you could have stated your point instead of asking a loaded question and make me do your homework.
The Bell Curve is a singularly poor example of a scientific description of the status quo attracting unfair attacks.
