>>14076770The social constructionists make an inappropriate argument playing off the ambiguity of multiple definitions of race.
There is a genetically identifiable race.
There is a socially identifiable race.
They heavily correlate but are not absolutely the same.
One definition encapsulates an objectively observable biological evolutionary reality.
One definition encapsulates a complex web of human sociohistorical prejudice and its consequences.
Specifically the social constructionist over-emphasizes an understanding of race from an individualist egalitarian ideology.
If we want to be morally fair in an individualist society we should not prejudice our expectations of others on the basis of race.
From a statistical perspective, even if we acknowledge a certain race is intellectually inferior "on average", they still have a reasonable capacity to produce exceptionally intelligent individuals.
The disparity in that mean between races, while observable, isn't really significant to our understanding of the measurable intellect that person likely has.
They approach a biological/genetic understanding of race backwards from that egalitarian social ideal.
We shouldn't prejudice our expectations of an individual on race.
Ideally the concept of "race" in an individualist egalitarian society would not exist.
It would ideally be as socially consequential as something like "eye color", being arbitrary descriptive information.
"Race" from a social welfare standpoint "shouldnt" exist, and because the immediate social consequence are the "manufactured" product of prejudiced social interaction, if we destroy the concept of "race", we destroy those consequences.
They can't rightly divorce these definitions so they attack mediums of scientific publishing and shame scientists into not discussing or studying it.
They can't rightly destroy "race" because it is an endlessly reproducibly objectively measurable and observable true concept.
