>>23
Dude, I don't know much about g, except that it is known to predict academic, microeconomic, and macroeconomic phenomena alike, and in turn to be predicted by biological measurements like reaction time and brain MRIs. It's simply got a much larger evidentiary base behind it hence views that simply dispel g as irrelevant are fringe in academia, to my knowledge.
I read Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" (mind you, at the request of a liberal) and he made some really, really grave errors in the factor analysis chapter and the majority of sources he aimed to disprove were literately ANCIENT. He even went as far as fucking Samuel George Morton and Pierre Paul Broca.
But genetics is limited with the human brain, because it's the most complicated single thing in the known universe.
The brain is literally the interlocking of trillions of components, and most geneticists are no name faggots with something to prove.
Oh boy, is that some Irreducible Complexity that I see? Come on. Stop with the creationist bullshit.
our understanding is still too limited to make sweeping generalizations about race and intelligence.
I don't think that it is, but no one talked about that until you came along. I just asked why liberals deny race. So do you deny race because of its implications in g differences among races, that you find unthinkable and horrible, since this is what seems to be upsetting you?