Does the term "Controlling for SES" mean anything in the real world?

[CableandThanos]

I always hear when it comes to any sort of testing or discrepancy in testing results, people say---- "When you control for Socioeconomic status" magically everyone is always equal on everything in the world. I say that sarcastically because it seems every time test scores, IQ, etc come up and minorities test lower, you have people say well everything is basically level if you control for SES.

Does controlling for SES mean that if poor people were to grow up in middleclass homes and have the benefits of middleclass upbringing, that test scores, IQ, etc would be more equal?

If it does mean that, then that seems ok if I wanted to write a book or something but it seems to have very little meaning in the real world. The fact is poor people don't get the same upbringing as middleclass people so they and we all have to suffer/deal with the lower scores, IQ, etc.

It's almost like people try and say---well if every one was magically on equal footing, then we would all be basically equal in intellect, etc. But the real world is not a magically equal place.

Is it just an excuse or a reason besides genes (genetics, or saying one group is dumber than the other) to say why poor people score lower and have lower IQ's?

Are they basically saying that poor people/blacks/whites/minorities/women/whoever are stupid because they are poor, not because they are genetically inferior?

Please let's keep the conversation on the up and up. I am looking for scientific answers to the SES question.

 

[panamaican]

I always hear when it comes to any sort of testing or discrepancy in testing results, people say---- "When you control for Socioeconomic status" magically everyone is always equal on everything in the world. I say that sarcastically because it seems every time test scores, IQ, etc come up and minorities test lower, you have people say well everything is basically level if you control for SES.

Does controlling for SES mean that if poor people were to grow up in middleclass homes and have the benefits of middleclass upbringing, that test scores, IQ, etc would be more equal?

If it does mean that, then that seems ok if I wanted to write a book or something but it seems to have very little meaning in the real world. The fact is poor people don't get the same upbringing as middleclass people so they and we all have to suffer/deal with the lower scores, IQ, etc.

It's almost like people try and say---well if every one was magically on equal footing, then we would all be basically equal in intellect, etc. But the real world is not a magically equal place.

Is it just an excuse or a reason besides genes (genetics, or saying one group is dumber than the other) to say why poor people score lower and have lower IQ's?

Are they basically saying that poor people/blacks/whites/minorities/women/whoever are stupid because they are poor, not because they are genetically inferior?

Please let's keep the conversation on the up and up. I am looking for scientific answers to the SES question.

To keep it as simple as we can:

The outcomes of most things are a balance of genetics and environment. If your goal is to fix a social issue or design policy then you have to know to what extent environment impacts an outcome and to what extent it's genetics.

You can't impact genetics but you can impact environment. So, if you study something and see wide discrepancies you might want to fix them. But are they fixable? Are they genetics or are they environment. Controlling for SES tells you how much the environment impacts the outcome.

If you control for SES and the discrepancies disappear then you know that you can alter outcomes through policy that addresses SES. If you control for SES and the discrepancies remain then you know that policy can't really change those outcomes.

You're more likely to hear about examples where controlling for SES removes discrepancies because those are the examples where something can be done. But there are plenty of things where controlling for SES doesn't change a thing. No one talks about them because there's nothing that can be done about them.

 

[CableandThanos]

To keep it as simple as we can:

The outcomes of most things are a balance of genetics and environment. If your goal is to fix a social issue or design policy then you have to know to what extent environment impacts an outcome and to what extent it's genetics.

You can't impact genetics but you can impact environment. So, if you study something and see wide discrepancies you might want to fix them. But are they fixable? Are they genetics or are they environment. Controlling for SES tells you how much the environment impacts the outcome.

If you control for SES and the discrepancies disappear then you know that you can alter outcomes through policy that addresses SES. If you control for SES and the discrepancies remain then you know that policy can't really change those outcomes.

You're more likely to hear about examples where controlling for SES removes discrepancies because those are the examples where something can be done. But there are plenty of things where controlling for SES doesn't change a thing. No one talks about them because there's nothing that can be done about them.

Pan

Thanks man for responding

I always enjoy your responses (even if I think you go soft on some social issues) they are always well thought out and logical. You rarely troll (sometimes I think you do it to certain people just a little, LOL) and can usually see things from both sides. I have actually been swayed by your responses and changed my responses/beliefs on a couple of occasions. Also you put up with a lot JVS garbage:icon_chee

I understand the change part but it just seems like it is a way of saying, if everything was wonderful, then we all would be equal in every aspect of life.

Again, it is cool that if everyone were middleclass, people would be smarter, but in the real world we have to deal with their non smartness ( I didn't want to say stupidity) and the consequences.

Seems like it is saying, well If we controlled for good looks, then I could pull a supermodel!!! Yea but we/ I/society can't control for good looks, so we have to suffer the results, which is me not being able to bang supermodels!!!!!

 

[alexdlrg]

I always hear when it comes to any sort of testing or discrepancy in testing results, people say---- "When you control for Socioeconomic status" magically everyone is always equal on everything in the world. I say that sarcastically because it seems every time test scores, IQ, etc come up and minorities test lower, you have people say well everything is basically level if you control for SES.

It sounds like you're confusing group and individual differences. Controlling for SES wont make individuals equal, but it may increase the agreement between groups of individuals regarding statistical parameters such as mean (average) and variance.

Height is a nice example, because no one argues that height doesn't exist or that rulers are biased. If 2 groups have genetics that should result in equal average heights between the groups, but one group is more likely to grow up malnourished, then that group will likely have a lower average height. (If you don't understand the difference between a genotype and a phenotype, now is a good time to look that up.) You will still have people who are tall and short in each group. Feeding everyone the same wont make us all equally tall, but the difference in nourishment between the groups can lead to a difference in observed height.

Does controlling for SES mean that if poor people were to grow up in middleclass homes and have the benefits of middleclass upbringing, that test scores, IQ, etc would be more equal?

For the purposes of a layman's internet discussion, yes. From a strictly mathematical standpoint, no.

If it does mean that, then that seems ok if I wanted to write a book or something but it seems to have very little meaning in the real world. The fact is poor people don't get the same upbringing as middleclass people so they and we all have to suffer/deal with the lower scores, IQ, etc.

I think it has important real-world implications for how people perceive each other, how people treat each other.

It's almost like people try and say---well if every one was magically on equal footing, then we would all be basically equal in intellect, etc. But the real world is not a magically equal place.

I don't think that's a correct characterization for what people mean when they discuss group differences. I don't think anyone argues that every single human is born with identical genetic potential for every task you can imagine. What people argue about is the extent to which observed group differences are rooted in nature, or nurture.

Is it just an excuse or a reason besides genes (genetics, or saying one group is dumber than the other) to say why poor people score lower and have lower IQ's?

That's basically a huge part of the debate about group performance differences: Nature vs Nurture.

Are they basically saying that poor people/blacks/whites/minorities/women/whoever are stupid because they are poor, not because they are genetically inferior?

Remember that there are lots of smart people of every color and both sexes. Individual variations, not statistical group differences, are largely responsible for whether someone you meet is smart, or tall, or funny, etc.

Having said that, individual variation does not in any way disprove group differences. There are tall Asians, and there are short Nordic people, but that doesn't mean Asians are on average as tall as Nordics.

Hypothetically, let's say it is shown that Asians are more likely to grow up malnourished. It seems that some people would take that fact and use it to explain the entire difference in height between Asians and Nordics. However, a more reasonable person wants to know to what extent nourishment plays a role. Perhaps Asians as a group would be taller than Nordics given appropriate diets; or maybe they would still be shorter. When statisticians and study authors control for nutrition, they are trying answer that question.

There does appear to be a popular faith-driven belief that under proper controls most statistical group differences disappear. The fact is that some important ones don't, but it's also true that individual variation is large compared to group differences.

 

[CableandThanos]

It sounds like you're confusing group and individual differences. Controlling for SES wont make individuals equal, but it may increase the agreement between groups of individuals regarding statistical parameters such as mean (average) and variance.

Height is a nice example, because no one argues that height doesn't exist or that rulers are biased. If 2 groups have genetics that should result in equal average heights between the groups, but one group is more likely to grow up malnourished, then that group will likely have a lower average height. (If you don't understand the difference between a genotype and a phenotype, now is a good time to look that up.) You will still have people who are tall and short in each group. Feeding everyone the same wont make us all equally tall, but the difference in nourishment between the groups can lead to a difference in observed height.



For the purposes of a layman's internet discussion, yes. From a strictly mathematical standpoint, no.




I think it has important real-world implications for how people perceive each other, how people treat each other.




I don't think that's a correct characterization for what people mean when they discuss group differences. I don't think anyone argues that every single human is born with identical genetic potential for every task you can imagine. What people argue about is the extent to which observed group differences are rooted in nature, or nurture.



That's basically a huge part of the debate about group performance differences: Nature vs Nurture.



Remember that there are lots of smart people of every color and both sexes. Individual variations, not statistical group differences, are largely responsible for whether someone you meet is smart, or tall, or funny, etc.

Having said that, individual variation does not in any way disprove group differences. There are tall Asians, and there are short Nordic people, but that doesn't mean Asians are on average as tall as Nordics.

Hypothetically, let's say it is shown that Asians are more likely to grow up malnourished. It seems that some people would take that fact and use it to explain the entire difference in height between Asians and Nordics. However, a more reasonable person wants to know to what extent nourishment plays a role. Perhaps Asians as a group would be taller than Nordics given appropriate diets; or maybe they would still be shorter. When statisticians and study authors control for nutrition, they are trying answer that question.

There does appear to be a popular faith-driven belief that under proper controls most statistical group differences disappear. The fact is that they don't, but it's also true that individual variation is large compared to group differences.

I saw you say in that larry bird thread that when controlling for SES test scores do not equal out amongst the races. Well then what are some of the other area that cause the difference? Is nutrition considered part of SES? Can it be proven that a certain group/race may have a higher average IQ due in small or large part due to genetics. I know it would not be politically correct to say or admit that.

I feel like if anything ever came out as proof that Asians were smarter than everyone else, that it would be hidden because of the social effects. Just like if it ever came out that whites were smarter than blacks (genetically) people would use it to discriminate even more than they do.

 

[panamaican]

Pan

Thanks man for responding

I always enjoy your responses (even if I think you go soft on some social issues) they are always well thought out and logical. You rarely troll (sometimes I think you do it to certain people just a little, LOL) and can usually see things from both sides. I have actually been swayed by your responses and changed my responses/beliefs on a couple of occasions. Also you put up with a lot JVS garbage:icon_chee

I understand the change part but it just seems like it is a way of saying, if everything was wonderful, then we all would be equal in every aspect of life.

Again, it is cool that if everyone were middleclass, people would be smarter, but in the real world we have to deal with their non smartness ( I didn't want to say stupidity) and the consequences.

Seems like it is saying, well If we controlled for good looks, then I could pull a supermodel!!! Yea but we/ I/society can't control for good looks, so we have to suffer the results, which is me not being able to bang supermodels!!!!!

I go harder on most social issues than you'd believe. The thing is that my opinions on social matters as a group are consistent regardless of the individual issue. That means that sometimes my outcomes seem lenient and sometimes they seem harsh.

No one is saying that "if everything is wonderful then we would all be equal".

Let me use a teaching example: I've hired multiple people in the past for a variety of administrative tasks. They come from differing walks of life. Some are better than others but I still train all of them to my specific needs. But because I train them, I have to assess their ultimate upside.

So my question for every potential employee is this: "Are they capable of learning what I need them to learn?" That's balanced by the "Will they take the money I'm willing to pay?" So when I see a resume that shows community college or high school vs. a 4 year institution, I can't assume that the person at the community college is less intelligent than that 4 year person just because of the colleges. SES plays a role in whether or not people go to college and what type of college they go to.

So, controlling for SES matters to me because if I can get an equally smart person who hasn't accomplished as much because they came from lesser beginnings, that's a bargain compared to the person with the 4 year degree who will expect more money because of the degree. That's because I intend to train them myself and thus I can ignore the on-paper differences since they include things that don't matter such as whether or not this person was exposed to the right classes in high school or had access to the right SAT prep. Things that don't matter in this new environment.

So, if we were all good looking we'd bang supermodels isn't really true either. Once you account for good looks, what else are super models attracted to? You might find that good looks really don't matter very much to banging super models and that being rich does. Or to flip the angle, once you account for wealth what does it take to land a super model? And does it outweigh wealth?

The whole SES thing is an analysis tool. Nothing more than a way to measure that actual causation of specific outcomes. Ignore how people use it to further their agendas and use it appropriately.

Since we're going back to smart vs. stupid. You have to start with how you're measuring that. Once you decide on how you're measuring it (IQ tests, academic accomplishments, accumulated wealth) you have to know the extent to which SES dictates that outcome. Otherwise, you run the risk of making decisions that don't accomplish your goals.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I saw you say in that larry bird thread that when controlling for SES test scores do not equal out amongst the races. Well then what are some of the other area that cause the difference? Is nutrition considered part of SES? Can it be proven that a certain group/race may have a higher average IQ due in small or large part due to genetics. I know it would not be politically correct to say or admit that.

I feel like if anything ever came out as proof that Asians were smarter than everyone else, that it would be hidden because of the social effects. Just like if it ever came out that whites were smarter than blacks (genetically) people would use it to discriminate even more than they do.

There have been several studies suggesting exactly this, but they tend to get attacked so vociferously that most scientists won't study the issue much less publish on it. It's a career killer, unless you're someone like Charles Murray who is already so despised by academia that you're basically not risking anything (ironically, only people like Murray can afford to do studies on genetic differences in intelligence because he has nothing to lose since he's already so hated).

It's a tough one, because between group differences don't tell you anything about an individual but have certainly been used (mostly in the early 1900s before eugenics was a dirty word) to try and make policy affecting 'racial' groups broadly. I put 'racial' in quotes because race is a pretty hard thing to pin down from a scientific perspective, and arguably doesn't exist as it's imagined in society in general. But you can isolate groups with genetic differences, and you can test IQ for those groups, you can demonstrate differences, and you can demonstrate that IQ correlates pretty highly with success in life. If you do all those things however, you will be vilified by the academy because racially based classification of individuals obviously has a sordid history that no one would want to resurrect. But that doesn't mean that differences between groups don't exist, I personally think there's sufficient evidence to indicate that they do. But do you want to use those differences to create some sort of race based policy? That's not a road I want to go down.

 

[alexdlrg]

I saw you say in that larry bird thread that when controlling for SES test scores do not equal out amongst the races. Well then what are some of the other area that cause the difference? Is nutrition considered part of SES? Can it be proven that a certain group/race may have a higher average IQ due in small or large part due to genetics. I know it would not be politically correct to say or admit that.

Genetics are very complicated, and not my area of expertise. There is not one genetic model that leads to smart people, or tall people. There is research being done in China using the DNA of exceptionally intelligent people in order to determine links between genes and intelligence, but some are skeptical of the effort.

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985

I feel like if anything ever came out as proof that Asians were smarter than everyone else, that it would be hidden because of the social effects. Just like if it ever came out that whites were smarter than blacks (genetically) people would use it to discriminate even more than they do.

Yes, it's a complicated issue. If people appreciate the magnitude of individual variation, then they will know enough not to discriminate based on group differences. It's a point that ought to be made very clear for the general (statistically challenged) population. Instead, it seems that many people try to use individual variation to anecdotally disprove group differences.

However, if you erroneously believe that group differences are caused entirely by environmental differences, then you will likely fall into the trap of using observed group statistics as a measure of the fairness of the environment. It's very appealing, as measuring the fairness of the environment is very easy that way, and very difficult otherwise. The policy implications of that approach are rather troubling.

 

[panamaican]

Genetics are very complicated, and not my area of expertise. There is not one genetic model that leads to smart people, or tall people. There is research being done in China using the DNA of exceptionally intelligent people in order to determine
links between genes and intelligence, but some are skeptical of the effort.

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985




Yes, it's a complicated issue. If people appreciate the magnitude of individual variation, then they will know enough not to discriminate based on group differences. It's a point that ought to be made very clear for the general (statistically challenged) population. Instead, it seems that many people try to use individual variation to anecdotally disprove group differences.

However, if you erroneously believe that group differences are caused entirely by environmental differences, then you will likely fall into the trap of using observed group statistics as a measure of the fairness of the environment. It's very appealing, as measuring the fairness of the environment is very easy that way, and very difficult otherwise. The policy implications of that approach are rather troubling.

These are good points.

Especially explaining the differences between group variation and individual variation within the group. As well as the faulty desire to imply that all differences are nurture based.

At the end of the day, SES status is a useful tool up to the point that people try to extend it's validity into areas it doesn't belong like broad, group genetic based outcomes. But as you and uchi have both noted, people have a tendency to want to simplify everything into the broadest classifications to advance their individualized policy goals.

 

[weed]

 

[alexdlrg]

So, controlling for SES matters to me because if I can get an equally smart person who hasn't accomplished as much because they came from lesser beginnings, that's a bargain compared to the person with the 4 year degree who will expect more money because of the degree.

That's a very good point. Similarly, if it's true that women make 70% of what men do for the exact same work, you'd have to be crazy to pay 43% more than you have to by hiring a man. If I was CEO of a company and I believed that stat, I'd have to ask every hiring manager for detailed explanations every time they hired a man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There does appear to be a popular faith-driven belief that under proper controls most statistical group differences disappear. The fact is that some important ones don't, but it's also true that individual variation is large compared to group differences.

To quote an author we both like (though you don't get him):

The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.

There's a not-as-popular-as-you-think (racism is still very common) belief that "race" is not a biologically useful category for these purposes (and when you say "groups," we all know that's what you mean--surely no one would argue against the idea of familial differences or other more-legitimate groupings), and thus that controlling for socio-economic effects racial differences are no more to be expected than differences based on astrological signs. After all, the NBA isn't dominated by pygmies--or Kenyans (though if Nowitzki has sons with his Kenyan wife, who knows?).

 

[Uchi Mata]

There's a not-as-popular-as-you-think (racism is still very common) belief that "race" is not a biologically useful category for these purposes (and when you say "groups," we all know that's what you mean--surely no one would argue against the idea of familial differences or other more-legitimate groupings), and thus that controlling for socio-economic effects racial differences are no more to be expected than differences based on astrological signs. After all, the NBA isn't dominated by pygmies--or Kenyans (though if Nowitzki has sons with his Kenyan wife, who knows?).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that race is not real or that there are no significant genetic differences between groups, or that there are?

AFAIK nobody pretends that it's just upbringing that leads all Olympic sprinting champions to come (genetically) from a small area of west Africa, or that leads Greeks/Iranians/other middle easterners to dominate in Olympic weightlifting. If there's wide agreement that physical difference to exist between groups with differing genetic makeups, it seems pretty silly to say that there cannot be any differences in mental acuity (which is just a function of brain physiology aftern all) between groups as well. You're essentially saying that differences in physical ability differ between groups based upon population genetics except when it comes to the physical makeup of the brain (which largely drives raw IQ). It just seems absurd to me to not admit at least the possibility.

Frankly, when you see scientists insisting that something can't be true when very close analogues are widely accepted and scientifically verified to be true, that's when you look for non-scientific reasons for the denial.

 

[OldGoat]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that race is not real or that there are no significant genetic differences between groups, or that there are?

AFAIK nobody pretends that it's just upbringing that leads all Olympic sprinting champions to come (genetically) from a small area of west Africa, or that leads Greeks/Iranians/other middle easterners to dominate in Olympic weightlifting. If there's wide agreement that physical difference to exist between groups with differing genetic makeups, it seems pretty silly to say that there cannot be any differences in mental acuity (which is just a function of brain physiology aftern all) between groups as well. You're essentially saying that differences in physical ability differ between groups based upon population genetics except when it comes to the physical makeup of the brain (which largely drives raw IQ). It just seems absurd to me to not admit at least the possibility.

Frankly, when you see scientists insisting that something can't be true when very close analogues are widely accepted and scientifically verified to be true, that's when you look for non-scientific reasons for the denial.

I think Jack is trying to say that what people consider to be black or white on a cultural level is not an accurate way to group people for genetic considerations and it's better to look at more discrete sub-groups such as a particular tribe or extended family that actually share more DNA and not just skin color. Hell what we commonly consider two black guys might be further genetically than a random black and a random white guy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that race is not real or that there are no significant genetic differences between groups, or that there are?

AFAIK nobody pretends that it's just upbringing that leads all Olympic sprinting champions to come (genetically) from a small area of west Africa, or that leads Greeks/Iranians/other middle easterners to dominate in Olympic weightlifting. If there's wide agreement that physical difference to exist between groups with differing genetic makeups, it seems pretty silly to say that there cannot be any differences in mental acuity (which is just a function of brain physiology aftern all) between groups as well. You're essentially saying that differences in physical ability differ between groups based upon population genetics except when it comes to the physical makeup of the brain (which largely drives raw IQ). It just seems absurd to me to not admit at least the possibility.

Frankly, when you see scientists insisting that something can't be true when very close analogues are widely accepted and scientifically verified to be true, that's when you look for non-scientific reasons for the denial.

Swing and a miss.

I think Jack is trying to say that what people consider to be black or white on a cultural level is not an accurate way to group people for genetic considerations and it's better to look at more discrete sub-groups such as a particular tribe or extended family that actually share more DNA and not just skin color. Hell what we commonly consider two black guys might be further genetically than a random black and a random white guy.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Was it hard to understand?

There are differences between groups that are genetically similar, but "race" in the sense of black, white, Asian, isn't a meaningful classification.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I think Jack is trying to say that what people consider to be black or white on a cultural level is not an accurate way to group people for genetic considerations and it's better to look at more discrete sub-groups such as a particular tribe or extended family that actually share more DNA and not just skin color. Hell what we commonly consider two black guys might be further genetically than a random black and a random white guy.

That wasn't what I got, but it makes sense. And IIRC most of the genetic diversity in humanity actually is in Africa. I totally agree that race as it's conceptualized in popular culture isn't relevant to genetic studies, but that doesn't imply that genetic difference sufficient to study don't exist between human populations.

 

[CableandThanos]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that race is not real or that there are no significant genetic differences between groups, or that there are?

AFAIK nobody pretends that it's just upbringing that leads all Olympic sprinting champions to come (genetically) from a small area of west Africa, or that leads Greeks/Iranians/other middle easterners to dominate in Olympic weightlifting. If there's wide agreement that physical difference to exist between groups with differing genetic makeups, it seems pretty silly to say that there cannot be any differences in mental acuity (which is just a function of brain physiology aftern all) between groups as well. You're essentially saying that differences in physical ability differ between groups based upon population genetics except when it comes to the physical makeup of the brain (which largely drives raw IQ). It just seems absurd to me to not admit at least the possibility.

Frankly, when you see scientists insisting that something can't be true when very close analogues are widely accepted and scientifically verified to be true, that's when you look for non-scientific reasons for the denial.

I just think it is weird that people can admit that there are physical differences, height differences, hair color, eye color, bone structure, body type, etc, etc ( I know I am mixing pheno and geno types in my examples)

but all of a sudden when it comes to intelligence, there is no possible way that there can be any genetic difference in anyone. We are all suppose to have the exact same intelligence capability and the exact same aptitude to learn as everyone else.

 

[CableandThanos]

I may be wrong, and forgive me if I am

But didn't most of the slaves come from a particular area of Africa? Senegal and Ivory Coast area, Ghana and Kongo. So if the majority came from this area and have stayed here since slavery ended, Wouldn't they be a close enough group to be genetically similar? Meaning shouldn't most of the blacks that have stayed here and procreated with other slave descendants still be close enough to be genetically similar?

Or does the issue come up that African countries would take over or enslave people from other African countries and sell them off as slaves so you end up with a hodge-podge of people?

Thanks for all the help from people who know more about genetics than I do.

 

[OldGoat]

I just think it is weird that people can admit that there are physical differences, height differences, hair color, eye color, bone structure, body type, etc, etc ( I know I am mixing pheno and geno types in my examples)

but all of a sudden when it comes to intelligence, there is no possible way that there can be any genetic difference in anyone. We are all suppose to have the exact same intelligence capability and the exact same aptitude to learn as everyone else.

That concept has led to and would lead to justifying genocide, inhumane medical experiments, and slavery. Based upon a very crude aggregation of people into ad-hoc groups. Even if you could precisely and accurately measure this for groups of people at the proper level of group size what net positive do you gain? You'd end up empowering demagogues.

What makes us humans relatively unique in the animal world is our intelligence. Using the concept that a certain group is genetically less intelligent leads to others dehumanizing them. Nothing good comes from that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That concept has led to and would lead to justifying genocide, inhumane medical experiments, and slavery. Based upon a very crude aggregation of people into ad-hoc groups. Even if you could precisely and accurately measure this for groups of people at the proper level of group size what net positive do you gain? You'd end up empowering demagogues.

What makes us humans relatively unique in the animal world is our intelligence. Using the concept that a certain group is genetically less intelligent leads to others dehumanizing them. Nothing good comes from that.

If something's true, I don't think you gain anything by suppressing it. But what's going on here is that dim-witted right-wingers incorrectly think that something is true and that it's being suppressed because they don't understand the actual arguments. I think you--surprisingly--actually do get the main argument.

Another point--an addition to the main one that you explained--to make is that "intelligence" is very complex, while hair color is not.