Race realism still persists to such a considerable degree in modern academia to the point that psychologists (who are really just ideologues masquerading as intellectuals) are literally advocating on behalf of the American Psychological Association for the monopolization of science and geneticism so that people within these scientific fields are unable to independently or collectively research nor publish any information regarding race realism, because they unironically believe that there is a mafia-type intelligence network of neonazis who are hijacking science LOL. (
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3903β¦)(
link.springer.com/article/10β¦)
The other "data points" in question are either appealing to the obfuscation of things like heterozygosity or Fixation Index (FST) in order to substantiate this fallacious interpretation of human genomic variation so that they can convince others that a 0.5% variation within the human species is negligible, which the modern public is often simply compelled to accept because the average person does not have an adequate understanding of genetics.
Its either this or the blatantly LIE about human genetic variation, such is the case of the American Association of Biological Anthropologists, where they say that the variation is 5x less than it actually is in order to compliment their subsequent sentimentalist and vaguely political statement about how the study of races is le heckin mean and bigoted because it freaking leads to systematic racism o algo asi (even though political connotations are irrelevant when it comes to empirical studies.) (
bioanth.org/about/aaba-stateβ¦)
So while race denialist pseudo scientists have to use Straussian hermeneutics to read their own ideology into empirical studies or even outright lie about genetics to appeal to their political consensus, there are actual researchers (ex: John G.R. Fuerst, Emil Kirkegaard, Nathan Cofnas, Curtis S. Dunkel, Lee Ellis, , Michael A. Woodley, among others) who conduct their studies independently of appealing to a political agenda while vindicating prior consensus's on the hereditarian hypothesis for things such as intelligence and national prosperity along with its sociological effects.
I think the race realist camp has more than enough of a reason to believe that the race denialist camp has less of an empirical basis and more of an emotionally political one.
i cannot tell you how many arguments i've had about race where the other side's perspective essentially boiled down to
"no, no, you need these racialist approved sources, you can't consider any other data points because the jews made it all up because i said so, and you need me to tell you how to interpret the data and what evidence you can and can't consider."