I did not call you a bigot. I never made any assumptions or aspersions as to your personal beliefs.
I am pointing that, despite your claim that your viewpoint is rooted in science, you have no scientific basis for your belief beyond your own synthesis of facts which you consider "ubiquitous, overwhelming, and unambiguous".
You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature. If you want to claim that the reason it is unsupported is because of a vast cultural conspiracy against the type of research which would prove your point, you're free to do so.
>You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature
I have repeatedly explained to you that the belief is indeed supported by a wealth of indirect scientific literature.
>You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature. If you want to claim that the reason it is unsupported is because of a vast cultural conspiracy against the type of research which would prove your point, you're free to do so.
Calling it a conspiracy theory is a dishonest deflection. It is not a conspiracy, it is a deeply rooted institutional bias. But I can play this game too: can you show me research which rigorously proves that genes and culture have negligible influence on social outcomes? Surely if this is such settled science, it will be easy to justify, right?
Except I bet you won't find any papers examining the genetic and/or cultural influences on professional success in various industries. It's like selective reporting, lying through omission with selective research instead.
But you will easily find a wealth of unfalsifiable and irreproducible grievance studies papers which completely sidestep genes and culture while dredging for their predetermined conclusions regarding the existence of discrimination. And because the socioeconomic factors of genes and culture are a forbidden topic, you end up with the preposterous implication that all discrepancies in representation must be the result of discrimination, as in the post that spawned this thread.
I am pointing that, despite your claim that your viewpoint is rooted in science, you have no scientific basis for your belief beyond your own synthesis of facts which you consider "ubiquitous, overwhelming, and unambiguous".
You have a belief unsupported by scientific literature. If you want to claim that the reason it is unsupported is because of a vast cultural conspiracy against the type of research which would prove your point, you're free to do so.