This isn't a debate. What you're doing is called "sealioning" in online discourse, but you probably already know that. Not that this matters, as I have not "personally attacked" you nor even insinuated you are wrong.
I have pointed out that you are a race realist. That is not a personal attack, that is an allegation of a belief. I'm inferring that from your own comment history about race and IQ, e.g. your statement that "IQ is mostly genetic"[0][1], which you brought up twice in different conversations in your otherwise very short comment history. If "IQ is mostly genetic" and (to paraphrase one of your comments) "favoring high IQ means favoring Asians" that means in your view there is such a thing as a genetic "Asian race" that connotates inherently higher IQ than other "races" purely on a genetic level. That is a race realist claim by any other name.
If you think race realism is correct, why do you object being labelled a race realist? Calling you a race realist was the only claim I made, with no further moral judgement of that category beyond that it's apparently acceptable on HN although I find it unacceptable.
To humor you, as you insist on arguing race realism itself rather than whether you're a race realist (which certainly makes me wonder why you don't want to be labelled as such if you agree with it):
> So you mean Asian as a race does not exists?
That's a strawman. Race realism doesn't just claim that races exist the same way sex realism doesn't just claim sex exists. Race, sex, species, etc are categories we have defined in order to describe and reason about the world around us. They exist the same way other categories exist, i.e. they have definitions (although often ultimately self-referential ones as they are based on abstractions derived from observations of groups of individuals rather than a single reference specimen as with historical definitions for units of weight and such).
What race realism claims is that race is a meaningful category in biology to the degree that it effectively creates sub-categories of humans that are persistent enough to have explanatory function. For example, the claim that IQ is genetic and that different races have different genetic limitations for their maximum IQ is a race realist claim.
Of course this completely ignores that races were not defined based on genetics but on superficial similarities (dark skin, "almond eyes", etc), which is why the actual categories are somewhat in flux depending on which race realist you talk to (not to mention mysticists and occultists like proponents of the Hibernian theory or the Thule Society). Actual biologists nowadays use clines instead of races the same way species taxonomies don't map to Biblical "kinds".
Incidentally, IQ is a hilariously flawed mechanism for demonstrating this as it has been demonstrated to be extremely susceptible to nurture over nature, i.e. you can literally train to have a higher IQ score (without becoming "more intelligent" in any significant way). Additionally, psychological research has shown that test takers who expect to score lower will unconsciously self-sabotage. Of course you'll probably have some Emil Kirkegaard red pill dump at your fingertips to counter this with "facts and logic".
Another problem with race realist claims about IQ is that they conflate heritability in the general sense and genetic heritability. A child born into poverty will likely perform worse socioeconomically than a child born into wealth, but this isn't through a "poverty gene" but the environmental circumstances, including basic things like bad nutrition and lead poisoning but research has shown that even parental stress prior to birth can alter the genetic material that will be passed on to the children, in addition to the effects maternal stress (and other environmental factors affecting the pregnant person) can have on embryonic development.
Knock yourself out, I'm not going to read through your replies. You're a single-issue account derailing every thread you participate in into race realist talking points, which means you're probably a sock puppet of someone too chicken to admit to their beliefs. I wonder why that is. No, wait, I don't.
"Incidentally, IQ is a hilariously flawed mechanism for demonstrating this as it has been demonstrated to be extremely susceptible to nurture over nature"
Nurture has its effects too but still is WAY lower than genetics.
It seems you always avoid to refute science and goes tangent in personal attacks.
I must refer to a study using Twins that were adopted in different families followed by 30 years. [1]
results:
"
Proportion of variance in IQ attributable to environmentally mediated effects of parental IQs was estimated at .01 [95% CI 0.00, 0.02]
•
Heritability was estimated to be 0.42 [95% CI 0.21, 0.64]
•
Parent-offspring correlations for educational attainment polygenic scores show no evidence of adoption placement effect"*
I am really enjoying discussing with you. Thank you
I have pointed out that you are a race realist. That is not a personal attack, that is an allegation of a belief. I'm inferring that from your own comment history about race and IQ, e.g. your statement that "IQ is mostly genetic"[0][1], which you brought up twice in different conversations in your otherwise very short comment history. If "IQ is mostly genetic" and (to paraphrase one of your comments) "favoring high IQ means favoring Asians" that means in your view there is such a thing as a genetic "Asian race" that connotates inherently higher IQ than other "races" purely on a genetic level. That is a race realist claim by any other name.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31671804
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31251492