Emil O W Kirkegaard

I agree exactly with that sentiment. Turkheimer is the same way. It's the way of ideologues in science. Read Turkheimer's old paper about his views. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7727 

Some behavior geneticists are deeply discomfited by genetic influence on human behavioral differences. It's strange. It's like if someone who's afraid of blood became a surgeon.

It’s ok when it’s individuals, but when protected groups are involved, then the sacred value trumps the science.

But there's such a short distance from individual differences to many group differences. If you accept genetic influence on socially valued traits, how can you deny what it implies about the causes of social stratification? Yet this implication is a bridge too far for some.

Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t headed for a society (Brave New World esque) in which certain science is conducted and discussed only within a certain social strata... perhaps benevolently as a means to protect against public misuse and misunderstanding.

This is their vision. Anything that might suggest nonleft politics is Bad and we need to suppress it so the public isn't 'misled'.

Well, I mean there *is* a pretty non-trivial possibility of misuse and misunderstanding by the general public. In my mind that doesn't ever justify hindering science, but I could imagine it justifying the shut down of public discussion (say under a more totalitarian gov't).

Funny how now they're on the defensive mod always trying to find tiny flaws on such studies, for me this probably mean that the conclusion of this debate could be way sooner than we think

What paper/article/website is this graph from?

Is this 'wow just wow'ing or am I missing something?

Critics been complaining for decades there is no such relationship based on a few tiny or faulty studies, so, yeah perhaps, depending on your POV. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7641