Because the same set of research can also be cited to show that some groups of people are not merely 'worse at some things', but that some are actually lacking in intelligence to the same extent as mentally handicapped people,
How does suppressing that knowledge help anything? Knowledge can be used for good, or evil. A good example is atomic energy vs. atomic bombs.
it may easily be a factor .. of the conditions of the people living in those places.
Absolutely. All the more reason for further study.
When something causes or contributes to human suffering, I tend not to have a positive opinion on that thing.
Everything can cause harm. A truck can be used for mass-killings. Christianity can lead to brutality.
In my opinion, suppression of science has never resulted in a benefit to mankind.
I think what can be done is irrelevant. It's all about what you do with it.
Recognizing that people are different does not have to come with malice. For example, think of two friends. One is smarter than the other. Does that lessen eithers value?
One is stronger than the other also. How does that change things?
None of that stuff matters from an objective value perspective. They're both entitled to the same rights and basic human dignities. It's also not much of a factor for most when deciding who to like.
But it does matter in specific contexts. Take the athletic on hiking, and play chess with the academic one. Or the opposite, if you want to look good.
The same ideas can be applied to race. For example, if I'm going to climb Everest, selecting Sherpa climbers to help is a good plan. They usually have physical features that make them better suited for the task. It does not mean that I have to dislike them, or that they are a master race.
It seems like an intuitive concept for people when we think of others similar to us, but once you start recognizing race related differences the rules seem to change.
"My cousins side of the family tends to grow a lot taller" <- Reasonable
"Black people tend to be taller" <- Stinks of racism..
Why a difference?
My main points though are that differences should be celebrated, not viewed poorly.
And I don't think science should ever be suppressed, even if we don't like the answers.
I think we agree on a lot more than you think. I agree that the knowledge should not be suppressed, and should be more widely accepted at least by the scientific community so we can get a better understanding and maybe find a solution. I just don't think this particular piece of knowledge should be celebrated. It's an ugly fact about our world, and something we should seek to change if we can find an ethical means of doing so. I don't know what that would be, but we'll see what the future holds.
The point I'm trying to get across is that it shouldn't be seen as a good thing. Unlike giving some groups advantages, like is the case for Sherpa climbers, this is about one group having a disadvantage which may have kept them from advancing with the rest of the world, and even allowed a lot of humanitarian disasters to take place.
Because the same set of research can also be cited to show that some groups of people are not merely 'worse at some things', but that some are actually lacking in intelligence to the same extent as mentally handicapped people, and it may easily be a factor (not the entirety of the cause mind you) of the conditions of the people living in those places. When something causes or contributes to human suffering, I tend not to have a positive opinion on that thing.