BadSocialScience is consistently unimpressive.

This 'critique' is basically a collection of outsourced quotes from negative reviews (consistently lacking in substance) and protestations that the entry-level online discussion is insufficiently sourced to peer-reviewed literature. This approach is at its most hilarious when the fact that positive reviews of '10,000 year explosion', a popular synthesis of academic work by a member of the National Academy of Sciences, are not themselves peer-reviewed. Seriously...

There are countless peer-reviewed articles and books that support various aspects of 'HBD'. There would probably be many more if certain topics were not career-endingly taboo. The meaningful features underlying the debate about whether race is real are largely known. The only remaining debate is semantic, and frankly depending on your definitions both pro and con positions are defensible... but uninteresting.

Why anyone doubts there are population differences is beyond me. At least most people now seem to accept physical differences, but once you get to that point following through to cognition and behavior should be a trivial step (natural selection acts on the brain like it does every other organ). The truth is absolutely not at the poles and actually understanding variance in different traits around the globe demands careful debate. Unfortunately, the anti-racist shelling point is stuck on the unreasonable proposition that HBD = 0. This hardline anti-HBD position only emboldens political racists. It leaves tons of low-hanging fruit for contrarians who want to feel intellectually superior to the political-correct masses. The results is a debate climate where folks either taboo differences entirely, or dive in so deep they feel like genetic population differences explain everything. Everyone loses, since the unknown territory is all about understanding the degree and subtlety of these differences.