My bias is that it is better to live by truth, particularly in public discussions (more important there than in private matters).
A goy says: I was realizing that I do have a significant hang-up about the race & IQ research… I have like a moral weakness that makes me afraid of the research. So like many in the humanities & social sciences, I *want* to deny it, because I see so clearly the way it undermines the American “all men created equal” myth, etc. — okay, so I admit that. I concede that Cofnas (and Richard Lynn & Gottfredson & Co.) is probably correct, or at least significantly correct…
But! — before I go over to your side, can I at least ask the question whether we need to always and only make science and even “reality” our basis for policy? In other words, is it possible that some degree of Romanticism might actually make us all better? Example: marriage asks both men and women to compromise certain parts of their natures, of their realities, for the synergistic greater good of the whole. So we maintain our romantic myths about love and marriage. We write novels & screenplays about love, and we often let them end at the wedding. Because generally that’s more harmless than pronouncing the PUA/redpill stuff on every street-corner, maybe.
So, similarly, is it maybe better for both groups — Jews & gentiles alike — to leave certain truths unstated, and settle instead for mythic platitudes? “All men are created equal” is maybe the compromise we are now seeking. The solution to the JQ. Equality & Fraternity. The noble lie. Are you sure there’s no room for this? Do we really have to drag out the IQ research? It seems like it could backfire… I wonder how sacred meritocracy is to these whites who can’t keep up with their Ashkenazi overlords.