Race realism debunked: why the idea has no scientific basis

Nathan Cofnas has become a polarizing figure in debates about race, IQ and public policy. Once praised for dismantling overtly racist evolutionary claims, he now advances hereditarian arguments that many scholars and observers find deeply flawed and dangerous. The shift has not only stirred controversy in academic circles but also exposed how media platforms can fail to scrutinize sweeping claims that rest on shaky evidence.

That failure matters because Cofnas’s arguments are not just abstract academic exercises: they influence public conversations about education, diversity initiatives and social equality. Parsing the evidence — and the gaps in his reasoning — is essential if we are to prevent biased or incomplete science from shaping policy and popular opinion.

Who Nathan Cofnas is and how his reputation evolved

Cofnas is a postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University with a background that includes a fellowship at Cambridge. He first drew attention by criticizing Kevin MacDonald’s antisemitic evolutionary theories, construing them as methodologically unsound and prone to cherry-picked data. That early work positioned him as a skeptic of crude biological determinism — until he developed his own hereditarian account of group differences.

Rather than abandoning hereditarian frameworks entirely, Cofnas pivoted. He argued for a hereditary component to average IQ differences among populations and later extended this reasoning to make claims about black achievement and public life. That turn — from debunking one form of race science to promoting another — has left many observers asking whether his conclusions are driven more by ideology than by robust evidence.

Key claims and the logic behind Cofnas’s hereditarianism

At the core of Cofnas’s public case are a few interlocking assertions:

• IQ is substantially heritable and thus differences between groups are at least partly genetic.
• When meritocratic selection is strict, underrepresented groups will decline in elite institutions unless assisted by policies like affirmative action or DEI.
• Therefore, society should prepare for or accept the consequences of natural cognitive differences between races.

He has cited genetic explanations and selective admissions modeling — for example, a projection about black enrollment at a single elite university — to support broader claims about who will occupy high-profile roles in a meritocratic system. But moving from a narrow model to sweeping social predictions requires careful statistical grounds that are often absent.

Where the evidence breaks down: statistics, tests and misapplied studies

Several methodological and conceptual problems make Cofnas’s generalizations unreliable:

• Over-extrapolation: Drawing national or continental conclusions from a single institution’s admissions model ignores demographic breadth and context.
• Confounding environmental factors: IQ scores reflect both biology and environment. Improvements in nutrition, schooling and public health have driven large generational gains in measured IQ — the Flynn effect — which cannot be explained by genetics alone.
• Within-family variation: Effects such as birth order, where firstborns routinely score higher than later-born siblings, show that the same parents can produce measurable cognitive differences in their offspring — undermining simple genetic determinism.
• Measurement limits: Standardized tests are culturally situated measures of certain cognitive skills, not pure, context-free gauges of innate intelligence.

Put simply, inferring a permanent, biologically based racial IQ gap would require controlling for a near-impossible range of cultural, socioeconomic and educational variables. Absent that, claims of inherent group inferiority are at best premature and at worst scientifically irresponsible.

Real-world evidence that complicates hereditarian conclusions

If hereditarian claims were straightforwardly true, we would expect consistent group-level patterns across time and place that are robust to social change. The historical and contemporary record tells a different story.

• Many disadvantaged or marginalized groups can and do achieve high educational and professional outcomes when resources, expectations and institutions support them.
• Examples include underfunded but high-performing black schools under segregation, and modern state schools that outperform local averages while enrolling disproportionate numbers of black or minority students.
• Disparities commonly invoked as evidence for biological differences — lower test scores or higher crime rates — also appear in white working-class populations in post-industrial regions, showing the same social forces can produce similar outcomes across different ethnic groups.

These patterns highlight how environment, opportunity and policy interact with individual abilities. Attributing broad social disparities to fixed biology alone ignores the powerful role of inequality and institutional choices.

How the media and public platforms handled Cofnas’s views

Across interviews and commentary, Cofnas’s assertions have often gone insufficiently probed. On some talk shows he was able to restate bold predictions by citing academic papers or simulations without facing sustained interrogation of their assumptions, data sources or limits.

Good journalistic practice requires not only pushing back on sensational claims but also unpacking technical caveats for general audiences. Where interviewers rely on authority — “a Harvard study says” — rather than dissecting methods, the public is left with misleading headlines rather than a clear accounting of what the research actually demonstrates.

Why this matters for policy, public debate and academic integrity

Noise around hereditarian claims has consequences:

1. It can lend veneer to racially charged stereotypes that policy and public rhetoric then normalize.
2. It encourages the selective use of statistics to support predetermined conclusions rather than testing hypotheses against a broad set of evidence.
3. It distracts attention from structural solutions — better schools, improved public health and targeted support — that have historically produced measurable gains in cognitive performance and social mobility.

Allowing flawed or unchallenged science to shape conversations about race and intelligence risks both injustice and poor policy outcomes.

Albie Amankona is a broadcaster and financial analyst who has appeared on Channel 5, BBC, ITV and Times Radio. Follow him on X: @albieamankona.

You might also like:

• Jason Arday: what we know so far
• Ofsted accused of promoting low expectations that harm disadvantaged pupils
• Top 1% IQ: 10-year-old girl invited to Mensa after dyslexia test
• Dementia risk lower with a sense of purpose, large study finds
• Why some adults never have sex: complex social, medical and psychological reasons

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.