"Race" as in "the color of the skin allows statistically significant predictions about physical and mental aptitude"? No, that's a stupid categorization, because it's far too wide and imprecise.
However, I do believe there are (small) genetic differences between subpopulations from different geographic origins. For example, it's hard to deny that Kenyans have an unmatched edge in long distance running, one which can't be explained using non-genetic factors.
Yeah there are small genetic differences between ethnicities. Things like height, bone density, certain conditions like sickle cell anemia etc.
However, that's a different claim altogether from the idea that white and black people (again, an imaginary category) have a statistically significant difference in average intellectual capacity.
>However, that's a different claim altogether from the idea that white and black people (again, an imaginary category) have a statistically significant difference in average intellectual capacity.
1. what counts as "statistically significant difference"? A 0.01% increase can be statistically significant if your sample size is high enough.
2. Going back to a few comments ago, why do you think that differences can materialize between ethnicities, but the differences stop at the brain?
"Race" as in "the color of the skin allows statistically significant predictions about physical and mental aptitude"? No, that's a stupid categorization, because it's far too wide and imprecise.
However, I do believe there are (small) genetic differences between subpopulations from different geographic origins. For example, it's hard to deny that Kenyans have an unmatched edge in long distance running, one which can't be explained using non-genetic factors.
reply