[omginternets]

>I'm arguing that we should only consider evidence.

This is false, and borders on an outright lie, as evidenced by the fact that you're actively endorsing the dismissal of documented evidence on accounts of political correctness.

I invite you to re-read this entire conversation, and the absurdity of your comment will be apparent.

[jinst8gmi]

I have zero interest in "political correctness". I'm in favour of considering data at a finer granularity than you are in order to obtain a more accurate picture. Consider the example of someone who is an expert on a particular subject and happens to live in a country which on average has a poor education system. Is it better to use the generalisation about that country having a poor education system, or the more detailed case-specific facts?

[omginternets]

>I have zero interest in "political correctness".

That is truly and honestly good to hear!

>I'm in favour of considering data at a finer granularity than you are in order to obtain a more accurate picture.

I understand where you're coming from, but interactions are only interpretable after you've considered the main effects. To be sure, I'm not advocating that people not employ finer-grained measures, but in evaluating risk, you must consider overall trends (if only to discover that your specific case is an exception).

Moreover, a healthy intellectual environment demands that we be able to discuss large trends without being accused of bigotry.

>Is it better to use the generalisation about that country having a poor education system, or the more detailed case-specific facts?

This is a false dichotomy. It's note one or the other. I will -- again -- repeat my arguments:

1. We should consider both large trends and specific cases.

2. Considering general trends -- which necessarily imply some non-trivial degree of generalization -- is not xenophobic in and of itself.

3. Willful ignorance (in the sense of "ignoring") of large trends is a Bad Thing.

I'm willing to believe you have no interest in political correctness, but then I must insist that your rhetoric is in contradiction with your values. You're ultimately endorsing something you oppose.