[youngButEager]

Ignoring genetic dispositions and innate traits because they're socially 'inconvenient' is foolish.

Assume for a moment that all humans have the exact same innate, instinctive traits and tendencies. Same degree of curiosity, ingenuity, cleverness. We'll all the same.

Then look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees. These two primate groups look so similar they're often confused. Bonobos and Chimps differ by only 0.4% genetically. They reside in the same part of the world, in Africa.

Yet their behavior is quite different. Bonobos tend to be less violent than Chimps, and intimate relations play a much larger social role in Bonobo groups.

You can't ignore stuff like that. "Bonobos are sluts! At least chimps have some modesty about these things!"

Or "Bonobos are more intelligent than chimps! They settle things more peacefully and are not as readily violent!"

Can you say stuff like that in mixed company? Sure. Go to any social gathering and bring it up.

But try switching "Chimp, Bonobo" for "Caucasians, Blacks" when discussing professional sports accomplishments and you might be asked to leave the party.

There are innate differences and feeling 'sorry' and 'embarrassed' or 'guilty' or 'judgmental' for assessing the differences between groups with historically different innate strengths and weaknesses -- is a social norm, that's all.

"German Shepherd dogs are better than Golden Retrievers for police work." FINE.

"Perhaps for environmental/survival factors, some groups of humans developed more prominent problem-solving ability and curiosity and became more inventive." FINE so far! Until you identify the groups you mean by 'some groups' then you're being asked to leave the party.

Saying "It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention" reflects a modern social norm. But has zero effect on the facts.

Bonobos and Chimps have been studied. They're only 0.4% different, genetically. But their innate tendencies and behaviors are different.

There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.

For now though, Social Norms are limiting dialog about differences in groups of humans.

[clort]

Well, except that Bonobos and Chimpanzees are different species (most recent common ancestor about 2million years ago[1]) whereas Humans are still a single species (most distant common ancestor less than 200,000 years ago[2])

Social differences in (and within) groups of humans are of clearly massive, but 'genetic dispositions' and 'innate traits' not so much. The difference between nature and nurture is difficult to discern, when nurture is so obviously an overwhelming influence.

Your comment about police dogs is interesting, because police dogs undergo intensive training and many breeds are used[3]

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature1...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_dog_breeds

[thomasahle]

200,000 years is for female unbroken lines. The "mixing time" of human DNA is expected to be much shorter, with the most recent common ancestor being as little as 2000-4000 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

[paulddraper]

Whites/blacks could also be men/women:

"The fact that more men are in CS then women clearly shows there must be external biases at play. Guaranteed. There is no other possible explanation that we are willing to test or explore."

Once we admit that people have the same rights and humanity as others, regardless of intelligence or athleticism, we will lose our insecurity and begin to understand ourselves. Though I doubt that will happen soon.

[pyrale]

> There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.

Is it also nature that you apparently didn't read the article ?

[youngButEager]

Not sure what point you're making. I did read the article.

There's no getting around history. The reasons are very complex but the facts are this: in our current period, the distribution of creativity/problem solving/invention is lumped more into some groups than others. Perhaps environmental factors led to this -- perhaps genetic predisposition. It's hard to know.

Humans have been walking upright for around 2 million years. The fact that inventiveness has exploded in the tail end of those 2 million years provides no commentary as to the "group distribution of inventions" going forward.

Peter King, likewise, made no attempt to say that one group will ALWAYS be more represented in the realm of scientific/intellectual achievement, inventions, etc.

All of us (well most of us) recognize that a uniform distribution of intellect/curiosity/problem solving skills is best for humans, and since humans share everything with each other, eventually we'll get there.

[pyrale]

The article provided a compelling counter-plea to all of the arguments you put forward, before you even wrote them.

If it's not a reading problem, then it has to be a comprehension problem.