| > The thing about groupings like this is that they only exist in the statistics. You could say that about any grouping of people whatsoever. > If you want to talk about something, talk about people who have the trait or don't, rather than where their ancestors lived. But clearly where there ancestors lives is a major factor in identifying the likelihood that a person will have a particular trait. And all of this matters because people have gotten it into their heads that every cultural/ethnic group should be equally represented in every field. When you point out that, for the above reasons, this is just as absurd in executive leadership as it is in basketball, they call you a racist/Nazi. The same objection is raised when people ask "Why are Ashkenazi Jews disproportionately rich/powerful/successful?" or "Why are African Americans disproportionately not?" and you point to the IQ data. In fact you're a racist for even thinking to study this in more detail. This is why I'll never trust anyone to decide what is and isn't an offensive thing to say. > The salient point is that the Nazis are still wrong even if it is. It depends on what you mean "wrong". They're clearly morally wrong for murdering and sterilizing millions of people. They're not however wrong that eugenics programs are just as effective in humans as any other animals. And there's more than one way to do eugenics. Why not, for instance, as a matter of public health, simply incentivize people with desirable traits to produce more offspring? > It's legitimately hard to separate them out even when it's not as politically charged as this. I agree. Like most things it seems to be genetic predisposition in combination with environmental factors. |