[ypsilon777777]

I agree with you basically, especially in the with regards to "The political ramifications of this make it difficult to discuss openly."

The mainstream accepted view on human population differences is so schizoid to me. On the one hand, you're supposed to believe that "race is a social construct", and indeed many aspects of race/ethnicity are arbitrary and socially constructed.

On the other hand, it's well documented and widely accepted that huge number of measurable and physical traits including skin color, eye color, hair color, hair consistency, face shape, height potential, facial hair growth, and susceptibility to both genetic and infectious diseases (see for example, Cystic Fibrosis and Northern Europeans, Sickle-Cell anemia and Sub-Saharan Africans), are strongly correlated with race and ancestry.

But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences. Personally, I don't understand how one can honestly reconcile that. I understand why it's not discussed in the current milieu, and I understand that it's potentially very dangerous to the existing social order, but as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty obvious thing to anyone who is willing to see it.

[jmopp]

Sickle-cell trait is found in sub-Saharan Africans from tropical regions. It is rare in South Africa, most of which is malaria-free and thus has no benefit to the mutation.

> But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences.

Well, yes. None of those differences you mentioned are in the brain. Why should they lead to behavioural differences?

Also: culture is not nearly as conserved as genetics. Populations can change languages within a few generations, and most culture shifts come from wanting to assimilate into the culture of the perceived elites, rather than population replacement or large-level mixing. The exceptions (European settlement in the New World, the Bantu migration, and possibly some others that don't immediately come to mind) are notable because they are the exceptions to the norm.

[novaomnidev]

Let’s pretend that it’s true. Now what? Let me guess Europeans magically will have the best “behavior”?

That’s all we’re talking about here isn’t it?

[ypsilon777777]

I'm not really interested in making value judgements about entire population groups here. A lot of things would need to be considered if one were to do so. For the record, Europeans spent most of their history fighting bloody, costly wars against one another, and now aren't able to reproduce at a sustainable rate so I don't know about them having the "best" behavior.

But my comment wasn't about saying any one group is "better" than another, I was just pointing out how incongruous it is to believe that population group genetics have a significant effect on physical features and disease susceptibility, while having zero effect on temperament and behavior.

[antisthenes]

Agree with you. "Best" behavior is only meaningful if there was some kind of way to set a civilization-wide goal and optimize for it.

Since we don't set goals for humanity at large, there's no definition of "best" to optimize for, just complex combinations of sub-behaviors that may or may not be beneficial to certain groups under certain conditions, nothing more.

[goldenchrome]

Relevant comic https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1608434861794295808?s...