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.
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.
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.