[jolmg]

> My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise?

If it covers enough ground and they're prone to lose interest with more complex explanations, that can convince them... They can justify it with Occam's razor.

You're talking about coming in with strong, preconceived notions, but I think those notions start with simplistic race/DNA explanations. It's precisely because the explanation is simple that it's appealing. Even just pointing at the pattern may suffice.