/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9001455
Yeah I know.
So I'm curious about this type of response.
(I did say olympic sprinters and basketballers are _all_ black but that's overgeneralized, I have seen white people sprint or play basketball. Forget I said it)

When I say "whites are smarter than blacks" then a very common response is someone saying "wrong, see neil degrasse tyson" as if that disproves everything.
But when I say whites are smarter than blacks I mean it as in population distributions, like men being taller than women. Some men are midgets, some women are giants, but overall on average men are taller than women and most men are taller than most women.
Do people understand it in the sense of distributions or is that lost on most people?

>>9001436
But it's not arbitrary. Your family are more closely related to you than others, ethnic groups/races or whatever you call them are related to each other like in >>9001205 the genetic distance chart. The word might be arbitrary but the genetic distance isn't.
>Are we a different race? Why not?
No because race is more like at 0.012 genetic distance than 0.000000001.
>Because there are many subpopulations within the same race that do not exhibit those characteristics.
So then races can be subdivided into ethnicities and so on. That's not a problem.
>to say people with dark skin are better runners is false and arbitrary.
Except it's true according to that paper and olympic medals.
>(pls see 1st half of this comment)
Do you understand "people with dark skin are better runners" refers to population frequency distributions? Do you think it means the slowest black man is still faster than the fastest white man?