Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
So you can make a fairly diverse set {mice, elephants and rhinos}, as a sample of mammals that are grey-brown, and compare them on some attribute, say size, with some other set. It would be a clear contrast with the a set containing three diverse species of bacteria, somewhat less clear next to a set containing three species of unrelated reptiles, and probably not a sensible comparison against some arbitrary three mammals that are orange-brown. You can form true conclusions in all three comparisons, but I’m asking whether all of those conclusions are useful.
ETA: What I don’t know, which stops me from forming a strong opinion on the matter, is how big the genetic variation within the group we’re calling “white” is. It could be that white people are a very closely related group, in which case it would be useful to investigate a statement like “the group we call “white” are, on average, one of the groups of humans which have higher IQ. As a result they have higher average IQ than the much more diverse group of we call “black”.”
Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
I disagree. For example, imagine that Group A is Loxodonta Africana Africana and Group B is “worms”
It’s both meaningful and true to assert that members of Group A are larger than members of Group B.
Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
So you can make a fairly diverse set {mice, elephants and rhinos}, as a sample of mammals that are grey-brown, and compare them on some attribute, say size, with some other set. It would be a clear contrast with the a set containing three diverse species of bacteria, somewhat less clear next to a set containing three species of unrelated reptiles, and probably not a sensible comparison against some arbitrary three mammals that are orange-brown. You can form true conclusions in all three comparisons, but I’m asking whether all of those conclusions are useful.
ETA: What I don’t know, which stops me from forming a strong opinion on the matter, is how big the genetic variation within the group we’re calling “white” is. It could be that white people are a very closely related group, in which case it would be useful to investigate a statement like “the group we call “white” are, on average, one of the groups of humans which have higher IQ. As a result they have higher average IQ than the much more diverse group of we call “black”.”
I disagree. For example, imagine that Group A is Loxodonta Africana Africana and Group B is “worms”
It’s both meaningful and true to assert that members of Group A are larger than members of Group B.