Thread by @ent3c

98% of "race science" consists of nothing but this: 1) Trait X is heritable in individuals; 2) heritability means genes have "something to do" with the trait; 3) Groups differ on the trait; 4) Genes have "something to do" with the group difference. This is underdetermined BS. /1

https://twitter.com/CathrynTownsend/status/1385438965960876036

The first law of BG offers an obvious reductio of the argument. All individual differences are heritable, groups differ on all sorts of things. So if all you want is a vague assertion that genes have "something to do" with all human differences, OK. /2

But that doesn't buy the race scientists anything, unless they want to own the assertion that genes have "something to do" with why people dance the Merengue more in the Dominican Republic than they do in Korea. /3

So some sort of *additional* evidence is required to make a meaningful assertion that a group difference is genetically caused. What kind of evidence? The best examples come from "ecotypes," like adaptations in people who live at high altitude. /4

And that evidence is more than hand waving about genes having "something to do" with lung capacity. It is meaningful biology showing causal paths from adaptation ==> genotype ==> physiology ==> behavior. /5

That is exactly what does NOT exist for any complex polygenic behavioral human trait that is actually at issue in this discussion. My message to the race scientists is: when you have that evidence get back to me, and in the meantime stfu. /end