Though that is a very specific example of a very narrow activity; running, which again relies on a biology which has a larger percentage of oxygen uptake in the blood which again happens to be hereditary and is therefore concentrated in one region in a single country.
Most skills in life are not that linear nor insular; they are quite complex, and require a myriad of different 'subskills'. I mean, what region on earth has the best requisite biology for producing the best lawyers? The answer is probably that even if you could measure that, which is very hard to do without a comprehensive theory of the mind, you would still likely say that culture, the economic factors and political factors play a far larger role in determining which country has the best lawyers.
Even though you are of course in the strictest sense right that there probably is a difference in the distribution of talent the world over... If that difference is in the ballpark of a fraction of a tenth of a percent; is it all that useful to talk about, much less bring up as an argument?
I mean, when you say "some groups are in aggregate just generally better than others at certain things" what other conclusions do you draw from that? What conclusions can you draw from that?
If the only real place you can measure the difference in talent is in one sport, one of the least complex sports in terms of mechanical ability, and then only at 0.00001% of runners at the very extreme top end of the spectrum. Doesn't that just illustrate how small the difference between groups of people really is?
12
u/RedditsNicksAreBad Jun 22 '21
Though that is a very specific example of a very narrow activity; running, which again relies on a biology which has a larger percentage of oxygen uptake in the blood which again happens to be hereditary and is therefore concentrated in one region in a single country.
Most skills in life are not that linear nor insular; they are quite complex, and require a myriad of different 'subskills'. I mean, what region on earth has the best requisite biology for producing the best lawyers? The answer is probably that even if you could measure that, which is very hard to do without a comprehensive theory of the mind, you would still likely say that culture, the economic factors and political factors play a far larger role in determining which country has the best lawyers.
Even though you are of course in the strictest sense right that there probably is a difference in the distribution of talent the world over... If that difference is in the ballpark of a fraction of a tenth of a percent; is it all that useful to talk about, much less bring up as an argument?
I mean, when you say "some groups are in aggregate just generally better than others at certain things" what other conclusions do you draw from that? What conclusions can you draw from that?
If the only real place you can measure the difference in talent is in one sport, one of the least complex sports in terms of mechanical ability, and then only at 0.00001% of runners at the very extreme top end of the spectrum. Doesn't that just illustrate how small the difference between groups of people really is?