Let's assume there's a new remote tribe discovered which has never had contact with the outside world. Now, for reasons unknown, members of this tribe have an

Let's assume there's a new remote tribe discovered which has never had contact with the outside world. Now, for reasons unknown, members of this tribe have an uncanny ability to do mathematics. Every tech company rushes to enroll these math wizards, and entices them with English language courses. Now an employee writes a memo that questions the value of the language courses because the tribesfolk seem to have no innate interest in linguistics and seem to have a harder time learning English, enough to turn some away from their glorious new careers in Silicon Valley. He surmises it's probably because of their natural gift for mathematics. He also attaches the scientific research that, up to that moment, supports the notion that members of the tribe indeed have a superior grasp on mathematics. Now that we have the argument on neutral ground: -All the research quoted supports the innate math ability of the tribe, but implies nothing about their linguistic capabilities. -The reason these tribal members have difficulties picking up English is not really known. The supposition that mathematical skills and linguistic skill are inversely related is dubious and could easily be a product of our existing cultural norms. It could simply be them not even knowing the existence of different languages until very recently. -Constructing an argument that their linguistic shortcomings might be innate would serve no purpose outside of a very narrow field of neuroscience. It certainly does not detract from their mathematical abilities, and if the whole company needs to learn to speak French, because for some reason the tribe grasps that easily, so be it: whether innate or not, the company cannot afford not to hire them. Any memo about the innate English abilities of the tribe outside of a (proper) research paper within the realm of neuroscience is simply speculation. If this speculation is toxic to those already working there (telling coworkers their English sucks, but it's not their fault. They were born that way. You're only trying to help them.), or the hiring process, it is logical to put a stop to that. Now substitute "superior mathematicians" with "perfectly capable programmers", "remote tribe" with "half the population", and "innate linguistic interest" with "innate technical capability". TL;DR: even if a trait A that could be related to a more desirable trait B is more common in one group than in another group, its prevalence in one group implies nothing about the prevalence of the more desirable trait in the second group. To argue about trait A is to argue about nothing until a correlation is established. Any argument about trait A in relation to B that mentions genetics is to be regarded as highly suspicious.