3 ms·
I don't disagree with his conclusion, but the article is just a puff piece with a link to his book at the end, in which he "...debunks many cherished myths" inc
by waffle_ss 15y ago
I don't disagree with his conclusion, but the article is just a puff piece with a link to his book at the end, in which he "...debunks many cherished myths" including "that we are restricted by our genetic make-up".
"Our tendency to generalise rests on a deeper fallacy - the idea that 'black' refers to a genetic type. We put people of dark skin in a box labelled black and assume that a trait shared by some is shared by all." I'm no geneticist, but I wonder then how the author would explain the seemingly racist drug BiDil, which is more effective for African Americans?
A more difficult question to answer - that can't be explained away with extreme examples - would be why the regular professional sports (e.g. NFL, NBA) have a disproportionate number (compared to population) of black players. May have nothing to do with genetics at all, but would be much more interesting to read about than this article.
- brazzy 15y agoRe BiDil - note that African Americans are a small, not very genetically diverse, subpopulation of black people.