It is written by design to outrage, the reaction just validates that "latent racist patriarchal structures in science" (arbitrary wokeism speak) are indeed "pre

It is written by design to outrage, the reaction just validates that "latent racist patriarchal structures in science" (arbitrary wokeism speak) are indeed "present". It is a power play game by attacking ("subverting") the legacy of the "father of sociobiology". It is akin to Nixon or McCarthy wielding the axe of the "communist threat" and enjoying the squeals when it hits a vulnerablity in the establishment. SA is just delivering the fodder for the outrage game played on Social Media (esp Twitter). Are you not entertained i.e. engaged? Edit: On one side one could address her concern without using terms like "scienctific racism" as an (ideological?) gap between "sociology" and "biology". On the other side one cannot just simply redefine technical terms like "normal distribution" in statistics. What she probably was trying to articulate is the methodology: in order to find your ancestry "genetically" you can only compare relatively. For example: When a genetic test company claim you are 42% "West Asian" they compare your genetic makeup to a (more or less) arbitrary model of their "West Asian". It is very speculative in its qualitative terms but at the basis quantitatively: how many variations to you have in common with this model? There is a great talk about the methodologies used in paleogenetics for anyone interested in the particularities. [1] At the end you are left with a lot of more questions you never thought about and wonder about the complexities and intricacies involved. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk65TbJRN_A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk65TbJRN_A