3 ms·

I assume that her words meant what they said. I'm assuming you're using "group" as a euphemism for race, and in that same article Nina explicitly says race is n

• pron 11y ago
  She did mean what she said, and when she says "we are all" in the very same paragraph she discusses cultural differences, she means every culture, not every individual. That's basic reading comprehension. She also doesn't need to change her stance. The genetic variation between racial groups are positively tiny compared to intra-group variation. It makes a lot of sense to say "we", as in all groups, are all the same, where as "we", as individuals, are not. The reason it makes sense to say that is that that's the truth, and I see no reason to assume a scientist wouldn't say the truth especially if you need to read her words with an autistic (and ill-intending) interpretation to understand them to say falsehood. Another reason she doesn't need to change her stance is that while innate differences in intelligence between individuals are large compared to those between groups, there are also bigger, non-innate differences that have been shown to have a very significant effect on intelligence.