>I disagree that it’s possible to write what he did about general populations, then walk it back to say “but of course it doesn’t apply at an individual level.”
I'd be curious to hear an actual defence of this line of thinking. I mean, it's simply a fact that group differences aren't particularly useful indicators of what an individual is like. Nevertheless, they're very good indicators of what populations are like. Is there any actual criticism of that argument, or is the objection more about how people feel about that argument?
I'd be curious to hear an actual defence of this line of thinking. I mean, it's simply a fact that group differences aren't particularly useful indicators of what an individual is like. Nevertheless, they're very good indicators of what populations are like. Is there any actual criticism of that argument, or is the objection more about how people feel about that argument?