Claiming that biology has zero effect on the potential outcomes of an individual means you believe a turtle's brain put in a human body might become the next Elon Musk.

Limiting honest discussion about this means we'll never move forward.

Both nature & nurture effect behavior. https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1277684486898167812

Let me be very clear:

1) Any individual who believes they are inherently better than any other individual simply because of their racial background, is a racist.

2) Any individual who thinks there is no biological difference between men & woman, is ignorant.

The "Nature vs. Nurture" debate isn't binary. Both play important roles in development, but the arguments for or against either often overlook macro/micro observations.

What does the statement "men are taller than woman" mean to you?

Clearly you don't think all men are taller than all women.

All the women in the pink shaded area are taller than the men in the blue shaded area, and it's a lot of women.

A lot of women are taller than men.

What does "men take more risks" mean to you?

Do you think it means *all* men take more risks than *all* woman?

Would you vehemently argue against studies that claim there *might* be a biological difference that causes that?

Or would you be open to discussing that possibility?

Study after study shows men take more risks.

That might make people ask some questions:
1) Why?
2) What does it *mean*?

Some people are afraid of what it might *mean*, so they refute, or try to prevent, talking about the possible reasons for *why* we observe these things.

Forget the "why" for now.

This is where macro/micro analysis, and the roles of nature/nurture come into play.

Think about what it means to take a risk.

An individual who takes more risks is more likely to end up a the winner, or a loser.

It's inherent to risk taking.

Taking more risks means your individual outcome in any scenario is more *likely* to vary than another individual who took very little risks in life.

That's at the micro level.

But what happens when you group people into categories, and plot their risk behavior?

At the macro level, the group that takes more risk will be represented at higher levels in both the lows, and highs, of society.

95% of prisoners are men.
CEOs are male dominated.

Surely you can see why people are afraid to talk about these subjects.

Does this mean that any individual woman can't be successful?

No.

Does this mean that any individual woman can be nurtured into taking more risks?

No.

Does this mean that *all* woman are biological predisposed to less risk taking than *all* men?

No.

https://twitter.com/StopAndDecrypt/status/1277835867273428992

It's not sexist to talk about this subject, or to be interested in the conclusions of these hypothesis.

But the mainstream narrative is that the results we see is "due to sexism".

Remember, we didn't even discuss the "why", we just observed that there *is* a difference.

The real "why" for observations like these could be a number of things.

It could be predominantly nurture (culture), or it could be predominantly nature (biology).

Think about what this means for the current narrative about racism in today's society by the police.

When I say "this", I mean the observations that we have.

The data.

More white criminals are killed by police officers in raw *total* numbers than black criminals.

A higher *percentage* of white criminals are killed by police officers than black criminals.

But the narrative is that on a population percentage basis, blacks are killed disproportionately more than their representation in the population.

They ignore, disregard, refute, or try to silence/label people talk about this.

Like sexism, they want to blame this on racism.

I'm not here to talk or act like I know anything about what the *causes* of these "group differences" are in the decisions people make (men vs. women, or race1 vs. race2).

But shouldn't we be able to have that conversation?

Trying to understand group differences isn't racist.

If we had that conversation, there's 3 conclusions we can draw:

1) It's biology.
2) It's culture.
3) It's a mix of both.

The worst case scenario, and the one that has the *potential* to lead to dangerous *action* is that it's biological. I get the hesitation. It's dangerous.

But let's say that was the case (I'm not).

A lot of woman are taller than men.

If there were group differences by race caused by biology, there would still be a lot of individuals from the "shorter" group that are "taller" than those in the "tall" group.

Individual =/= Group.

Again, we have absolutely no conclusive idea about why we observe these "group differences". (Why do African Americans commit more crime?)

We just have mainstream hypothesis (systemic racism,
poverty, historical slavery), and the alternatives are just labeled as racist.

Observing they commit more crime isn't racist.

Concluding it can't ever be overcome because of their race, is racist.

The most known argument on this subject is intelligence (and IQ).

Let me be clear: Judging any *individual* because of their group's average IQ is racist.

This of course, assumes IQ is a quantifiable and accurate measurement of anything.

I don't really know.

But *if* it is, then again: Judging any *individual*, making assumptions about them, or having negative or positive feelings about them, because of their *group*, is racist.

I've also explained in the past how, if these observations *were* the result of measurable intelligence differences among different groups, then even that can be overcome, and isn't directly tied to any racial group. https://twitter.com/StopAndDecrypt/status/1184252605842821120

That thread might seem weird, but all I'm asserting is that even *if* there's a biological factor, a change in culture can overcome it.

But we can't even have honest public discourse around this to even begin reaching valuable and helpful conclusions that would benefit everyone.