Men are generally stronger than women. The fact that some of the strongest women are stronger than some of the weakest men doesn't undermine the overall trend.
But society is defined by the average, not by the strongest or weakest exceptions. That's why Africa is still a hell-hole or why highly populated muslim areas even in first world countries are so regressive and ghetto-ish.
Africa is an entire continent. It doesn't have a singular society or culture. By simply combining them together and calling it all a hell-hole because of the worst parts, you hide why some groups are doing just fine while others are struggling.
Averaging destroys data. It obscures WHY some individuals are better than the average and why others fall below it. Falsely applying the average of arbitrarily chosen demographic attributes to individual outcomes and presuming this shows genetics as a causal factor is a fatalist view which denies the individual's ability to affect their own situation.
If you take the same argument and apply it to 1500s England you could make the claim that the peasant class was simply genetically incapable of learning to read while the inbred royals were the genetically predetermined intellectual elite.
Averaging destroys data. It obscures WHY some individuals are better than the average and why others fall below it.
With ideal information sure. But sometimes, the average is all we have. When we invite people into the US, we can't know their history, or their past crimes (which they can easily lie about). We can't know if they're going to build successful enterprises, or whether they'll fall flat on their face.
Sometimes we have to take chances, and the average for a demographic is part of that assessment. Especially when we have little other data to go by.
Same with an employer when he's hiring someone. He can't know the true intelligence, creativity, or work ethic of a potential employee. He can only go by gut extinct and, that amazing thing we call the 'average'.
Men are generally stronger than women. The fact that some of the strongest women are stronger than some of the weakest men doesn't undermine the overall trend.
And the overall trend doesn't mean squat to a weak man or a strong woman.
But certain weak men cling to the trend as though other men's strength has anything to do with them.
But society is defined by the average, not by the strongest or weakest exceptions. That's why Africa is still a hell-hole or why highly populated muslim areas even in first world countries are so regressive and ghetto-ish.
Africa is an entire continent. It doesn't have a singular society or culture. By simply combining them together and calling it all a hell-hole because of the worst parts, you hide why some groups are doing just fine while others are struggling.
Averaging destroys data. It obscures WHY some individuals are better than the average and why others fall below it. Falsely applying the average of arbitrarily chosen demographic attributes to individual outcomes and presuming this shows genetics as a causal factor is a fatalist view which denies the individual's ability to affect their own situation.
If you take the same argument and apply it to 1500s England you could make the claim that the peasant class was simply genetically incapable of learning to read while the inbred royals were the genetically predetermined intellectual elite.
With ideal information sure. But sometimes, the average is all we have. When we invite people into the US, we can't know their history, or their past crimes (which they can easily lie about). We can't know if they're going to build successful enterprises, or whether they'll fall flat on their face.
Sometimes we have to take chances, and the average for a demographic is part of that assessment. Especially when we have little other data to go by.
Same with an employer when he's hiring someone. He can't know the true intelligence, creativity, or work ethic of a potential employee. He can only go by gut extinct and, that amazing thing we call the 'average'.