Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I come to this book from an odd perspective: I’m sick of identity politics. I want a culture that focuses on the individual and not the group that individual belongs to. Focusing on group identity just increases division. It also doesn’t allow for how different individuals actually can be within a group population. Group identity is not destiny. But people can’t help focusing on how this or that group has social inequity due to discrimination. That if any group is not completely on par with every other it’s due to society. In other words, every inequality is a “social construct”. This is an interesting idea. But it is flawed. It completely ignores biology in the equation. It relies on everyone being identical copies of each other. A society with equal opportunity in every societal way will still have an inequality in outcome if biologically people are unequal. And of course they are. Genes/biology have given us differences. Obviously, between men and woman. But also between fast and slow. And smart and dumb. And any of a million other traits. And, ugly and unfortunately enough, there are differences in traits between extended families with separated lineages. Not every human population is biologically identical to every other. It’s impossible. This is reality. We aren’t blank copies of one another with no differences between sexes, for example. Or between families. If we don’t share a common ancestor within twenty or forty or so generations of each other, we are going to be different. Forty generations of separate ancestry is more than enough time for some biological adaptations to have occurred. And, unfortunately, these biological differences manifest themselves more obviously in groups than in individuals. Individual variation is much bigger than group variation, but in groups the law of large numbers exposes a mean much easier. Which, again is why it’s better to focus on individuals. More variation. Less obvious differences. But in our society, people look at group differences as de facto evidence of discrimination, completely ruling out biology. They look at averages of the group. This is wrong. And also gross. You are basically calling out groups with biological advantages as being racist or sexist, when biology is a key reason for many social inequalities. "Privileged" people are not all monsters; most of them were just born with favorable biology. Inequality is not de facto evidence of discrimination. And the only way biology wouldn’t be a reason for inequality would be if everyone were genetically identical. So, I come to this book hoping for a real scientific takedown showing that whatever changes nature/biology has wrought between extended families they would be small. And hence whatever biological differences there exists between groups they would be minor. That in fact the social differences are the key. But instead this author refuses to engage and heeds mindlessly to a blank slate mentality. De facto dismissing any idea that biology could cause substantial differences. I’m going to have to continue for my search for an author that; (1) concedes humans aren’t a blank slate; (2) goes through the science in detail to show how biological differences between groups would be small or inconsequential. I'm looking for someone that doesn't dismiss Rushton, Lynn, Murray and all the other investigators of this area through name-calling and character assasination, but takes them head-on at their own game. Exposes flaws in their thinking/methodology. Makes me think and really consider how biology is a minor factor. Scientifically and not dogmatically. However, this book just appears to be ideology and not science at all. So, unfortunately, I will have to continue my search for a good counter-argument to biology being a key factor. Hopefully a real scientist will step up.