There are two adult brothers somewhere in New York City. They have both of the same parents. One of them is 5'3" and the other one is 6'½". What's the probability that one of them is Dutch and the other one is Taiwanese? If your answer wasn't zero I would like to see your work.

If they are brothers then I suppose they could be mixed Taiwanese-Dutch. But that really isn't the point is it? I'm talking about trends in populations. It's an answer to the question of "Why do we see different representation of these groups on the height spectrum?", not "Explain the difference between these two individuals".

Edit: Also to assert that, given two random people on opposite ends of the height spectrum, it's much more likely that they are distantly related than closely related (controlling for sex) because (controlling for nutrition) height is a heritable trait.

> It's an answer to the question of "Why do we see different representation of these groups on the height spectrum?"

But we already know that, by and large. It's genetics. And the thing we know about genes is that they align very poorly with "races".

It's like grouping animals by color. Then you discover that brown animals are bigger than red animals, because bears are brown and bears are big whereas cardinals are red and cardinals are small. But sparrows are brown. Using the logic of "race" we put the sparrows in the same category as the brown bears. The black bears go in with the black housecats. The red housecats are with the cardinals.

The fact that you can find statistically significant differences between the color groupings doesn't mean you're not doing something preposterous.

>But we already know that, by and large. It's genetics. And the thing we know about genes is that they align very poorly with "races".

What about "ethnic groups"? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

>It's like grouping animals by color. Then you discover that brown animals are bigger than red animals, because bears are brown and bears are big whereas cardinals are red and cardinals are small.

Are the grizzlies the same with pandas?

But there are groupings of people by genetic markers which correlate to linguistic/cultural origin. These aren't "races" per se but they are a valid and interesting taxonomy of people. And unsurprisingly given they are determined by genetic distance, these groups tend to have a more homogenous physical appearance. When we're talking about IQ, asking "why is does it differ across identifiable groups of people?" seems to be a very controversial question to ask or attempt to answer, often getting you lumped in with the Nazis, which was my original point.

>If you take two populations of otherwise identical people and then isolate them from each other, they'll diverge over time. Maybe the land is different, or the weather, and some genes are better adapted to one place or the other so they become more common there.

By these logic every form of life it's the same since all evolved from the same unicellular organisms.

And yet my cat doesn't have leaves while my plant I keep in the pot doesn't meow.

> These aren't "races" per se but they are a valid and interesting taxonomy of people.

The thing about groupings like this is that they only exist in the statistics.

If you take two populations of otherwise identical people and then isolate them from each other, they'll diverge over time. Maybe the land is different, or the weather, and some genes are better adapted to one place or the other so they become more common there.

That's just averages. Originally 50% of the combined population had trait A. Over time, it becomes the case that 30% of the first population has it and 60% of the second population. You can measure the difference in the average. But the people in the first population who have the trait are the same as the people in the second population who have the trait. It just happens to be the case that that trait is better adapted to the place where the second population lives. If you want to talk about something, talk about people who have the trait or don't, rather than where their ancestors lived.

> When we're talking about IQ, asking "why is does it differ across identifiable groups of people?" seems to be a very controversial question to ask or attempt to answer, often getting you lumped in with the Nazis, which was my original point.

Oh, absolutely. And if that's true, it's true whether you want to hear it or not.

The salient point is that the Nazis are still wrong even if it is. Because it's all still just averages. If there is some gene that makes you smarter and 55% of "white people" have it and 45% of "black people" have it and as a result the averages are different, the conclusion obviously isn't that all white people are smarter than all black people, so Nazis are still wrong.

There is also no concrete proof that that's the case rather than the disparity being a result of nurture rather than nature. It's legitimately hard to separate them out even when it's not as politically charged as this.

> The thing about groupings like this is that they only exist in the statistics.

You could say that about any grouping of people whatsoever.

> If you want to talk about something, talk about people who have the trait or don't, rather than where their ancestors lived.

But clearly where there ancestors lives is a major factor in identifying the likelihood that a person will have a particular trait. And all of this matters because people have gotten it into their heads that every cultural/ethnic group should be equally represented in every field. When you point out that, for the above reasons, this is just as absurd in executive leadership as it is in basketball, they call you a racist/Nazi.

The same objection is raised when people ask "Why are Ashkenazi Jews disproportionately rich/powerful/successful?" or "Why are African Americans disproportionately not?" and you point to the IQ data. In fact you're a racist for even thinking to study this in more detail. This is why I'll never trust anyone to decide what is and isn't an offensive thing to say.

> The salient point is that the Nazis are still wrong even if it is.

It depends on what you mean "wrong". They're clearly morally wrong for murdering and sterilizing millions of people. They're not however wrong that eugenics programs are just as effective in humans as any other animals. And there's more than one way to do eugenics. Why not, for instance, as a matter of public health, simply incentivize people with desirable traits to produce more offspring?

> It's legitimately hard to separate them out even when it's not as politically charged as this.

I agree. Like most things it seems to be genetic predisposition in combination with environmental factors.

And there are two trees with the same height. From different species. One makes fruits, one doesn't.

And there are two trees with different height from the same species. Both make the same kind of fruits.