“If you take huge populations of people, there are bound to be differences. Those differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.”
The first part of this statement is completely true, but feminism, bureaucracy, and gnu-atheist scientism cannot abide the notion that there are visible group differences at the genetic level.
The second part is subtly incorrect.
In a normally distributed population, the average difference between random individuals is 2/√π, or ~1.13, standard deviations. For IQ, this is ~17 points. Even within families there is a high variability between siblings (~13 IQ points).[3a] Given this variability, does this mean we cannot make any individual predictions? No, it does not.
We all know this is true intuitively, but have been trained by feminist blank-slatists to deny this. For example, everyone knows that men have greater physical ability than women. We should not have been surprised when, in soccer, under-15 boys beat the U.S. Women’s National Team or when 15 year-old boys beat the Australian Women’s National Team[3b]:
Adult women simply cannot compete with 15 year-old boys at peak physicality.
“Suppose I, as an anglophone Mormon, descended entirely from New England WASP types, meets one African bushman in the wild. What do the statistics tell me? The answer is, not a god damned thing. The best I can surmise is that I have a slight probability of being a little smarter than that fucker, but that is in no wise guaranteed.”
No, statistics tell you that if your IQ is at least average, you have a very high probability of having greater intelligence. This is why if Harvard didn’t discriminate against the best students, its demographic makeup might change dramatically[3c][3d][3e]:
When all of the seventy fastest marathoners of all time come from North and East African ancestry (2% of world population) and 97 out of 100 of the fastest sprinters of all time come from West African ancestry (5% of world population), you would be a fool to deny the predictive power of genetics.[3f] There should be no shame in pointing this out.
Even with the variability in a random sample, the genetic racial differences between Asians and Blacks (~20 points) is greater than the average difference between two random individuals (~17 points). This is why race is highly predictive of factors strongly correlated with IQ, such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and likelihood of criminality.
Not everything is about genetics (“nature”) though:
“If I happen to meet him in Africa, then it’s in my interest to kiss his black behind in the hopes that he can teach me how to keep from becoming a lion’s dinner.”
You would be a fool to discount the importance of environment (“nurture”). No matter how intelligent your PhD-holding gender studies professor might be, she won’t help treat your cancer. This leads to the crux of the issue:
“Part of what I want to illustrate, with all this, is the absolute non-correlation between cognitive ability and wimminz’ well-established proclivity for whimsical self-destruction.”
The difficulty separating the genetic from the environmental makes it hard to evaluate this claim. It is highly complex. What the series endeavored to do was tease out feminism’s relationship to other factors, such as cognitive ability. While we can’t exactly determine the causal factors behind feminism, we can undoubtedly determine correlations.
So, we are not surprised to learn that valuing virginity is negatively correlated with destructive feminist-favored outcomes (e.g. divorce). We are also not surprised that, over time, general intelligence is negatively correlated with those same outcomes. Lastly, we are not surprised that, over time, devout religious observance is similarly negative correlated.
It is simply not true that “differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.” Thus, if you select a random working-age man and woman from the population, you will be quite surprised if she beats him in arm wrestling. You will be even more shocked when he is overcome by emotion and bursts into tears. These defy your quite reasonable expectations.
Similarly, if you randomly select an Asian person and a Black person and the Asian person has higher intelligence and socioeconomic status or the Black person has a criminal record, these differences are largely predicted by genetic differences. If instead you get an Asian with a criminal record and a Black Fellow of economics, this is the reason:
The group differences are notable in the aggregate precisely because they represent real differences at the individual level. The existence of exceptions is both expected and irrelevant. More importantly, if you remove random selection, the individual differences often become even more notable.
Racist, white supremacist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah caught fire for stating that educational gaps were not closing, despite decades of attempts to do so. This is because the heritability of IQ is 0.8 to 0.9.[3g] It is simply mathematically impossible for the gap to close through environmental intervention. Closing the gap could only be simulated by artificially lowering the opportunities and outcomes of the more successful groups, that is, enacting inequalities.[3h] This is the feminist agenda.
Be warned: by reading this stuff, commenting on it, or worse agreeing with it, you become a racist, white supremacist yourself (regardless of your actual race or ethnic group, of course). It’s much better to embrace feminism, where you will be nice, safe, always have good feelings, and get a trophy.
The feminist imperative is to conflate amoral facts with moral (in)equality. If you have the rational ability to differentiate between facts and morality, you are, by social definition, a white supremacist.
Christianity has long taught that all persons are created in the image of God. No matter one’s race or socioeconomic status, all have value before God. At the same time, Christianity has never shied away from the notions that persons have differences and that certain ways of life (holy living) are superior to others (living in sin). Christianity balances amoral facts with human moral worth. Feminism cannot do this.
 Of the Richard Dawkins school.
 Group differences are okay, as long as they are caused by environmental factors that support identity politics.
[a] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[b] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[c] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[d] @Steve_Sailer (2019). (link)
[e] @epidomgoly (2019). (link)
[f] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[g] @KirkegaardEmil (2019). (link)
[h] @ThyRamMan (2019). (link)
 They have a good chance of losing to a team of physically average 15 year-old boys.
 Race here means genetically related groups, not specific traits like skin color. For example, African bushman, East Africans, and West Africans are all racially different each other in meaningful ways. Skin color is sometimes an okay approximation for race, but it’s not a perfect correlate: races have traits, traits do not have races.
 That is, a typical anthropologist that studies intelligence and group genetic differences.
 Pay no attention to the fact that average Asians and Jews have higher IQ and socioeconomic status than average Whites. Accusations of white supremacy don’t have to be logical or evidence-based. Feminism has no use for facts.