I want to take a moment to talk about a Motte and Bailey tactic that often gets disingenuously used to frame and restrict conversations around human differences among groups. 1/n
It's an old trick where folks try to persuade you of the following logic: if you don't buy into hereditarian arguments about behavioural differences among groups, then you must think that genetics makes zero contribution to differences among groups. 2/n
@Graham_Coop Awesome thread. I can't decide which response I like better, the "that's not motte and bailey" guy or the "I'm going to counter your argument with the exact disingenuous rhetorical move you are describing" guy.
@Graham_Coop @ent3c I know of and follow many who believe that no portion of group differences is explained by genes. I know of no one who claims that all group differences are genetic in origin. I know of many (like me) who say we don’t know what portion is genetic, but zero would be surprising.