> Have a Jamaican newborn adopted by a Japanese family in Japan and a Japanese newborn adopted by a Jamaican family in Jamaica and see how each ends up.
If "genetics cause a real difference" here, what are they? If the difference is negligible in contrast to the influence parenting and society have, why not acknowledge that? To just ignore it is pseudo-science.
I didn't respond to that because OP's line of argument was just:
* Misconstrue what I said to be supportive of ideas of racial purity.
* Pretend that I didn't already build in culture into my original argument ("the range of genetic profiles and cultural backgrounds you have to account for")
Obviously culture plays a role, and culture can be adopted. I didn't respond to that part of their post because I already argued as much. I'm very much in agreement with them that culture is an enormous factor, and in many types of outcomes it's certainly the largest.
Where I disagree with them is the idea that mentioning genetics at all makes me a) wrong and b) an advocate for racial purity.
What they're missing—and what too many people feel like they're not allowed to talk about—is that genetics also plays a large role in many types of outcomes, especially in the realm of healthcare. Ignoring that because it's politically inexpedient is a problem, and pointing it out doesn't make me an advocate for racial purity: we can talk about the role of genetics and the difficulty in treating a diverse population while still believing that diversity is, on the balance, a good thing!
> Where I disagree with them is the idea that mentioning genetics at all makes me a) wrong and b) an advocate for racial purity.
FWIW I don't have that impression, that's not what I'm arguing against, I just think the cultural factors (speaking the same language fluidly) are really so much more important that I'd even say they're the only thing that "really" matters. For example, how much does healthcare have to do with social cohesion? If there were no people with myopia or only people with myopia in a country, would they get along better?
Also, consider how women were and are neglected in medicine.
Taking account of genetic differences seems mostly an issue of just actually doing it. If only women or men or Japanese people lived somewhere, the doctor could make a few, tiny, assumptions more. If people are mixed, they have to investigate what's in front of them, and while that may be a bit more work or more costly in a few instances, I think it would just make medicine more robust.
If "genetics cause a real difference" here, what are they? If the difference is negligible in contrast to the influence parenting and society have, why not acknowledge that? To just ignore it is pseudo-science.