Nonfiction

How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference

How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference

  • Downloads：2173
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-09-01 04:16:05
  • Update Date：2025-09-23
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Adam Rutherford
  • ISBN：161519830X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

This authoritative debunking of racist claims that masquerade as “genetics” is a timely weapon against the misuse of science to justify bigotry—now in paperback

Race is not a biological reality。
Racism thrives on our not knowing this。

In fact， racist pseudoscience has become so commonplace that it can be hard to spot。 But its toxic effects on society are plain to see: rising nationalism， simmering hatred， lost lives， and divisive discourse。 Since cutting-edge genetics are difficult to grasp—and all too easy to distort—even well-intentioned people repeat stereotypes based on “science。” But the real science tells a different story: The more researchers learn about who we are and where we come from， the clearer it becomes that our racial divides have nothing to do with observable genetic differences。 The bestselling author of A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived explains in this explosive， essential guide to the DNA we all share。

Download

Reviews

Huseyin Karamelikli ，

Wonderful。 I think everybody should read this book as soon as possible。

Anand ，

I think the title of this book is misrepresentative of the content it offers。 Adam Ruthford uses his expertise in genetics to present a difficult， but more accurate argument， describing both the reality of human genetic variation and the fiction of racial purity。

Eve ，

This book taught me important things like how ancestry works。 Like this is also important when dealing with the grief of not having a long family history。 It also points out how much bullshit gets conflated with genetics。 I will say however the sports part was awkward because "remember the Titans" totally ignored the patriarchal exclusion of sports when sports gets promoted as breaking barriers， and how expensive sports like rowing & hockey do have with them segregation problems。 So it was nice This book taught me important things like how ancestry works。 Like this is also important when dealing with the grief of not having a long family history。 It also points out how much bullshit gets conflated with genetics。 I will say however the sports part was awkward because "remember the Titans" totally ignored the patriarchal exclusion of sports when sports gets promoted as breaking barriers， and how expensive sports like rowing & hockey do have with them segregation problems。 So it was nice to hear how segregation in sports is already bullshit， but the idea of separate species is often conflated with discussions about sexism & it was somewhat awkward to be dealing with racism separate from sexism。 But to be fair that error of considering racism & sexism too similarly lead to transphobic fascist recuperations of feminism。I gave this 4 stars because when it was in audio format it was hard to remember my place in the discussion。 This was a similar problem I had with Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble" but still。 I probably need a table of contents。 。。。more

Sarah ，

While this book was a look at genes and some racial myths， it wasn't particularly helpful in arguing with racists， at least I didn't recommend it to a friend whose parents are racist and saw I was reading it。 Easy listen， however， and the chapter on sports was the most interesting。 While this book was a look at genes and some racial myths， it wasn't particularly helpful in arguing with racists， at least I didn't recommend it to a friend whose parents are racist and saw I was reading it。 Easy listen， however， and the chapter on sports was the most interesting。 。。。more

Madeleine Becker ，

This is a fine book- it is informative， well-written （even funny at times）， and well-structured。However， what it does not do， is format scientific findings in a way that would actually help one argue with a racist。The first sentence doubles down on the title and asserts Rutherford's purpose that "This book is a weapon"。 This promise is simply not fulfilled， as the rest pulls plenty of punches， and can even be oddly defensive of science as some objective institution。 Near the end， Rutherford stat This is a fine book- it is informative， well-written （even funny at times）， and well-structured。However， what it does not do， is format scientific findings in a way that would actually help one argue with a racist。The first sentence doubles down on the title and asserts Rutherford's purpose that "This book is a weapon"。 This promise is simply not fulfilled， as the rest pulls plenty of punches， and can even be oddly defensive of science as some objective institution。 Near the end， Rutherford states that "scientific racism" is a misnomer because it is pseudoscience。 While that's a nice thought， that's a pretty convenient out for geneticists as the heirs of the field of eugenics。 What， so if a eugenicist created a useful statistical model that we use today， that is science， but if that same eugenicist used that same statistical model in a racist paper， we can simply say that wasn't science？ Why the apologism for an institution he admits is humanly flawed？That may be a nitpick， but I think fundamentally the main issue with this book is its title and perceived audience。 The subtitle is plenty accurate！ Stay with that！ But I really was disappointed with this book because I knew the majority of the science as a geneticist interested in this topic myself， but in that vein， I have enough self awareness to know that pulling out an mtDNA tree from an 1980's study and saying "seeee almost all significant human variation is within Africa！" doesn't really do much to change the minds of the radicalized。I'm not saying that people's minds couldn't be changed by high quality evidence like Rutherford presents， but it would need to be done effectively， which Rutherford supplies no guidance on。 。。。more

Brendan ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Not sure the title fairly represents this excellent book。 It does of course provide plenty of ammunition to take down many a racist argument。 But the book is far more than that。 It carefully lays out what genetics can and cannot explain and applies that science to a number of areas where we often lapse into accepting lazy stereotyping: black sprinters; financially astute Jews; superior white intelligence; racial purity。We are forced to recognise that race is not sufficiently tightly defined to b Not sure the title fairly represents this excellent book。 It does of course provide plenty of ammunition to take down many a racist argument。 But the book is far more than that。 It carefully lays out what genetics can and cannot explain and applies that science to a number of areas where we often lapse into accepting lazy stereotyping: black sprinters; financially astute Jews; superior white intelligence; racial purity。We are forced to recognise that race is not sufficiently tightly defined to be a useful peg on which to hang any hypothesis about genetics; that the genetic heterogeneity within black populations in Africa is greater than that between black Africans and white populations。 And so on。 So a lot of the ideas can be used to shoot down racist arguments。 But the core ideas within the book stand on their own as clear explanations of the current state of genetics; most intriguing is the recurring concept that we know that some genes are important in certain traits but we have no idea why or how。 Current thinking is that clusters of genes are important together without any one being the cause of a particular trait。This all makes for a more accessible book to me than ‘A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived’ and I therefore enjoyed it much more。 。。。more

Kyla Ren ，

This is a great pop psych look at everything that's wrong with racism and those that perpetuate it。 This is a great pop psych look at everything that's wrong with racism and those that perpetuate it。 。。。more

Catalin Todea ，

O carte ușoară， contrar așteptărilor inițiale， eficientă în opinia mea。 Există două momente mai complexe în carte， mai greu de urmărit， dar per total e o lectură ușoară limbajul fiind accesibil și termenii mai grei， specifici geneticii， sunt stabiliți și explicați încă din introducere și pe parcursul cărții。 Autorul face o treaba excelentă la a demola toate argumentele rasiste utilizate chiar de geneticieni， iar concluzia e simplă: Analiza genomului uman nu indică existența raselor， acestea fiin O carte ușoară， contrar așteptărilor inițiale， eficientă în opinia mea。 Există două momente mai complexe în carte， mai greu de urmărit， dar per total e o lectură ușoară limbajul fiind accesibil și termenii mai grei， specifici geneticii， sunt stabiliți și explicați încă din introducere și pe parcursul cărții。 Autorul face o treaba excelentă la a demola toate argumentele rasiste utilizate chiar de geneticieni， iar concluzia e simplă: Analiza genomului uman nu indică existența raselor， acestea fiind constructe sociale。 Dacă vă loviți în viața cotidiană de aceste argumente sau chiar folosiți aceste argumente ca să va convingeți că rasele există cartea de față o sa vă ajute să depășiți această stare de fapt。 。。。more

Jason Mills ，

Thorough and necessary， but dullRutherford here explores our perceptions， myths and misunderstandings about race and shows them to be unsupported by the findings of biology， particularly genetics。 Whilst our genes inevitably contribute to matters such as intelligence and musical and sporting ability， they do so in ways that are cumulative and， as yet， obscure， and they certainly do not correlate with hazy notions of race。All well and good， very worth articulating， but not a very exciting read。 A Thorough and necessary， but dullRutherford here explores our perceptions， myths and misunderstandings about race and shows them to be unsupported by the findings of biology， particularly genetics。 Whilst our genes inevitably contribute to matters such as intelligence and musical and sporting ability， they do so in ways that are cumulative and， as yet， obscure， and they certainly do not correlate with hazy notions of race。All well and good， very worth articulating， but not a very exciting read。 Also it doesn't really deliver on the title: while the information is sound and trenchantly presented， an actual racist is unlikely to be receptive to all this detail， or be persuaded by it。 If he'd called it "Why Racists Are Wrong" I could have no complaint。 。。。more

Ayre ，

The title of this book is a little bit misleading。 This is very science heavy and you couldn't really use the information in this book to argue with a racist because a racist would be too stupid to understand or purposefully take all the information out of context。 Overall I thought the information is interesting if dry and basically the book can be summarized as race is a social construct not a genetic one。 The title of this book is a little bit misleading。 This is very science heavy and you couldn't really use the information in this book to argue with a racist because a racist would be too stupid to understand or purposefully take all the information out of context。 Overall I thought the information is interesting if dry and basically the book can be summarized as race is a social construct not a genetic one。 。。。more

Markus Lustig ，

Pidän Rutherfordin tyylistä argumentoida ja aikaisemmat kirjat ovat olleet hyvinkin laadukkaita ja mielenkiintoisia。 Samoin oli tästä kirjasta ensimmäinen puolikas。 Jälkimmäinen puolikas sen sijaan lässähti kuin pannukakku ja oikeastaan tuntui， että Rutherford argumentoi samalla tavalla ja aatteellisella paatoksella kuin ne， joita vastaan kirjoittaja koki kokoavansa argumentteja。Aluksi käydään faktaperusteista， perusteltua ja tieteelliseen taustaan pohjaavaa argumentointia， mutta linja hukkuu ki Pidän Rutherfordin tyylistä argumentoida ja aikaisemmat kirjat ovat olleet hyvinkin laadukkaita ja mielenkiintoisia。 Samoin oli tästä kirjasta ensimmäinen puolikas。 Jälkimmäinen puolikas sen sijaan lässähti kuin pannukakku ja oikeastaan tuntui， että Rutherford argumentoi samalla tavalla ja aatteellisella paatoksella kuin ne， joita vastaan kirjoittaja koki kokoavansa argumentteja。Aluksi käydään faktaperusteista， perusteltua ja tieteelliseen taustaan pohjaavaa argumentointia， mutta linja hukkuu kirjan edetessä。 Jälkimmäisessä puolikkaassa sorrutaan yleistyksiin yhden tutkimuksen pohjalta， joista kritisoidaan kovaan ääneen muita。 Aikaisemmin on kritisoitu toisia tieteen väärinkäytöstä， ja "olen oikeassa， koska tutkimus" - asenteesta， mutta myöhemmin kirjoittaja argumentoi täsmälleen samoin。On toki totta， että Rutherfordin tutkimusmassa on mittava ja faktat ovat selkeästi hänen puolellaan， mutta henkilökohtaisesti odotin ja oletin arvostetun tutkijan pystyvän paremmin säilyttämään puolueettomuuden。 Nyt kirjan loppupuolella paistoi liian selkeästi läpi kirjoittajan asenne， joka johti köyhähköön argumentointiin sekä antoi kuvan pienestä epäluottamuksesta omaan tutkittuun argumentointiin。 。。。more

Artemis ，

I really wanted to like this a lot。There is so much to love。。。But it is clear that at times Adam Rutherford steps out of his expertise and states things that just aren't true。 Specifically with statements about the Indigenous peoples of North America。It made me feel a bit lost on what he was saying that I didn't know enough about to be able to tell if he was right or wrong。On the genetics end itself， and what it means， I think he did an amazing job。 He obviously knows far more than I do （hurray） I really wanted to like this a lot。There is so much to love。。。But it is clear that at times Adam Rutherford steps out of his expertise and states things that just aren't true。 Specifically with statements about the Indigenous peoples of North America。It made me feel a bit lost on what he was saying that I didn't know enough about to be able to tell if he was right or wrong。On the genetics end itself， and what it means， I think he did an amazing job。 He obviously knows far more than I do （hurray） and I did learn some things but where our overlap occurred I could tell he was on point。The book is entirely misnamed though。 This isn't how to argue with a racist。 This is why racists are wrong when they appeal to genetics to support their arguments。 。。。more

Ruth Swindlehurst ，

Absolutely brilliant book; very scientific and as someone who studied social science at university and has not studied biology since GCSE， some was well beyond my brains capability to understand the genetics behind the arguments。 However， this book taught me a lot， explained a lot， and provided an amazing argument for why racism and racists are completely idiotic！ One of my favourite quotes: “ when all you’ve ever known is privilege， equality feels like oppression” p。44

Elsa ，

As someone whose first language isn't English and who isn't used to reading scientific texts in other languages than my native tongue， I found reading this required quite a bit of straining from me， not only intellectually but also linguistically。 To my advance， though， I have some biology and basic genetics knowledge in my back pocket， so with a little challenge and determination I could follow along。All in all， I found this really interesting and I plan on using this experience as another spri As someone whose first language isn't English and who isn't used to reading scientific texts in other languages than my native tongue， I found reading this required quite a bit of straining from me， not only intellectually but also linguistically。 To my advance， though， I have some biology and basic genetics knowledge in my back pocket， so with a little challenge and determination I could follow along。All in all， I found this really interesting and I plan on using this experience as another springboard on my quest to learn more in my free time as well。 I skimmed through some reviews of Goodreads and saw some point out how the title doesn't quite match with the content of the book， an opinion with which I agreed， but it is a good attention-grabber nonetheless。 。。。more

Chelsie Beaudoin ，

This book isn’t so much about arguing with racists to convince them otherwise， but to show race has no basis in science。 Here’s my summary for when I want a refresher。 Basically， we all share genes and ancestors。 We are all human。 Genetics is not reliable predictor of race because predicting phenotype based on genotype is not easy。 We don’t completely understand the complexity of the multiple genes （or even all the genes） that control melanin or how they interact with each other and the environm This book isn’t so much about arguing with racists to convince them otherwise， but to show race has no basis in science。 Here’s my summary for when I want a refresher。 Basically， we all share genes and ancestors。 We are all human。 Genetics is not reliable predictor of race because predicting phenotype based on genotype is not easy。 We don’t completely understand the complexity of the multiple genes （or even all the genes） that control melanin or how they interact with each other and the environment。 What genetic differences we do see in populations does not contribute to race as we define and perceive it。 “We see broad geographical clustering of people and populations on the basis of sampled genetic markers， but the borders are fuzzy and continuous。”Everyone alive now has a common ancestor from 14th century BCE， and for Europeans it’s as soon as 10th century。 Family trees are less like trees because they loop and can have the same individual sitting in multiple spots in genealogy。 Noble prize winners or elite athletes are not great indicators of racial differences as they are not good representatives of a whole population。 They are outliers not only for their perceived racial groups， but of humans in general。 If a culture values scholarship or sprinting， then maybe that has more of an influence in the success of those people in that area than those individuals’ genetics。 。。。more

Bruno Espadana ，

“Of course， racism is not simply wrong because it is based on scientifically specious ideas。 Racism is wrong because it is an affront to human dignity。 The rights of people and the respect that individuals are due by dint of being a person are not predicated on biology。 They are human rights。”

Jody Walsh ，

Can't wait to discuss it with family members who also read it。 Not quite what I expected but interesting。 Preferred the last 2 chapters most because they seemed timely。 Can't wait to discuss it with family members who also read it。 Not quite what I expected but interesting。 Preferred the last 2 chapters most because they seemed timely。 。。。more

Miriam Sullivan ，

I thought this would be more about how to argue， but it's more of a love letter to the scientific process。 I didn't know much about human genetics， but it was all clearly and concisely explained。 I learnt a lot from this book， definately recommend。 I thought this would be more about how to argue， but it's more of a love letter to the scientific process。 I didn't know much about human genetics， but it was all clearly and concisely explained。 I learnt a lot from this book， definately recommend。 。。。more

Liz ，

This was a well-written， compelling book looking at the science of race。 I learned a ton， and reinforced what I knew to be true already。

Zahra ，

When all you’ve ever known is privilege， equality feels like oppression。I adore The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry so I was looking for books written by them when I saw this was nominated for a Goodreads Choice Award。 It’s not difficult to see why; with a punchy title reminiscent of the podcast， Rutherford writes with wit and humor without being glib。Very interesting information brought up; how the global isopoint is only around 3400 years ago， how sequencing companies are knowingly scammin When all you’ve ever known is privilege， equality feels like oppression。I adore The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry so I was looking for books written by them when I saw this was nominated for a Goodreads Choice Award。 It’s not difficult to see why; with a punchy title reminiscent of the podcast， Rutherford writes with wit and humor without being glib。Very interesting information brought up; how the global isopoint is only around 3400 years ago， how sequencing companies are knowingly scamming POC out of their money due to very little data available on non-white DNA and how while physiology may confer advantages in sports it is not enough to account for sporting success （culture around the sport needs to be robust as well）。I do feel as if this book barely scratches the surface， Rutherford may have been holding himself back to attract a wider audience who are simply seeking information on ‘How to Argue With a Racist’。We can be clear on this with absolute certainty: You are descended from multitudes， from all around the world， from people you think you know， and from more you know nothing about。 You will have no meaningful genetic link to many of them。 These are the facts of biology。 。。。more

Luca Baldini ，

Sentenzia Rutherford: "La razza esiste， perché la percepiamo。 Il razzismo esiste， perché lo pratichiamo。 Ma né la razza， né il razzismo hanno un fondamento scientifico。 Il nostro dovere è opporci allo snaturamento della ricerca scientifica， soprattutto se usata per giustificare il pregiudizio。 Se siete razzisti， state cercando la guerra。 Ma la scienza è mia， non vostra alleata e voi combattete non soltanto contro di me， ma contro la realtà"。 In questo tanto magnifico quando conciso e chiaro test Sentenzia Rutherford: "La razza esiste， perché la percepiamo。 Il razzismo esiste， perché lo pratichiamo。 Ma né la razza， né il razzismo hanno un fondamento scientifico。 Il nostro dovere è opporci allo snaturamento della ricerca scientifica， soprattutto se usata per giustificare il pregiudizio。 Se siete razzisti， state cercando la guerra。 Ma la scienza è mia， non vostra alleata e voi combattete non soltanto contro di me， ma contro la realtà"。 In questo tanto magnifico quando conciso e chiaro testo Adam Rutherford ricostruisce e poi smonta il razzismo， cioè l'idea di considerare gli esseri umani divisi in razze diverse per caratteristiche e capacità， gerarchizzabili le une rispetto alle altre。 Nel primo capitolo l'autore fornisce una sintetica， ma interessante， storia dello sviluppo del razzismo， sorto nell'Europa a cavallo fra Seicento e Settecento insieme alla rivoluzione scientifica。 All'epoca， per la necessità "pseudo-scientifica" di catalogare tutto （quindi anche gli esseri umani "nuovi" in cui ci si era imbattuti nell'espansione coloniale） e per la doverosa ricerca di una giustificazione "razionale" alla sottomissione di tali persone， vari pensatori si lanciarono nella suddivisione dell'umanità in razze。 Come sottolinea Rutherford， non c'è un razzista che sia d'accordo con un altro per la quantità e la qualità delle razze che si presume esistano。 Rutherford， da genetista e ottimo divulgatore， affronta poi la questione delle diversità dei caratteri: colore della pelle， prodotto dell'influenza complessa di molti geni， le cui funzioni non riusciamo ancora a descrivere con sufficienza; presunte diversità fisiche e cognitive （"gli etiopi hanno la resistenza nella corsa nel sangue"; "i giamaicani vincono sempre in velocità"）， frutto di un'influenza genetica minima e invece prodotto soprattutto della "cultura"， cioè di tutto ciò che non è genetica。 L'analisi di Rutherford mette in luce l'assoluta infondatezza scientifica del razzismo e le sue ricorrenti contraddizioni logiche。 Sulla crescente polarizzazione ed estremizzazione del dibattito， cita una frase di Jonathan Swift: "un uomo non verrà mai indotto con il ragionamento a correggere un'opinione errata che non ha acquisito ragionando"。 Si tratta di un libro consigliato a chiunque e molto utile per avere riferimenti scientifici alle proprie tesi contro il razzismo e i suoi recenti rigurgiti。 Da leggere， così come tutti gli altri testi di Rutherford！ 。。。more

Graham Whittington ，

As others have noted， the title may mislead some since it’s more about why genetics-based racist arguments are largely hogwash， rather than the book being a guide to combatting racism more generally in conversation。 But it’s a pretty good read re genetics and how that does or doesn’t tie into athleticism， intelligence， and so forth。 I thought it could be a good companion book to the Seeing White podcast， which covers similar territory in some of its episodes。 The book does have a few distracting As others have noted， the title may mislead some since it’s more about why genetics-based racist arguments are largely hogwash， rather than the book being a guide to combatting racism more generally in conversation。 But it’s a pretty good read re genetics and how that does or doesn’t tie into athleticism， intelligence， and so forth。 I thought it could be a good companion book to the Seeing White podcast， which covers similar territory in some of its episodes。 The book does have a few distracting editing errors re the U。S。 （e。g。， saying Charlottesville is in West Virginia）。 。。。more

Corey ，

Interesting， but I don’t know how many arguments you’ll win after reading it。 Points out some different assumptions that I hadn’t considered before。

Meva ，

"you cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into。" "you cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into。" 。。。more

Keyton ，

There is some interesting science here about genetics and demographics; connecting it directly to arguing with racists is provocative， but odd and likely destined to disappoint。 The highlight is his takedown （or at least， contextualization） of the popular genetic testing trend due to 1） they're showing you locations where you have similarities to current groups of people， not the ancient or historical populations of those locations。 They're inferring "ancestral roots from living populations。" p。 There is some interesting science here about genetics and demographics; connecting it directly to arguing with racists is provocative， but odd and likely destined to disappoint。 The highlight is his takedown （or at least， contextualization） of the popular genetic testing trend due to 1） they're showing you locations where you have similarities to current groups of people， not the ancient or historical populations of those locations。 They're inferring "ancestral roots from living populations。" p。 1032） showing you similarities with other paying customers， which is not a random or geographically diverse dataset。 This leaves huge blind spots for countries that don't participate heavily and skews essentially all of the results。 p。 105Some other quotes:p。 23 "We crave simple stories to make sense of our identities。 This desire is at odds with the reality of human variation， evolution， and history， which are messay and extremely complicated。 But they are recorded in our genes。 The aim of this book is to anatomize and lay out precisely what our DNA can and can't tell us about the concept of race。"p。 62 "Humans suffer universally from a syndrom that Richard Dawkins called the 'tyranny of the discontinuous mind。' We yearn to categorize things and fail to recognize continuity。 We strain toput things into discrete boxes， and define things by what they are rather than what they do。 This is a problem in science 。。。 In the genomic era， our data will continue to show not discrete classification but the immensely complex story of human life on earth over hundreds of years of prehistory， and a few thousand years of history。"p。 65 "Of all the attempts over the centuries to place humans in distinct races， none succeeds。 Genetics refuses to comply with these artificial and superficial categories。 Skin color， while being the most obvious difference between people， is a very bad proxy for the total amount of similarity or difference betweeen individuals and between populations。 Racial differences are skin-deep。"p。 86 "the global isopoint - the year in which the population of Earth was made up of the ancestors of everyone living today。 This， astonishingly， comes out to around 3400 years ago。 Everyone alive today is descended from all of the global population in the fourteenth century BCE。 Irrespective of how plausible that sounds， or how contrary it seems to our own experiences of family and family trees， it is true - the isopoint is a mathematical and genetic certainty。"p。 100 "Over the generations， descendants begin to shed the DNA of their actual ancestors。 The amount that vanishes is cumulatively huge: You carry DNA from only half of your ancestors eleven generations back。 Genealogy and genetic genealogy are not perfectly matched， and progressively grow apart as we go back in time。 It is therefore possible that you are genetically unrelated to people from whom you are actually descended as recently as the middle of the eightennth century。"p。121 "You are not your genes， and you are not your ancestors。 Most of your ancestry is lost， and can never be recovered。 We can be clear on this with absolute certainty: You are descended from multitudes， from all around the world， from people you think you know， and from more you know nothing about。 You will have no meaningful genetic link to many of them。 There are the facts of biology。"p。 192 "It might seem odd that a geneticist should want to downplay the signficance of genes， but the fact is that we are social beings who have off-loaded so much of our behavior from our bodily hardware to our cultural software， and nowhere is this more apparent than in our intelligence。 There is no secret truth waiting to be revealed， no grand conspiracy of silence from geneticists。 People are born different， with different innate capabilities and potential。 How these abilities cluster within and between populations is not easily explained by fundamental biology， by genetics。 Instead， when digging into the data as best as we can， we find the answers not in DNA but in culture。" 。。。more

Aurora Gutierrez ，

Esperaba un contenido muy diferente… No me imagino rebatiendo con un racista con argumentos de genética。。 jeje Se los recomiendo si son médicos genetistas…

Trian ，

This was an interesting listen even if some of the results might have been a bit too straightforward。 However， i still wouldn't try and argue with a racist - we will still have different authorities so this would not help。。。 in any case - an interesting and short book with thought provoking qualities！ This was an interesting listen even if some of the results might have been a bit too straightforward。 However， i still wouldn't try and argue with a racist - we will still have different authorities so this would not help。。。 in any case - an interesting and short book with thought provoking qualities！ 。。。more

J L's Bibliomania ，

Read for SWEP Book DiscussionInteresting factoids about genetics。 Title is misleading， not sure how these facts will help when talking to an actual Racist

Danni ，

Bit dry for me。 Obviously it's an incredibly important book and for those who enjoy looking at things from a purely scientific viewpoint it's perfect。 Great book to give to anyone who holds a Darwinian/biological factors type arguement about race。 Bit dry for me。 Obviously it's an incredibly important book and for those who enjoy looking at things from a purely scientific viewpoint it's perfect。 Great book to give to anyone who holds a Darwinian/biological factors type arguement about race。 。。。more

Sarbelia Cajamarca ，

3。5。 A lot of information about scientific racism and dispelling certain myths and racial stereotypes。 A good book， but it took a while for me to get into it。 The conclusion was very necessary in order to highlight the main points。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0