>>9677151A better example
Wearing a black shirt on friday is correlated with 30% of the normal chance of being murdered.
Should you wear a black shirt on fridays?
First you evaluate any costs. Is there a downside to wearing a black shirt, maybe in the cost to purchase one?
At this point you don't know if it is statistical noise or not, but the point is when presented a statistical relation between two variables it makes sense to investigate further.
Sure, it could be stupidity, but without further evidence proving there is no causation it would be even worse to not take the chance on upside.
For instance in the arguments about genetics not mattering.
- Genetics don't matter at all, genetic engineering won't create better people, etc. In this case attempting engineering better people is just a futile effort and you lose the investment in $ billions towards it.
- In the case those 80% IQ is genetic, life outcome is based on IQ/genetics etc and you go with the hunch it's not. what do you lose? You lose huge multipliers to economic and intellectual output, you lose benefits to health and crime rate, etc.
In this equation of risk vs reward even the most skeptical of blank slate SJW must see the balance is heavily in favor of genomics. Not to mention the fact most actual data and statistical evidence overwhelming supports it whereas the arguments against are entirely opinion and "hunch" based or simply character attacks against anyone who looks at the data.
