>>12976186Objectively wrong. Black people's IQ varies greatly, they certainly aren't all 60.
>b--but muh mean/median/etcWhen meeting people for the first time, if you're going to interact with them in any capacity, you should never judge them by statistics. First of all, statistics in the sensationalized form you're likely to consume often only publish the median and/or the mean, and omit the coefficient of variation, so even if out of all possible individual data points, point X has the highest probability, you don't know what that highest probability actually is. It's entirely possible, and often the case, that the union of all outlier values may actually be more likely than the most likely single value. Secondly, it's proper manners, at a basic-decency level, to assume the best of others until proven otherwise on an individual basis. Even if the person you're talking to is statistically likely to possess some negative trait, you are socially obliged to assume the person is one of the many undeniably extant data points far from the mean and/or median of that statistic, until such time as said negative trait might in-fact surface in your interactions with that person. This principle is often referred to as "innocent until proven guilty."
>>12976190>>12976191lole
