I sometimes think about this (a self-described "handy graphic" for understanding a certain type of outrage).

The best way to make a point about science is to start using graphs without labelled axes.

I understand what it's saying. I think the point is less profound than the author, perhaps – understanding is always negatively correlated with outrage when it comes to relatively proscribed claims backed by evidence, even incorrect ones.

But I'd also like to take a moment to say a couple things about some of these examples, because I do think it's reasonable to assume there aren't meaningful differences between groups of humans, unless you sort on a proxy statistic anyway (oh, basketball players are like a different species, so much taller, wow – that kind of thing is pretty obviously silly).

Mainly, I base this on observing that almost every trait aside from eye/skin color, and a couple other traits, aren't the product of a single gene. They're the product of, probably, millions to billions of genes. It's not even entirely clear that there are genes that don't effect e.g. intelligence. So when you read about how complex machinery in animals evolves only to make modifications to near-universal existing structure, you can come to some relatively basic conclusions: only a microscopic percent of variability in how brains (or any complicated systems) function can be in modern-population genetic differences. It just doesn't make sense, unless the groups you're splitting people into are almost totally genetically isolated – and even then you'd anticipate a lot of the genes for the machinery to be scrambled if the groups mix, which, emphatically, does not happen with humans (in fact the opposite – that more genetic mixing among humans, since we're all so genetically similar anyway – has been proposed to explain the rise of IQ scores – I am skeptical but it's worth mentioning).

If you're not aware of the context of these things, this might be a little confusing. Why on Earth am I talking about this?

But these "there are differences between groups" memes are (usually) used as proxies for racism, at least these days (and, of course, historically). But that makes no sense! Clearly, race/skin color/anything genetic has nothing to do with it! Whatever statistics you find are artifacts of strange data or caused by something else.

Which brings me to my real point here: if someone doesn't understand statistical distributions, they probably should be outraged by the claims there are differences between groups. The claim being made is that means are different, usually, between two populations. But if you don't understand statistics, it's impossible to understand that no particular claims are being made. It's borderline impossible to convey how little information you learn about a person or group from statistical distributions that differ as little as human populations' do.

If you hear a claim that sounds like it contains meaningful information about individuals, you ought to be outraged at the implications. Statistics aren't generalizations. They're summaries (and data-poor ones as well). And yet, people use statistics to make generalizations. Statistics are, almost universally, bad science communication, because almost no one (including many professional researchers) has the capacity to truly understand them enough to limit their inferences to the truly small amount of data provided.

So let's stop using statistics to talk about groups?

n.b. If we could also talk about politics without using polling data, that'd be great too.