>J. Scott Roberts, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, who has studied consumer use of genetic tests and was not involved with the study, said the companies tend to be reliable at identifying genetic variants. Interpreting them in terms of health risk or ancestry, though, is another story. “The science is often murky in those areas and gives ambiguous information,” he said. “They try to give specific percentages from this region, or x percent disease risk, and my sense is that that is an artificially precise estimate.”

I assume you're comfortable with the idea that you're descended from a slave and thus have chosen to override prior evidence to the contrary. But if you weren't comfortable with the idea, you can say the test is flawed and have just as powerful an argument.

Unless 23andMe can show statistical rigor behind their methods, everyone is going to see what they want in the results.

The other interesting scientific result I've read is that there's more genetic variation within the traditional "races" than between them. I put "races" in quotations at this point because the whole concept is somewhat meaningless.

There are certain genes that are more common in different groups. But if I understand it correctly, you'll be able to find people from a different "race" who are more genetically similar to you than some people from your own "race".

Not really; sure, having some kind of superficially objective criteria to wave was important, but having it be scientifically valid (or even particularly rigorously applied) wasn't all that important.

We're talking about white nationalists, people who base their identity and self-esteem on a belief in their own racial purity. They wouldn't be seeking out these tests to validate something they already know to be untrue, or even suspect could be untrue.

Worldview and religious differences also lead to disagreements about fundamental values. And among other concrete examples that I personally think are important: how much respect should be given to religious/spiritual/supernatural beliefs, what rights are inalienable human rights, how people with various illnesses should be treated, how resources are distributed, what behaviour is acceptable during disagreements (on large scales and small) and what subjects/ideas/beliefs/actions are taboo seem like the big ones.

Some other cultures got there mostly.

When these cultures meet and interact, the former just become stronger in their misgivings.

https://www.txbiomed.org/news-press/news-releases/inuit-diab...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-afr...