The article examines how the widespread reliance on WEIRD populations in quantitative research in anthropology and related disciplines not only skews our understanding of human variation but also masks the underlying influence of whiteness in shaping scientific norms and definitions of rigor. The authors propose three interventions: clarifying what WEIRD refers to, explicitly naming whiteness as a central organizing factor in research practices, and exploring how the positionality of biological anthropology can both challenge and reproduce these biases. They advocate for methodologies—such as grounded theory, Indigenous approaches, and participatory action research—that expand the focus beyond traditional metrics like replicability and statistical power to include fuller representations of human experience.