# Race is non-existent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100 "2012-12-05T18:28:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/761 "2013-02-09T22:26:28Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The explanations you have advanced for what you say is an IQ gap of a full standard deviation–15 points–between whites and blacks are these: The issue is the test-score gap, not just one particular test-score (like IQ tests). And I’ll repeat- unlike you, I’m not confident in any particular explanation. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/762 "2013-02-09T22:41:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There’s no evidence of any genetic correlation between race and… more aggressive, more impulsive, etc. Following this thread for some time. I would like to point out that **Vaffanculo** mentions nowhere the **direction** of the characteristics, thus the **more** qualifier is your contribution and bias. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/763 "2013-02-09T22:43:39Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > Following this thread for some time. > > I would like to point out that **Vaffanculo** mentions nowhere the **direction** of the characteristics, thus the **more** qualifier is your contribution and bias. If **Vaffanculo** is suggesting that black people are inherently genetically smarter, more sociable, less impulsive, etc., then I apologize to him and to you. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/764 "2013-02-09T22:47:08Z")
No, regarding intelligence, the context is clear, thus you could hardly be expected to guess otherwise. Regarding the other qualities though, they were not mentioned. Anyway, I’m cool. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/765 "2013-02-09T23:23:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, it all depends on how you categorize the different explanations. If you categorize it into something like this to explain the test score gap: > > a) parenting issues > b) economic issues > c) cultural issues > d) other > > Then by eliminating economics, you strengthen the parenting, cultural, and “other” explanations (which would include genetics). But it’s completely disingenuous to pretend that eliminating economic issues strengthens any particular individual explanation- by “strengthening” all the other explanations, it strengthens none of them in relation to each other. By the same token, if we were to eliminate geography (such as urban vs rural) as an explanation, which might fall into the “other” category, we could say we actually _weakened_ the “other” category of explanations (which includes genetics). This is disingenuous too- it really just depends on the categorization. Because the categorization can go any way imaginable, eliminating one possible explanation of a set of an unknown number of potential explanations is not actually helpful for any other particular explanation- it’s helpful in general because it narrows it down and eliminates possibilities, but it can be framed in such a way to strengthen or weaken ANY group of explanations, depending on how they are categorized. > > Another problem is that we don’t have a limited set of explanations. There may be lots of types of explanations that haven’t been tested for or even proposed. > > All this together is why I say that sociological data cannot tell us anything about genetics, and for the remaining gap that has not been explained, eliminating things like economics does not strengthen any other explanation in relation to the rest. Depending on how you categorize it- whether you put genetics into the same category as the explanation that was just eliminated or not, you can say that the category was “strengthened” or “weakened”. > > So I could say it another way. There is evidence that weakens some of the other explanations for the test-score gap. But there is no evidence **for** the genetic explanation. No positive evidence. And in order to treat the genetic explanation, which is just one possible explanation out of potentially a very large number, as anything more than a hypothesis, positive evidence (which would be genetic evidence) is needed. You are wrong. And you mischaracterize what I see in order to offer some twisted logic string. To be clear: (emphasis mine) \*\*- I did NOT say that eliminating any one cultural factor "strengthens [any] of them _in relation to each other_. \*\* Come on. You added the “in relation to each other” in order to be able to stick to your silly “zero evidence” mantra. So, you are 100% wrong. Let’s say there are 10 possible explanations, one of which is genetics. Let’s also stipulate for the purpose of this exercise that they all have an equal chance of being correct. I don’t think that’s this case, but it makes the point easier to make. Alternatively we could assign each of them a probability factor of our own choosing, but let’s keep it simple. So, we have 10 possible explanations, each with a 10% chance of being correct. If we eliminate any one of them through a test, the others now have a 11.1% chance of being correct. If we eliminate 5 of them, the remaining 5 each have a 20% chance of being the correct explanation. If we eliminate 8, the two remaining each have a 50% chance of being the correct explanation. Thus, just like I said before, with every one of the explanations we test and eliminate, the support for EACH AND ALL of the remaining explanations increases correspondingly. The actual number of possible explanations is immaterial. Whatever the number, as you discount various explanations by testing for them, the remaining explanations have more support than they did prior to the testing. So, now that I’ve corrected what you _evidently thought I said_ (:dubious:), do you want to change your position reply to my previous post? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/766 "2013-02-09T23:28:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are wrong. And you mischaracterize what I see in order to offer some twisted logic string. To be clear: (emphasis mine) > > \*\*- I did NOT say that eliminating any one cultural factor "strengthens [any] of them _in relation to each other_. \*\* > > Come on. You added the “in relation to each other” in order to be able to stick to your silly “zero evidence” mantra. So, you are 100% wrong. > > Let’s say there are 10 possible explanations, one of which is genetics. Let’s also stipulate for the purpose of this exercise that they all have an equal chance of being correct. I don’t think that’s this case, but it makes the point easier to make. Alternatively we could assign each of them a probability factor of our own choosing, but let’s keep it simple. > > So, we have 10 possible explanations, each with a 10% chance of being correct. If we eliminate any one of them through a test, the others now have a 11.1% chance of being correct. If we eliminate 5 of them, the remaining 5 each have a 20% chance of being the correct explanation. If we eliminate 8, the two remaining each have a 50% chance of being the correct explanation. Thus, just like I said before, with every one of the explanations we test and eliminate, the support for EACH AND ALL of the remaining explanations increases correspondingly. > > The actual number of possible explanations is immaterial. Whatever the number, as you discount various explanations by testing for them, the remaining explanations have more support than they did prior to the testing. > > So, now that I’ve corrected what you _evidently thought I said_ (:dubious:), do you want to change your position reply to my previous post? I’m not changing my position- we don’t know how many possible explanations there are, and even if we did, depending on how we categorize them, eliminating any one can strengthen or weaken the various “categories” depending on which category we place various ones in. Because of this silly logic game with categorizations, and because we don’t know how many explanations there might be, eliminating one doesn’t count as evidence for the others. So there’s no evidence for the genetic explanation, because the only possible evidence is genetic. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/767 "2013-02-09T23:30:51Z")
The butler did it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/768 "2013-02-09T23:39:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not changing my position- we don’t know how many possible explanations there are, and even if we did, depending on how we categorize them, eliminating any one can strengthen or weaken the various “categories” depending on which category we place various ones in. > > Because of this silly logic game with categorizations, and because we don’t know how many explanations there might be, eliminating one doesn’t count as evidence for the others. So there’s no evidence for the genetic explanation, because the only possible evidence is genetic. Unbelievable. So you simply discount the whole concept of indirect evidence in general. Ina ll cases? Or just this one? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/769 "2013-02-09T23:43:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unbelievable. So you simply discount the whole concept of indirect evidence in general. Ina ll cases? Or just this one? In this case there’s been no indirect evidence beyond marginal ones like “this explanation explains part of the gap, but controlling for it still leaves some gap”. I don’t count that as evidence for the genetic explanation. This whole time I’ve been asking for genetic evidence, which would put this to rest- but there is none, yet. The pro-“blacks are dumber genetically on average” party would be far better off actually _doing science_ then acting as if we should be convinced despite the zero genetic evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/770 "2013-02-10T00:27:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In this case there’s been no indirect evidence beyond marginal ones like “this explanation explains part of the gap, but controlling for it still leaves some gap”. I don’t count that as evidence for the genetic explanation. This whole time I’ve been asking for genetic evidence, which would put this to rest- but there is none, yet. The pro-“blacks are dumber genetically on average” party would be far better off actually _doing science_ then acting as if we should be convinced despite the zero genetic evidence. You didn’t answer the question: in general, do you or do you not think indirect evidence is meaningful? Worthy of consideration? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/771 "2013-02-10T00:32:33Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/772 "2013-02-10T00:35:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You didn’t answer the question: in general, do you or do you not think indirect evidence is meaningful? Worthy of consideration? It can be meaningful, and it can be worthy of consideration. It’s not always meaningful, and it’s not always worth more than cursory consideration. In a criminal case, indirect evidence like “I saw him at the liquor store 5 minutes before the robbery” might be somewhat meaningful, though not conclusive, but indirect evidence like “I saw him near the liquor store 3 hours before the robbery” is not really meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/773 "2013-02-10T03:21:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Indeed, so why you choose to ignore the item that has geneticists telling you that the genetic evidence is not there? > > As pointed before, you are continuing to ignore that inconvenient fact. If there was logic involved it is clear that as many other researches point out, environmental factors can not be eliminated, so they are still supported. So far, you’ve only found one guy, who’s a post doc fellow with a blog, right? And you are expanding that to generalize to all genetecists? To counteract that notion, I’ve given you studies which show positive selection for 188 genes that cluster by population, a major paper on review of neurobiological genes that drive hereditary differences, and several other studies. Not to mention many studies which show absolutely no evidence that environment is to blame. And one of those studies was conducted by the JBHE. They were tickled to find a circumstance which they felt–in advance-completely equalized economic, social and educational circumstances. I think the opinion of “geneticists” is closer to that of [Jerry Coyne:](http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/about.html) _" In the absence of data, we must follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent. And, at any rate, any such differences cannot be used to justify racism given the tremendous variation we see in other genes between members of different populations."_ I do not agree with this approach, and by “absence of data” he means we haven’t identified the exact genes. But if you read the piece you will see the tenor of it is that there are good reasons to think there may be genetic differences, and the quesiton is, “how much?” The residual difference in skillsets after we normalize environmental differences, tells us how much. I have not seen data suggesting the skillset difference for taking academic tests is trivial, although I do not buy iiandyiiii’s assertion that half the black population in the US has an IQ under 85. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/774 "2013-02-10T03:26:28Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > So far, you’ve only found one guy, who’s a post doc fellow with a blog, right? > And you are expanding that to generalize to all genetecists? > > To counteract that notion, I’ve given you studies which show positive selection for 188 genes that cluster by population, a major paper on review of neurobiological genes that drive hereditary differences, and several other studies. Not to mention many studies which show absolutely no evidence that environment is to blame. And one of those studies was conducted by the JBHE. They were tickled to find a circumstance which they felt–in advance-completely equalized economic, social and educational circumstances. > > I think the opinion of “geneticists” is closer to that of [Jerry Coyne:](http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/about.html) > > _" In the absence of data, we must follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent. And, at any rate, any such differences cannot be used to justify racism given the tremendous variation we see in other genes between members of different populations."_ I do not agree with this approach, and by “absence of data” he means we haven’t identified the exact genes. But if you read the piece you will see the tenor of it is that there are good reasons to think there may be genetic differences, and the quesiton is, “how much?” > > The residual difference in skillsets after we normalize environmental differences, tells us how much. I have not seen data suggesting the skillset difference for taking academic tests is trivial, although I do not buy iiandyiiii’s assertion that half the black population in the US has an IQ under 85. Again, it is what you think, the guys at Panda’s Thumb already pointed at research that shows why other researchers do not approve of Coyne on his peculiar definition, but that is virtually the only beef, once again, he acknowledges that there is no genetic evidence. And no, it does not tell us how much. What we continue to know, is that you have not acknowledged the recent bullshit that you tried to pass as facts. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/775 "2013-02-10T03:26:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But if you read the piece you will see the tenor of it is that there are good reasons to think there may be genetic differences, and the quesiton is, “how much?” I did not see this “tenor” in Coyne’s piece. Methinks your own biases might be creeping into your interpretation… > [@](#): > > I do not buy iiandyiiii’s assertion that half the black population in the US has an IQ under 85. This is past data, not current data, by the way. And IQ is just another test score- you’ve had no problem stating, effectively, half the black population has a SAT/LSAT/etc score of less than X- you really seem to treat IQ as something magical. Considering all the test-scores you’ve gleefully banded about, I don’t see why you’re so insistent on focusing on this one. Dude, it’s just another test, with the same gap as the rest. This one just happens to show that the gap has _shrunk_. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/776 "2013-02-10T03:36:28Z")
And while I’m on the subject of some of the bias out there, read [this interesting piece](http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/gould-morton-lewis-2011.html) by John Hawks about Gould’s Mismeasure of Man cranial capacity comments: _“Anyway, you can see why I find this outrageous. Gould used the well-documented work of a long-dead man to make an argument that unconscious bias is widespread in science. He posed as a concerned critic, but thereby cast doubt on the validity of the scientific enterprise. He picked volume measurement and tabulation of averages as his target, making it seem as if the simplest and most objective observations – the Junior High-level science methods – were themselves subject to all-encompassing cultural biases. His paper and book are very widely read and cited by people who will never examine the primary evidence. Gould owed us a responsible reading and trustworthy reporting on that evidence. In its place, he made up fictional stories, never directly examined the evidence himself, and misreported Morton’s numbers.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/777 "2013-02-10T03:43:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I did not see this “tenor” in Coyne’s piece. Methinks your own biases might be creeping into your interpretation… > > This is past data, not current data, by the way. And IQ is just another test score- you’ve had no problem stating, effectively, half the black population has a SAT/LSAT/etc score of less than X- you really seem to treat IQ as something magical. Considering all the test-scores you’ve gleefully banded about, I don’t see why you’re so insistent on focusing on this one. Dude, it’s just another test, with the same gap as the rest. This one just happens to show that the gap has _shrunk_. It’s 2002 data, according to you. Ten years ago. And also according to you, if you go back to 1972, the average black IQ falls to 79. Go back a few more decades, and the average black IQ would fall into the 60s. As I’ve said before, ridiculous. The only way you can get the gap to shrink is to quote a guy who thinks american blacks were literally mentally retarded 50 years ago. That way, they can now be just mentally challenged because the gap has shrunk. And there is quite a large difference between what IQs test and what academic exams test, in my view. One is an estimate of intelligence and cognitive function; the other is the skillset to retain a very specific package of content. But in any case, it is disingenuous for you to try and retain the higher ground, scolding me for thinking “blacks are inferior” when the only difference between you and me is your reason why they are inferior. In point of fact, you consider american blacks substantially inferior to the white population for cognitive functions. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/778 "2013-02-10T04:00:08Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s 2002 data, according to you. Ten years ago. And also according to you, if you go back to 1972, the average black IQ falls to 79. Go back a few more decades, and the average black IQ would fall into the 60s. As I’ve said before, ridiculous. This is a ridiculous assumption; why would the change be linear? And considering the Flynn effect- that _every_ group’s IQ test scores have increased over time, this isn’t surprising. In fact, black people in 1995 had the same test scores, on average, as white people in 1945- so whatever intelligence category (not “mentally challenged”, by the way) that this particular score would fall in would apply to both white and black people, in 1945 and 1995, respectively. Which really makes a persuasive case that black people in 1995 have the same “environment” with respect to intellectual development as white people did in 1945. > [@](#): > > The only way you can get the gap to shrink is to quote a guy who thinks american blacks were literally mentally retarded 50 years ago. That way, they can now be just mentally challenged because the gap has shrunk. This is laughably false- both for what Flynn said and what you call mentally challenged and retarded (seriously- are you just taking wild guesses now?). Just wildly ignorant and totally incorrect about how IQ test scores have usually been evaluated. And I’ve made no particular claims- I just brought up a chunk of data that shows the gap has shrunk; you’ve blown it out of proportion because you think (with your very weak grasp of IQ and how it’s evaluated) you can score points on it. > [@](#): > > And there is quite a large difference between what IQs test and what academic exams test, in my view. One is an estimate of intelligence and cognitive function; the other is the skillset to retain a very specific package of content. But in any case, it is disingenuous for you to try and retain the higher ground, scolding me for thinking “blacks are inferior” when the only difference between you and me is your reason why they are inferior. In point of fact, you consider american blacks substantially inferior to the white population for cognitive functions. You are very, very wrong about what I think (yet again- please, just stop). You’ve stated that black people are, on average, inherently genetically less intelligent then non-black people. I see no reason to believe that black people are on average, genetically (or by any other measure except, perhaps, test-scores- and I am highly skeptical that any test score provides more than a very vague notion of actual overall intelligence) less intelligent. And by the test-score measure, black people are likely about as intelligent as white people were 50 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/779 "2013-02-10T04:10:18Z")
And while we are on the subject of straw man, I actually made an effort of not quoting Gould as he has controversy piled on him, the point here is that he is **not needed** to show how others dismissed the researcher’s conclusions connected to the Pioneer fund. So no, not relied on him, so more straw men from the Chief. ---
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100/780 "2013-02-10T05:10:12Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It’s a risible contention that, because some test takers choose not to self-identify with a SIRE group, the remaining groups which do put that self-designation down are not representative. > > The number of individuals who do not self-identify–even on the LSAT–is very small, typically under 3% most years. For example, in [URL=[http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/tr/pdf/tr-10-03.pdf](http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/tr/pdf/tr-10-03.pdf)] 2008-9, out of over 100,000 LSAT takers, only 734 made No response to a self-identification (P 19). This group scored extraordinarily high, so one would have to postulate that only a tiny group of only black geniuses elected not to self-identify. It’s a ridiculous hypothesis, and no researcher accepts it. Dismissing hypotheses as “ridiculous” when they do not resonate with your world views. Okay. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If you are talking about a random sample of all blacks, you are even further off. The subset of LSAT takers is a highly specialized subset of students who have had the opportunity for preparatory schooling. But of course, all across academia, from elementary school to post-graduate medical education, the exact same pattern of performance by SIRE group is going to hold true. Assumptions do not belong in science, except in the case of hypotheses. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Perhaps you would like to cite some data you find more representative, instead of advancing nonsense. You’re asking for a counterargument?? :dubious:. Please. False premise. You’ve provide no argument in the first place. The LSAT scores are not necessarily representative across the board - whites, blacks, etc. Don’t generalize from a self-selected sample to an entire population. This applies to all the test scores you’ve cited. SATs are not randomly administered. The MCAT isn’t randomly administered. Self-selected populations take these standardized tests. Your foundation is in science and basic statistics has clearly been built on quicksand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-non-existent/643100.md?page=40)