" they did the proper regressions"...
The problem here is that if you're starting from a nonsensical and hugely subjective categorisation of the data, no amount of statistical wizardry will produce valid results.
So many people in the US who appear to be "white" could also be categorised as "black" if the one-drop rule was enforced that…
The problem here is that if you're starting from a nonsensical and hugely subjective categorisation of the data, no amount of statistical wizardry will produce valid results.
So many people in the US who appear to be "white" could also be categorised as "black" if the one-drop rule was enforced that the distinction is essentially self-referential. If you're poor, or caught breaking the law, you're so much more likely to be regarded as "black" that the stats are meaningless.
Add to that that many of those statistical tests developed by Fischer & Galton etc are increasingly regarded as unreliable precisely because of the subjective way they are used in sociology & psychology and you have a pseudoscientific mess. It's basically eugenics, and we all know where that leads.
" they did the proper regressions"...
The problem here is that if you're starting from a nonsensical and hugely subjective categorisation of the data, no amount of statistical wizardry will produce valid results.
So many people in the US who appear to be "white" could also be categorised as "black" if the one-drop rule was enforced that the distinction is essentially self-referential. If you're poor, or caught breaking the law, you're so much more likely to be regarded as "black" that the stats are meaningless.
Add to that that many of those statistical tests developed by Fischer & Galton etc are increasingly regarded as unreliable precisely because of the subjective way they are used in sociology & psychology and you have a pseudoscientific mess. It's basically eugenics, and we all know where that leads.