[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big point we're getting away from is that I'm talking genetic classifications. Also, I'm not talking about other levels of groupings (ethnicity, etc.), I'm talking about "race".
If someone wants to say american blacks score lower on standardized tests then there are a number of very good possible reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics. That's a different subject.