March 11, 2009

NYT: Cut back on LSAT to benefit NAMs

The NYT claims "Study Offers a New Test of Potential Lawyers:"

The LSAT, as the half-day exam is known, does not claim to predict much beyond a student’s performance in law school. But critics contend that it does not evaluate how good a lawyer someone will be and tests for the wrong things. They also say it keeps many black and Hispanic students — who tend to have lower scores — out of the legal profession.

Marjorie M. Shultz, a law professor who retired last year from Berkeley and is one of the study’s authors, said she began to examine the issue after California voters approved Proposition 209, which banned consideration of race in admissions.

“Proposition 209 and the reduced numbers of minority admits prompted me to think hard about what constitutes merit for purposes of law school admission, and to decide LSAT was much too narrow, as well as having big adverse impact,” Professor Shultz said.

The Law School Admissions Council, which administers the LSAT, helped finance Professor Shultz’s research, which has not appeared in any scholarly journals. ...

Instead of focusing on analytic ability, the new test includes questions about how to respond to hypothetical situations. For example, it might describe a company with a policy requiring immediate firing of any employee who lied on an application, then ask what a test taker would do upon discovering that a top-performing employee had omitted something on an application.

More than 1,100 lawyers took the test and agreed to let the researchers see their original LSAT scores, as well as grades from college and law school.

The study concluded that while LSAT scores, for example, “were not particularly useful” in predicting lawyer effectiveness, the new, alternative test results were — although the new test was no better at predicting how well participants would do in law school. Unlike the LSAT, the new test did not produce a gap in scores among different racial or ethnic groups.

Swell, but there's this little thing called The Bar Exam that law school grads have to pass to become lawyers. For some reason, the NYT forgot to mention bar exams in its article.

There's plenty of evidence that people who get affirmative action breaks on getting into law school with below average LSAT scores are likely to have a harder time passing the bar exam. We're not doing anybody any favors by letting them into law school, run up huge student loan debts, then have them come out of law school and waste years of their lives trying and failing to pass the bar exam. Under the current system that uses the LSAT, 53% of blacks who start law school never pass the bar exam versus 24% of whites. Why do we want to worsen the black failure rate by cutting back on the LSAT?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not to mention that the study is comparing a test that all current lawyers did well on (range restriction) to one that they will have a much larger range on.

rightsaidfred said...

Don't worry, Steve. At the rate things are going, the federal budget will equal GDP and the bureaucrats can just pencil in the proper racial profiles of each profession and their remuneration.

Anonymous said...

Figures it emanates from Berkeley. Their law school is notorious for its admissions policy of admitting high-GPA/low-LSAT people in an attempt to get around Prop. 209. Their policy is the exact reverse of most other law schools, which put much greater weight on LSAT scores (although you still need a good GPA to get into a good school).

Anonymous said...

So wont the bar exam be the next target for redesign?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: Under the current system that uses the LSAT, 53% of blacks who start law school never pass the bar exam versus 24% of whites. Why do we want to worsen the black failure rate by cutting back on the LSAT?

No problem - we just water down the bar exam so that anyone can pass it.

Tony Danton said...

What is the differential in black vs. white bar pass rates among those who graduate, as opposed to start law school? That's a more meaningful figure.

The delta between the two (bar pass by grad vs. is also an interesting figure.

Half Sigma said...

The hardest part of law is getting someone to hire you. Blacks are better at getting hired, because (1) SWPL hiring partners love to hire blacks; and (2) they are good at the improvisational conversation required at job interview. Unlike in fields such as computer programmer where job applicants are grilled with technical question, for some reason the law firm interviewers NEVER try to test your knowledge of the law.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that took so long.

azura said...

Granting for the sake of argument that the test has the properties that its inventor claims for it, is it not likely that once it was instituted, the LSAT-smart people would quickly figure out how to do well on it and move back to the front of the pack?

Black Sea said...

At some point -- and with virtually no honest debate -- America arrived at a decision on the question of whether to select people for certain academic and professional roles on the grounds of ability, or proportional representation.

Everything else follows from that decision, and there's no evidence that it will change. In fact, demographically, it's being reinforced.

Chief Seattle said...

Exactly what Lucius said - once you've come up with a way to remove "adverse effects" from the admissions test, it's a small leap to require that they be removed from bar exams. Why even bother with objective criteria in the first place when a benevolent Shultz can just tell us all what's right or wrong.

LomaAlta said...

Steve:
Do any afirmative action people in law school take out loans or is there almost always money for a free ride? Do you have any statistics?

Glaivester said...

You failed the bar exam. Your answers were too FAGGY! Uhuh.. huhuh.. huh. Yeah! And they were like 'tarded!

Anonymous said...

The LSAT, as the half-day exam is known, does not claim to predict much beyond a student’s performance in law school.

Performance in Law School is everything. Do well the first year and you will get the big firm internship and then the big firm job unless you totally blow it. Don't do as well as the top 10%-20% (or aren't connected, NAM, etc.) and you are marginally employable in the legal field if you can pass the bar. Its a racket.

Anonymous said...

What everyone else wrote, plus: asking various judges and whoever what they like to see in a lawyer is a crock.

I would rather see the researchers give elaborate questionnaires to 10,000 very successful (that is, very high earning) lawyers then analyze the results to find out which factors they seem to have in common (besides family connections). That might let you generate a useful test.

James said...

First commenter already said it: they only gave this test to people who were already lawyers.

Argent Paladin said...

As an LSAT teacher, I can definitely say that there would be some pretty immediate teaching to the new test and that the higher IQs would soon do better, bypassing any of that situational stuff.
And to underscore what Half-Sig said, NAMs have a better shot at getting hired now because they have a minimum LSAT and have passed the bar. But if the LSAT is made easier and if the bar is made easier, it is likely that ALL NAMs will be looked at with suspicion, and rightly so. This is just pushing the winnowing down the line. I am sure that the next step would be to require firms to have some hiring quota. But then you'd have to require clients to also have a quota. Then the legal profession would be like the teaching profession: the difference between performers and non-performers would be hopelessly obscured and everyone would get paid the same amount, thus lowering the standards of excellence.

eh said...

Swell, but there's this little thing called The Bar Exam that law school grads have to pass to become lawyers. For some reason, the NYT forgot to mention bar exams in its article.

First in a series; patience.

headache said...

Steve you miss the point. The Slim Times wants all exams dealing with NAM's to be either dumbed down or abolished, regardless of what that does to the US. South Africa is your future. The only thing which comes across in the article is the f. pretentiousness of that fishwrap.

nzconservative said...

"Then the legal profession would be like the teaching profession: the difference between performers and non-performers would be hopelessly obscured and everyone would get paid the same amount, thus lowering the standards of excellence."

Who says communism is dead!

Vernunft said...

"for some reason the law firm interviewers NEVER try to test your knowledge of the law."

Not correct at all. Fail.

dearieme said...

Why not just use MRI?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4977342/People-with-thicker-heads-are-more-intelligent.html

bjdouble said...

Isn't the purpose of these "situational" questions to test for political correctness? Pretty soon they become a test of how sensitive the tested are.

Death Bredon said...

The best predictor of success in a legal career is a strong track record of behaving without any regard for ethics or morality AND never having been "caught," or at least not punitively sanctioned for stealthy nefariousness. Unfortunately, by definition, this trait tends to evade direct, clear cut detection both before and after law school.

Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman said...

Or you could go to UCLA, belong to Mecha, then go to a non-acredited law school, and then take the bar exam 4 times, failing it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Eventually, you'll get to be mayor of Los Angeles, and better yet get to bang a female TVC anchor who's been passed around among your buddies like a bong at a frat party.

Ivy said...

This is off topic, but I'm not sure where to post it. I'll repost if I don't get a response.

I was searching the Interwebs for liberal blogs discussing HBD (mostly in the context of the James Watson controversy). I need a good laugh from time to time. Mostly, their opposition consists of quoting Gould or Lewontin. But the following blog entry had some interesting studies in it:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

It's one of the first articles written against HBD that I've found even reasonable.

I'm really curious to hear anyone's take on this, especially Steve's. (Maybe you already responded to this article or the studies cited comprehensively in a VDARE article and I missed it??)

simon said...

Presumably the end result is law firms with lots of NAM lawyers there to fill quotas, who don't actually do anything. But is that not already the case? Wasn't Michelle Obama in that position?

Ivy said...

Regarding my last post, the most interesting section of his article is below:

"In the Newman, Holzinger, and Freeman study, ratings are reported of the degree of similarity between the environments into which the twins were separated. When these ratings were divided at the median, the twins reared in the more similar environments showed a correlation of .91 between their IQ's; for those brought up in less similar environments, the coefficient was .42. "

That's a pretty low coefficient (0.42). There must be answers!!!

Also Turkheimer finds:

"found a massive dependence of the broad-sense heritability on IQ on status, running from nearly zero at low status to about 0.8 at high status."

Anonymous said...

Somebody remind me what a NAM is... National Association of Manufacturers?

Darrow said...

Lawyers. Need still more. The value they add to an economy is enormous.

Dutch Boy said...

Abolish the bar exam (that racist holdover from a bygone age)!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they can have a test like the one in Monty Python when they have to get by Tim to cross the bridge of death. They could start by asking questions such as, "what is your favorite color". After 30% washes out with that one then they could ask a question that only someone with specific knowledge could answer. Rather than asking how fast does a swollow beat it wings it could be something needed for law like a question about why diversity is beter than excellence. Then you wait and see if they ask if it is an African Swallow or European.

Truth said...

"Unlike in fields such as computer programmer where job applicants are grilled with technical question, for some reason the law firm interviewers NEVER try to test your knowledge of the law."

And exactly how many law firms have you interviewed with? That seems a powerful statement.

Anonymous said...

Steve, the little thing called the bar exam will be the next thing that is not only racist, but doesn't really predict who makes a good lawyer anyway.

We can only go one direction with radical egalitarianism, and we're going that way.

Lovingthelaw said...

Law firm hiring depends on where you are in your career, or what type of firm you are interviewing with.

If you are 1L or 2L at a 1st Tier Law School, and are applying for a Summer Associate position in Big Law, which will lead to first year Associate position at the firm, yeah, you don't need to know much "Law". Your "credentials" do the talking.

If you work a couple years at Big Law, you can then transition to a second firm (maybe another large firm - or a boutique that lies to you about a better lifestyle). This will usually be in the same practice area, and the interview probably not have a whole lot of "assuming fact pattern A, and law B, what result" type of questioning. There is assumed confidence. You went to the right school. You worked at the right firm. You probably know some people at the firm.

If you transition from Big Law into a government position, well, you never have to be competent in any meaningful way again. Congrats. You win the prize. If you are a NAM and you get this job, divine intervention has played a small role, recognize Jesus as your personal savior.

Now, here's the rub. If you are applying for a 0 -2 years Associate position at a smaller litigation firm, and come from a 2nd to 4th Tier Law School, chances are they don't really expect you to know much. The firm will pay you crap and work you to death. They expect you to leave in a couple years anyway, so could care less. There are thousands of 2nd - 4th tier law school grads, and thousand graduating every May, not in the top 20% of the class. While you will no doubt be quizzed on some particulars, e.g., have you ever heard of this thing called the "Practice Book", as a practical matter, if they call you in for an interview, getting hired is basically on whether or not the hiring partner likes you. It's a "smell" test type of thing, and the smallest thing can get you out of the running: your dress, your language, your writing sample, your hobbies, etc. The list is endless.

Here's were it gets fun. After those two years are over, and the hours and psychopathic partner finally too much to take, you get to repeat the the process over again. This time at law firm looking for 2 -4 year Associates. At this interview, they will expect you to know something, may ask you about your experience ask some law related questions, etc. But once again, there is a surfeit of candidates, and it really comes down to whether you "smell" right. Of course, you will be leaving in 2 -3 years anyway, because, despite the slight bump in pay, greater responsibility, you, you still working in a glorified sweatshop.

At this point, you decide you have had it working for, and in a profession filled with, sociopaths, narcissists, and highly functioning autistics, and head back into the real world. Or, if you are an alpha male, possessing game and testosterone, you decided to go out on your own. If you do not fail, you will eventually hire a 1st year Associate, exploit them, wait to they quit, and then hire another one. The cycle begins anew.

As another poster mentioned upthread, unless you really position yourself well in terms of credentials or you are NAM, yer usually SOL with a law degree.

Your mileage may vary, and there will always be exceptions, but, in general, law school is now a scam that plays on the hopes of the 100 - 115 IQ brigade of being a "highly paid professional", but supply so outstrips demand, that it is pretty much a pipe dream. A pipe dream that puts many people in a crippling debt.

As making the LSAT easier? This can only be for self esteem purposes, because,frankly, if a NAM wants to go to law school, they can go to law school (even a real good one despite a real crappy score). Dumbing down the LSAT really is not necessary.

Anonymous said...

"Then the legal profession would be like the teaching profession: the difference between performers and non-performers would be hopelessly obscured and everyone would get paid the same amount, thus lowering the standards of excellence."

LOL... but that is where the US is headed. Racial spoils are the future and not some obscure concepts like "excellence".

David said...

"All men are created equal." Therefore, if there are unequal outcomes, the government must step in.

Ideas have consequences, even on (ESPECIALLY on) dummies.

AMac said...

The Shultz/Zedeck effort seems dopey enough, when summarized by the skeptical Sailer or the credulous NYT. In detail, it turns out to be significantly more dreadful. Boalt Hall proudly offers PDFs of the study for download, here.

To get a sense of how vulnerable the Shultz/Zedeck LSAT substitutes are to teach-to-the-test (etc.), here is their description of their "Situational Judgment Test" (page 33 ff.):

"The SJT required multiple steps to construct. First, the researchers individually and then collaboratively wrote approximately 200 hypothetical situations to reflect each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors... Second, we refined each item multiple times to ensure clear phrasing, elimination of ethnic/racial/gender biases, and balance among the Effectiveness Factors... A single item
example appears below. We determined that this particular example reflected competency in three [of the 26] areas: Influencing and Advocating, Developing Relationships, and
Integrity:

You learn that a co-worker, Angela, who you helped train for the job, copied some confidential and proprietary information from the company’s files. What would you do?

a. Tell Angela what I learned and that she should destroy the information before she gets caught.

b. Anonymously report Angela to management.

c. Report Angela to management and after disciplinary action has been
taken, tell Angela that I’m the one that did so.

d. Threaten to report Angela unless she destroys the information.

e. Do nothing.


The answer that will guarantee your ascension to the top tier of white-shoe firms, is--surprisingly--to have Angela inf

AMac said...

The answer that will guarantee your ascension to the top tier of white-shoe firms, is--surprisingly--to have Angela inf

Sorry to have to cut that final paragraph short. Since I can't be sure that readers of these comments have the desired demographic characteristics, it wouldn't be proper to continue.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the test is completely vulnerable to being prepared for.

It looks to me like they basically created a test which has an element of randomness in it since the answers are somewhat debatable.

Here's a better way to eliminate racial bias in the tests without that sort of vulnerabilit: Just assign scores at random.

ben tillman said...

You learn that a co-worker, Angela, who you helped train for the job, copied some confidential and proprietary information from the company’s files. What would you do?

It's "whom", not "who", and it's "do", not "would" (if you insist on using the present indicative in the first sentence).

These people teach at Berkeley?

Maximilian said...

"Death Bredon"

AKA Lord Peter Wimsey in disguise. But your incognito shall be pierced when you are unable to suppress completely Europe's most outstanding oenophilic palate.

anony-mouse said...

Silver lining, people.

Wouldn't it be great for the US if bar exams were altered to help dumber people become lawyers?

I can see a series of only good ramifications coming from such a change.

clem said...

Also Turkheimer finds:

"found a massive dependence of the broad-sense heritability on IQ on status, running from nearly zero at low status to about 0.8 at high status."


Steve actually did address that particular study back in July of 2006:

"Turkheimer's paper isn't terribly persuasive because it seems disingenuous. It's particularly frustrating to read because, as far as I can tell, it refuses to tell us what were the average IQs of the children tested, or most of the other most interesting basic facts about the data."

"A few years ago I emailed Turkheimer asking him to reveal these numbers, but he never responded. Later, I got an email from a friend of Turkheimer's chiding me for criticizing his paper. When I explained that I needed to know these basic facts about the study, he agreed, and offered to ask Turkheimer for the numbers, but then I never heard anything more."

"This is important because psychometrician John Ray has put forward a plausible-sounding alternative suggestion:"

"Full publication of the study has not been done as yet but from what we know so far it seems that what they found was in fact much simpler than that. They found that if you separated out low income respondents (mostly black) and studied them alone, the role of heredity was less important in explaining IQ differences. That does sound like a real finding but it is in fact what statisticians would call a 'restriction of range effect.' In other words, if you take ANY group and select out a subset that is relatively homogeneous with regard to some variable, differences in that variable will tend to have less importance in explaining other differences. Since socioeconomic status and race are substantially correlated with heritable IQ, that is precisely what these researchers have done: Selected a group that is relatively homogeneous in genetic inheritance for IQ and then said: 'Hey! Differences in genetic inheritance are not so important here!' Statisticians would call the finding an 'artifact'--i.e. something created by the research procedure rather than a genuine finding about the world."

clem said...

Further to Ivy's admittedly off-topic post, this is the sort of thing which casts doubt on Richard Lynn's scientific integrity, and thus on his widely quoted IQ-by-country numbers:

Sex and IQ.

Anonymous said...

Worsen the black failure rate so people who cry "Racism!" professionally won't be out of a job.

Ronduck said...

The Law School Admissions Council, which administers the LSAT, helped finance Professor Shultz’s research, which has not appeared in any scholarly journals.

I don't understand how the LSAC benefited from funding this study. Do they intend to have greater revenue from a longer test? Or are they just committed leftists, like so many of the others in this society?

Anonymous said...

That's right, Truth, no lawyers who have applied for jobs ever comment on this blog. Stupid troll.

Half Sigma said...

"And exactly how many law firms have you interviewed with?"

I'd say around 20.

albertosaurus said...

Unlike in fields such as computer programmer where job applicants are grilled with technical question, for some reason the law firm interviewers NEVER try to test your knowledge of the law.

Actually many interviewers for programmer positions also fail to ask any technical questions. The reason is simply that the interviewer is embarassed when the interviewee can't come up with an answer. To avoid that pain many with hiring authority rely on paper credentials.

At an Internet startup I had to hire a new programmer. I simply asked one question, "What is Third Normal Form?" Everyone said they had heard of it but no one quite knew what it was. It was a very painful process. After 26 interviews I finally found someone who could answer my question. The Personnel people of course thought I was crazy.

Gene Berman said...

AMAC:


Go on--you can spell it out:
i-n-f-ibulated. But, for the life of me, I can't see what possible good that would do.

Gene Berman said...

Ben Tillman:

Methinks such protest unavailing. And that it's age even more than education.

Anonymous said...

I'm interested in how this new test creates a performance distribution without a white/asian performance advantage. It goes against the joke of the jewish kid still getting the highest grade in a black studies class. Please post more details on this particular aspect.

Hopefully Anonymous
http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com

DK said...

I decided that I would also take a look at the report. Here's another one of those example questions from it.

An example of one BIO item is shown below. We determined that this particular example reflected competency in both Creativity and Problem Solving:

How many times in the past year were you able to think of a way of doing
something that most others would not have thought of?

a. Almost never.
b. Seldom.
c. Sometimes.
d. Often.
e. Very frequently.


It's possible that these proposed new tests may simply select for inflated self-images, which could be the point.

AMac said...

I supposed the "Angela" question I pasted upthread had inspired "DK" to invent his inane "How many times in the past year were you able to think of a way of doing something..."?

Nope. Bottom of page 35 of the full report.

Professor Marjorie Shultz of UC Berkeley: immune to parody.

Blode0322 said...

It's possible that these proposed new tests may simply select for inflated self-images, which could be the point.

Indeed. High black self-esteem, which is obvious to everyone, can be used to create affirmative action as long as everyone denies that blacks have higher self-esteem than average. It's almost as if the relentless talk about how whites are responsible for slavery, which apparently had exclusively black victims and white perpetrators, is hurting white self-esteem. Which is a real coup, given that those ideas are complete lies.

Truth said...

"Which is a real coup, given that those ideas are complete lies."

Complete lies? We're talking probability here. American slavery had ALMOST entirely black victims and ALMOST entirely white perpetrators.

So we disregard IQ studies because SOME blacks are smarter than you?

Blode0322 said...

Truth, you're not even trying any more. Blacks have higher self-esteem than whites. Do you deny this? Why did you narrow the frame of reference from "slavery" to "American slavery"?

Gene Berman said...

Further, "Truth," why do you ignore the role of African blacks in the trade? Truth would recognize that these were the folks specifically ENSLAVING the unfortunates. I guess "Truth" is your last name (and your first name is "Selective").

Chattel slavery is, by and large, an unprofitable production method.
The slaving ships and their owners were in the transportation business and would have hauled other cargoes had not the produce of the slavers been available; the auctioneers and other middelmen would have had to handle other commodities. You'll have to face the reality that the actual folks that deprived men of their liberty, put them into chains, and sold them onward, were, in fact, similarly, black African men. In other parts of Africa, there were others also involved in such phase but not so much in West Africa, from which most sold into American slavery originated (and I don't know the actual figures but would guess that at least as many went to South America as to the territory that became the U.S.)

Gene Berman said...

Blode0322:

It's useless to attempt a truth-sseking discussion with "Truth."
To cite a recent example, after I'd pointed out that, from a viewpoint encompassing the development of civilization, slavery could not be considered an "unmitigated evil" for the very simple reason that it was a "step up," offering an alternative to the extermination of opponents, Truth went on to make me out as some sort of apologist for slavery.
Evidently, he sees value in perpetuating divisiveness (perhaps to promote "solidarity" of some sort) via stories designed just for that purpose (such as that blacks were considered "3/5ths of a person" or that blacks "weren't
permitted to read," etc.). No facts must intrude on his views and, to the extent that they cannot be discredited, they must be denied and their utterer mischaracterized and slandered.

Truth said...

"Truth, you're not even trying any more. Blacks have higher self-esteem than whites."

I disagree, I would say that blacks fake higher self esteem than whites.

"The slaving ships and their owners were in the transportation business and would have hauled other cargoes had not the produce of the slavers been available;"

Then why didn't they?

A) because the cargo they were hauling was the most valuable that could be attained at that time.

B) Because white people suddenly got smart and learned how to add and subtract in 1830.

"
Chattel slavery is, by and large, an unprofitable production method."

Let's play a quick game of word substitution:

"Free labor is, by and large, an unprofitable production method."

"You'll have to face the reality that the actual folks that deprived men of their liberty, put them into chains, and sold them onward, were, in fact, similarly, black African men."

I never once said that there wasn't a large amount of black complicity in slavery. If you'll read my posts...again...you'll see that. However, you are the "smart", "Christian", "less prone to violence", and "civilized" ones in society, right? do you hold your 2 year old and your 9 year old to the same standards?

"I don't know the actual figures but would guess that at least as many went to South America as to the territory that became the U.S."

And who controlled the South American slave trade? Mestizos? I thought there was only one white race; there is when someone gets killed killed by an African-American, why not when discussing slavery?

"slavery could not be considered an "unmitigated evil" for the very simple reason that it was a "step up," offering an alternative to the extermination of opponents, Truth went on to make me out as some sort of apologist for slavery."

I think that very statement makes you...drum roll please..."some sort of apologist for slavery." You have yet to admit that it was a bad thing and choose to focus on all of the benefits that coming to this country provided (as though our hard work had nothing to do with these.) That screams "apologist" in my book; and once again, how would you feel if your kids were sold "down the river?"

"Evidently, he sees value in perpetuating divisiveness."

You are the one perpetuating divisiveness, I am only being logical. Once again, slavery was a bad thing, is that "divisive" or "logical"?

"via stories designed just for that purpose (such as that blacks were considered "3/5ths of a person" or that blacks "weren't
permitted to read," etc.)"

These are not "stories" they are historical facts, and if you'll re-read that thread you will see that I didn't bring them up, you did.

Svigor said...

(and I don't know the actual figures but would guess that at least as many went to South America as to the territory that became the U.S.)

I don't recall the figures either, but I do remember that many more went to South America than went to North America.

Brazil and the Caribbean were meat-grinders for slaves (plenty of them white, btw).

Svigor said...

I disagree, I would say that blacks fake higher self esteem than whites.

Some of us actually know, or have know, lots of blacks you know. Just thought I'd point that out. Self-reporting on sociological tests isn't the extent of the data.

Svigor said...

Let's play a quick game of word substitution:

"Free labor is, by and large, an unprofitable production method."


Let's play a quick game of hypothetical question:

"America would be better off if the transatlantic slave trade had never happened, yes or no?"

Truth said...

"America would be better off if the transatlantic slave trade had never happened, yes or no?"

No. What do I win?