I agree with you, and I note that sucth tests further leave completely unresolved the issue of innate vs. environmental influences on the outcomes. One of the most pervasive ways that discrimination propagates itself is the failure to recognize that simple difference, a failure we've seen exemplified over and over in this thread. I appreciate that, but personally I'm not offended, I basically ask for it when I mince no words in pointing out logical shortcomings. I realize people don't like to have their arguments characterized as fallacious, especially if they cannot see the fallacies themselves. But I do recognize that tit-for-tat verbal battles make for uninteresting reading for everyone else, which is essentially what Van Rijn is saying, albeit somewhat inaccurately. I'm really just trying to establish that there is a difference between an innate gap in aptitude, and environmental influences on performance. You are adding the point that even "aptitude" is a questionable concept as it relates to performance-- performance is its own end.