[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't making a comparison to your gym example. I was merely illustrating the fallacy of low sample set...and the fallacy of assumed intentions. You make two bad assumptions in your gym example.

First, you assume that because at your gym (at the time you happen to be there) there happen to be a disproportionate number of African Americans, it must mean that African Americans work out in higher numbers nationally than do other Americans. Your sample set is so small that it would be LIKE saying, "I know hundreds of people and none of them are Asian, therefore I do not believe in Asian people."

And even IF that first faulty assumption were luckily (for you) true, you further assume that this demonstrates that African Americans place higher importance on physical fitness, when in fact it could simply mean that African Americans enjoy exercise more than other races, or that African Americans have more free time than other races, or that they feel a need to be in better shape because they work more manual labor jobs, or any number of other factors that could lead to them working out in higher percentages than other races (if that is even true).

Your assumption that A (you seeing more black people at your gym in a white neighborhood) means B (the African American community places a greater value on physical fitness) is simply a bad one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point B is spot on...there could be many reasons why they are there.

But your A is still apples and oranges.

See, in my example, I'm dealing with a fairly homogenous subset (my city), and you are too (your friends).

however, in my subset, I'm seeing something contradictory to my subset, whereas you are seeing something consistent with yours.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the important issues at hand, mind you. I'm just saying you picked a completely erroneous analogy to bring the point to light.

No biggy.

Josh