mind that, many people care passionately. Most of them are not experts in interpreting research, although many may pride themselves on being informed and literate. Unsophisticated people could possibly misinterpret the findings and draw their own flawed conclusions, unless they are specifically told not to. Another important aspect to keep in mind is to put matters in a quantitative perspective. To not place so much emphasis on statistical significance, and put more stress on effect sizes and variance accounted for, and the like. If the general public is informed that 2% of the variance of some behavior is accounted for by race, they would be less apt to do something foolish than if they were told that the racial differences is significant at well beyond the .0001 level. The latter fact about difference is crucial to a scientist, since it informs him/her that there is something there to be pursued and 4 understood. The former fact provides a much more relevant viewpoint for the general public. The last thing to keep in mind is to be tactful. This may be the least important. However, there is a caution. To be too tactful is to be condescending, which is, morally speaking, at least as bad as being rude. Sometimes emphasis must override tact. Nevertheless, other things equal, there is often a choice between stating something in a way that will increase or that will decrease the probability of the reader feeling aggrieved. It is sometimes just a matter of thinking a little about choices of metaphors. The late William Shockly once made a comment about Nature, saying that "color-coded groups of individual so that statistical reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectually rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by the pragmatic man in the street"(Shockley, 1972, p. 307). This metaphor was an wrong choice, from at least two different perspectives. First, it is equivocal in an extremely fundamental ...
