Although a variety of studies have indicated that using statistical clustering techniques to examine genetic information may allow for geographically based groupings of individuals that tenuously map onto some conceptions of race, these studies have also indicated that the amount of genetic variation within these groupings is significantly larger than the variation that exists between them (even after controlling for "unused" portions of the human genetic sequence). However, irrespective of these problems with the concept of race, the study of race holds a prominent place within the social and behavioral sciences. In their recent article on this topic, A. Smedley and B. D. Smedley acknowledge the problematic position of race at the genetic level. However, Smedley and Smedley do not explicitly relate the nature of the analyses often conducted to discern race on a genetic level (e.g., forms of cluster and profile analysis) to the discussion of race at the social level. Although the problems of interpreting self-categorizations into racial categories as "real" in the same way that a genetic code is "real" are obvious (and thoroughly discussed by Smedley & Smedley, 2005), what is often less recognized is the fact that the human genetic code allows for an amazing amount of plurality, whereas the racial categories used in most psychological research are unbelievably restricting. Forgetting the serious problems associated with attempting to match the phenomenology of human life with a series of acids, at a minimum psychologists should pay more attention to the fact that the measurement of social constructs should be conceived at a level of complexity that is at least partially commensurate with that of the human genome.