# Are you a racist? Warning signs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519 "2014-07-07T08:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 56
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1101 "2014-08-01T14:08:16Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You sure? I thought race realism IQ arguments show that pretty much everyone besides East Asians, whites, and Jews are dumb as bricks and in many cases borderline retarded. These racist threads always seem to focus on black people for some reason (American parochialism? Because Africa is a shithole?), but it’s not like anyone else comes up roses. South Asians, Indians, arabs, hispanics, the former Soviet bloc, Ireland, man, they is so dumb! And some native peoples supposedly have room temperature IQs. You thought wrong, and it is this sort of rhetorical silliness that makes educating most of the public a waste of time. It serves to reassure the weakminded but is so far removed from understanding the substance of the problem that it adds nothing but ignorance and noise. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1102 "2014-08-01T14:14:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What is the relevance of that distinction for purposes of this issue? Because methylation and histone distribution can (I assume, and would expect) can change much faster and more predictably than the actual genetic code. (Well, genetic changes can be predictable/directed if we’re talking about selection, but mutation is not). ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1103 "2014-08-01T14:18:35Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > John McWhorter is wrong. High performing Black students get along better with their peers than high performing White kids. There is no ‘Black culture of underachievement’, or whatever. Ah, McWhorter. Classic example of a scholar milking his very tentative connections to social science for his own benefit. I challenged McWhorter when he showed up at a talk at Harvard spouting his nonsense. His book _Losing the Race_ is essentially anecdotes of how Black students in his courses didn’t come to class, turn in assignments, and the like. Of course, he failed to follow up as a social scientist would to delve into the motivations and experiences of the students to understand what might be going on with them. Stick to linguistics, McWhorter (a field in which he is legitimately quite established in). I joked that I couldn’t believe this thread was still going on earlier. And against my better judgment, I’m going to plant a thought. When one conducts social science, one of the most important steps is to make plain your assumptions. There are a number of assumptions promoted by those who are convinced that there is some racial dimension to intelligence. I’m going to recap them here. [ol] [li]There are discrete biological groups that are categorized as “races.”[/li][li]“Intelligence” is a fixed property which is measurable.[/li][li]The scales used to measure intelligence are reliable and unbiased.[/li][/ol] It’s been known for years that there is more genetic variance within “race” than between “racial” groups. [The AAA made this statement back in the 1990s](http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm). Furthermore, folks have been bonin’ across these _culturally_ distinguished groups for a long, long time. So there are very few isolated genetic populations out there to begin with. This is especially true of Black Americans descended from slave, who are a genetic melange of… damn near everything. In my own DNA profile, I have 4 continents covered. That’s what a diaspora will do. There seems to be some certainty on how one measures intelligence. A test? Grades? None of these measures are free from bias and are not objective. If you believe this, I suspect you wear a top hat and a monocle. Cultural bias is both overt and subtle. Western Europeans have primarily dictated what measures denote intelligence - I saw a poster mentioning Stephen Jay Gould’s work upthread. What if through some quirk of faith, Uganda was the most technologically advanced nation in the world? Through guns, germs, and steel, they were number one, and people raised in Ugandan culture would create measures that would denote intelligence. It’s very likely that Ugandans would be among the smartest people in the world via those measures. The history of intelligence testing is quite sordid and ugly, and very little empirical science comes into it; take a look at Nicholas Lehmann’s _The Big Test_ to learn more about it. Further, nobody really believes that intelligence is fixed; learning is a malleable process and it is possible to become “smarter.” That’s why there’s been a seed change in how we praise children in academic settings. We don’t say “you’re smart,” we say “you worked hard, and look what you accomplished.” Because even believing that your intelligence is fixed has deleterious results on one’s self-concept. So - if you accept the fact that all of the listed premises are flawed, you’re left with a fairly thin argument for high intelligence and low intelligence in any population (excepting those with cognitive impairments, and even many of these diagnoses are cloaked in poverty and racism). Kids are labeled “emotionally disturbed,” “ADHD,” and other “disabilities” with no cognitive measures. I know this; I worked in schools and saw this happen. I suspect most of us would be considered quite stupid if, for example, we were beamed down in a rice paddy in Southeast Asia. We would have to do significant work to learn how to harvest and plant the rice, and those people who had been doing this for their entire lives, taught by those who did it their entire lives, would likely on average be much better than us. And of course some people would pick it up quickly. Does that mean they’re “more intelligent,” or is it that they had similar experiences that are “translatable” to those tasks? There’s probably some cognitive basis that makes these connections easier BUT processing information quickly is clearly a Westernized measure of “intelligence.” There are cultures that value process and time in decision making; there are tons of examples of American and European businesses tanking overseas because executives had a very terse understanding of time while their partners overseas were more “relaxed” about it. If one is able to step out of the Western mindset, there are some values that we consider essential and needed that are very much out of step with much of the world. Yet some consider those values and adherence to them as valuable, even “intelligent.” Something like taking one’s time to consider all the options might be considered unintelligent. But is it? Could there ever be a non-biased measure of intelligence? Not if human beings with any type of cultural background are involved in creating it. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1104 "2014-08-01T14:19:47Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Let’s try this again: > > What evidence do you have for any external (nurturing) factors that might drive epigenetic changes in only a black cohort? > > I don’t think you understand the epigenetic argument, which is fundamentally a way of dodging gene pools by blaming phenotypic expression on non-hereditary genetic changes…it saves a given individual from blaming his geneset pool, but at a population level is woefully lacking. > > What kind of epigenetic driver do you think might exist that subverts the otherwise equivalent gene pool of wealthy blacks? Wealthy Black people weren’t wealthy a few generations ago (and more to the point, lived in high disease burden environments in the American Southeast and before that in tropical Africa). Maybe in a high-disease burden environment, prenatal development involves less allocation to expensive brain tissue (which is more or less what Thornhill hypothesizes), and maybe (this is me taking it a bit further) those changes might involve epigenetic effects which could take multiple generations in a parasite-free environment to work themselves out. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1105 "2014-08-01T14:22:16Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > Ah, McWhorter. Classic example of a scholar milking his very tentative connections to social science for his own benefit. I challenged McWhorter when he showed up at a talk at Harvard spouting his nonsense. His book _Losing the Race_ is essentially anecdotes of how Black students in his courses didn’t come to class, turn in assignments, and the like. Of course, he failed to follow up as a social scientist would to delve into the motivations and experiences of the students to understand what might be going on with them. Stick to linguistics, McWhorter (a field in which he is legitimately quite established in). > > I joked that I couldn’t believe this thread was still going on earlier. And against my better judgment, I’m going to plant a thought. > > When one conducts social science, one of the most important steps is to make plain your assumptions. There are a number of assumptions promoted by those who are convinced that there is some racial dimension to intelligence. I’m going to recap them here. > > [ol] > [li]There are discrete biological groups that are categorized as “races.”[/li][li]“Intelligence” is a fixed property which is measurable.[/li][li]The scales used to measure intelligence are reliable and unbiased.[/li][/ol] > > It’s been known for years that there is more genetic variance within “race” than between “racial” groups. [The AAA made this statement back in the 1990s](http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm). Furthermore, folks have been bonin’ across these _culturally_ distinguished groups for a long, long time. So there are very few isolated genetic populations out there to begin with. This is especially true of Black Americans descended from slave, who are a genetic melange of… damn near everything. In my own DNA profile, I have 4 continents covered. That’s what a diaspora will do. > > There seems to be some certainty on how one measures intelligence. A test? Grades? None of these measures are free from bias and are not objective. If you believe this, I suspect you wear a top hat and a monocle. Cultural bias is both overt and subtle. Western Europeans have primarily dictated what measures denote intelligence - I saw a poster mentioning Stephen Jay Gould’s work upthread. What if through some quirk of faith, Uganda was the most technologically advanced nation in the world? Through guns, germs, and steel, they were number one, and people raised in Ugandan culture would create measures that would denote intelligence. It’s very likely that Ugandans would be among the smartest people in the world via those measures. > > The history of intelligence testing is quite sordid and ugly, and very little empirical science comes into it; take a look at Nicholas Lehmann’s _The Big Test_ to learn more about it. Further, nobody really believes that intelligence is fixed; learning is a malleable process and it is possible to become “smarter.” That’s why there’s been a seed change in how we praise children in academic settings. We don’t say “you’re smart,” we say “you worked hard, and look what you accomplished.” Because even believing that your intelligence is fixed has deleterious results on one’s self-concept. > > So - if you accept the fact that all of the listed premises are flawed, you’re left with a fairly thin argument for high intelligence and low intelligence in any population (excepting those with cognitive impairments, and even many of these diagnoses are cloaked in poverty and racism). Kids are labeled “emotionally disturbed,” “ADHD,” and other “disabilities” with no cognitive measures. I know this; I worked in schools and saw this happen. > > I suspect most of us would be considered quite stupid if, for example, we were beamed down in a rice paddy in Southeast Asia. We would have to do significant work to learn how to harvest and plant the rice, and those people who had been doing this for their entire lives, taught by those who did it their entire lives, would likely on average be much better than us. And of course some people would pick it up quickly. Does that mean they’re “more intelligent,” or is it that they had similar experiences that are “translatable” to those tasks? There’s probably some cognitive basis that makes these connections easier BUT processing information quickly is clearly a Westernized measure of “intelligence.” There are cultures that value process and time in decision making; there are tons of examples of American and European businesses tanking overseas because executives had a very terse understanding of time while their partners overseas were more “relaxed” about it. > > If one is able to step out of the Western mindset, there are some values that we consider essential and needed that are very much out of step with much of the world. Yet some consider those values and adherence to them as valuable, even “intelligent.” Something like taking one’s time to consider all the options might be considered unintelligent. But is it? > > Could there ever be a non-biased measure of intelligence? Not if human beings with any type of cultural background are involved in creating it. I quite like McWhorter (and as far as the ‘race and intelligence’ debate goes, I believe he considers himself agnostic about it). He’s certainly good in his field. He just happens to be wrong about the thesis ‘African American culture suppresses intellectual achievement’. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1106 "2014-08-01T14:25:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > It may be better to avoid various statistical wordsmithing tricks such as which factor X predicts which IQ outcome. That an individual has Down syndrome better predicts his IQ than if he is a particular race has no bearing on whether average performance outcome differences among races is due to average gene pool differences. That’s a terrible analogy, because Down syndrome is not correlated with race (and therefore is an entirely independent predictor). Disease burden where you live _is_ strongly correlated with race, and disease burden where your family lived three hundred years ago is _even more strongly_ correlated. When Thronhill & company ran their model for explaining average state IQ, after accounting for infectious disease prevalence they found that racial makeup of the state was not a significant predictor (at p = 0.06). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1107 "2014-08-01T14:31:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Do you have any support for these contentions, or just a general impression that they are right. > > For races and biology, try > > [This Discover magazine article](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/02/human-races-may-have-biological-meaning-but-races-mean-nothing-about-humanity/#.U9sSbfldVy4) for starters, or perhaps > [Jerry Coyne’s essay](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) > > In general, the scientific community is not opposed to the idea that “races” have biological clusterings for genes (due to the long history of human migration patterns). The scientific community is inclined to minimize those differences, and reassure, for obvious reasons, that no genes have directly been identified which are shown to be responsible for intelligence differences. > > Apparently, you wish to call a “racist” someone who thinks its a reasonable inference to make that such genes exist, since the pattern is so persistent and the alternate explanations so lame. That’s certainly you choice, although such a label has no bearing on the science of the topic. You do realize that you’ve linked to people whose ideas are on the fringes of thought, right? The second article even says “if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier.” The simple fact is that [the consensus opinion](http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished) is that: The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Still, the concept of human race as an objective biological reality persists in science and in society. It is high time that policy makers, educators and those in the medical-industrial complex rid themselves of the misconception of race as type or as genetic population. So you should probably ask yourself why, if the consensus opinion is that race has no biological reality, you find yourself seeking out only the opinions of the outliers. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1108 "2014-08-01T14:34:40Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > By “egalitarians” I mean those who think all races are approximately equal in potential for various skillsets such as those required for various sporting activities, intelligence tests, academic performance and the like–assuming there has been equal opportunity for nurturing for the skillset. > > No one in this thread is an egalitarian? I was thinking all of those calling me “racist” were opposed to the idea that any given race is better suited than another for an average better performance for a given skillset. > > Perhaps you can correct me? Well I can correct you, and in fact I have in the past corrected you. It hasn’t stuck though, so just try to remember this one simple thing: no one in this thread is an egalitarian, so don’t use the word again. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1109 "2014-08-01T14:36:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is a specious argument. > > Even if there’s no direct evidence that points more strongly in one direction than the other, you have to take into account which one has a stronger theoretical basis. If I walk outside and see the ground is wet there’s no evidence that points more strongly towards it having rained than towards space aliens having a massive intergalactic water-fight. But I would assume the former, and so would you, because in that case you would not be bound by an overwhelming ideological imperative as you are here. (You’ve repeatedly asserted that you accept that genetic differences in intelligence are theoretically possible - and in fact you’ve gotten all worked up over people who’ve failed to acknowledge this.) I was using the alien stuff as a (jokey) placeholder/representative for each and every non-genetic explanation that has not been corrected for. These would include all of the possible explanations that I and others have put forward, such as various sorts of day-to-day discrimination, media depictions of black people, and the like. Because there is direct evidence that points _away_ from genes as a factor (though not toward any particular explanation), any non-genetic explanation not already corrected for should be considered as having stronger evidence in its favor than genes. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1110 "2014-08-01T14:46:08Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Do you have any support for these contentions, or just a general impression that they are right. > > For races and biology, try > > [This Discover magazine article](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/02/human-races-may-have-biological-meaning-but-races-mean-nothing-about-humanity/#.U9sSbfldVy4) for starters, or perhaps > [Jerry Coyne’s essay](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) > > In general, the scientific community is not opposed to the idea that “races” have biological clusterings for genes (due to the long history of human migration patterns). The scientific community is inclined to minimize those differences, and reassure, for obvious reasons, that no genes have directly been identified which are shown to be responsible for intelligence differences. > > Apparently, you wish to call a “racist” someone who thinks its a reasonable inference to make that such genes exist, since the pattern is so persistent and the alternate explanations so lame. That’s certainly you choice, although such a label has no bearing on the science of the topic. I’ve been reading your own cite some more; this is great–the guy is basically shooting you down and you don’t even realize it: What are the implications of these differences? Not much…Everyone wants to know, of course, if different races differ genetically in their abilities, especially intelligence… it’s not as obvious that sexual (or natural) selection would operate as strongly on genes involving these traits as on superficial external characteristics. We just don’t know, and in the complete absence of data it is invidious to speculate on these things… In the absence of data, we must follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent. This guy, _your own cite_, is telling you that 1) there absolutely no evidence of genetic relationship between race and IQ; 2) there’s no evolutionary reason we would expect one, and 3) given there’s no evidence of a link, you should probably shut up about it. That’s _your own fucking cite_. Awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1111 "2014-08-01T14:50:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I’ve been reading your own cite some more; this is great–the guy is basically shooting you down and you don’t even realize it: > > What are the implications of these differences? > > Not much…Everyone wants to know, of course, if different races differ genetically in their abilities, especially intelligence… it’s not as obvious that sexual (or natural) selection would operate as strongly on genes involving these traits as on superficial external characteristics. We just don’t know, and in the complete absence of data it is invidious to speculate on these things… In the absence of data, we must follow the apophatic theologians and remain silent. > > This guy, _your own cite_, is telling you that 1) there absolutely no evidence of genetic relationship between race and IQ; 2) there’s no evolutionary reason we would expect one, and 3) given there’s no evidence of a link, you should probably shut up about it. That’s _your own fucking cite_. Awesome. More: one wouldn’t expect human “races” or ethnic groups to show substantial genetic differences—there hasn’t been enough time for those differences to accumulate given that most human groups arose since our migration out of Africa between 60,000 and 100,000 years ago. It’s pretty clear at this point that you don’t even read your own cites. you mine them for some keywords and then just spew them out, without understanding what they’re saying. Also, you type too fucking much without saying anything. Are you a sock for FXMastermind? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1112 "2014-08-01T15:05:33Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And a bonus post for those who think self-identified races have nothing to do with how genes cluster… > > [_“We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.”_](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) > > Many many more articles available for those willing to learn instead of label. Actually reading this article, something you should try doing, I learn the following tidbit: The MDS places the Hispanic group between the white cluster and the East Asian cluster, which is consistent with this being an admixed group with European and Native American ancestries and with Native Americans being closer, genetically, to the East Asians If intelligence is a genetic characteristic of race, this would require the Hispanic IQ results to fall between the White and East Asian IQ results, and Native American IQ results to be closer to East Asian IQ results. If the IQ results don’t actually show that then… Of course, this is an inconvenient reality for you to address, so I’m sure you’ll ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1113 "2014-08-01T15:08:57Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Because methylation and histone distribution can (I assume, and would expect) can change much faster and more predictably than the actual genetic code. (Well, genetic changes can be predictable/directed if we’re talking about selection, but mutation is not). So it sounds like those are sort of halfway between genetic and environmental explanations. Meaning, they are innate to each individual and by extension to the groups as a whole at this time (like genetics) but could possibly change in future generations (like environment). Is that correct? > [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > Ah, McWhorter. Classic example of a scholar milking his very tentative connections to social science for his own benefit. I challenged McWhorter when he showed up at a talk at Harvard spouting his nonsense. His book _Losing the Race_ is essentially anecdotes of how Black students in his courses didn’t come to class, turn in assignments, and the like. Of course, you yourself bolster your own position in this very post based on your own personal experiences. > [@](#): > > There are discrete biological groups that are categorized as “races.” I disagree that this is an assumption being promoted by anyone here. Anyone who claims to believe in it, anyway. It’s being heavily promoted as a strawman by anti-racists. As you’re doing here. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I was using the alien stuff as a (jokey) placeholder/representative for each and every non-genetic explanation that has not been corrected for. These would include all of the possible explanations that I and others have put forward, such as various sorts of day-to-day discrimination, media depictions of black people, and the like. Because there is direct evidence that points _away_ from genes as a factor (though not toward any particular explanation), any non-genetic explanation not already corrected for should be considered as having stronger evidence in its favor than genes. Jokey or not jokey, you were ignoring (and are still ignoring here) the basic and fundamental concept of a priori likelihood. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1114 "2014-08-01T15:08:44Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Since we’re opening big cans of worms left and right, we might as well open another one and address the age-old issue of why the overwhelming majority of people who play positions in the NFL requiring great speed and agility (wide receiver, cornerback, safety, etc.) are African-American. I guess the fact that there are very few ice hockey players of African ancestry means that blacks are genetically incapable of ice skating. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1115 "2014-08-01T15:15:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s being heavily promoted as a strawman by anti-racists. As you’re doing here.Jokey or not jokey, you were ignoring (and are still ignoring here) the basic and fundamental concept of a priori likelihood. If you want, you can substitute one of my other explanations – like, say, day-to-day discrimination faced by black people, for the alien stuff. Then the point still stands, and it’s sufficiently non-jokey. Would you agree that this explanation is on sturdier ground as playing a role in the test-score gap than the genetic explanation, due to there being no direct evidence that points away from it? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1116 "2014-08-01T15:24:24Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I guess the fact that there are very few ice hockey players of African ancestry means that blacks are genetically incapable of ice skating. Do you really and truly think this is a valid counterargument? When it comes to this Holy War for the Good and Just Cause, anything goes. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you want, you can substitute one of my other explanations – like, say, day-to-day discrimination faced by black people, for the alien stuff. Then the point still stands, and it’s sufficiently non-jokey. Would you agree that this explanation is on sturdier ground as playing a role in the test-score gap than the genetic explanation, due to there being no direct evidence that points away from it? I don’t know. You can’t just look at whether there’s “evidence against it”. You need to know the theoretical likelihood to begin with. Is there any evidence of the extent to which the “day-to-day discrimination faced by black people” is capable of impacting intelligence (other than the extent to which it influences other socioeconomic variables)? I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1117 "2014-08-01T15:43:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Is there any evidence of the extent to which the “day-to-day discrimination faced by black people” is capable of impacting intelligence (other than the extent to which it influences other socioeconomic variables)? I don’t know. We’re talking about the best explanation for the test-score gap. And I think there’s ample evidence that discrimination can impact self-esteem, confidence, focus, and other things that quite clearly can effect test-scores. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1118 "2014-08-01T15:50:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Is there any evidence of the extent to which the “day-to-day discrimination faced by black people” is capable of impacting intelligence (other than the extent to which it influences other socioeconomic variables)? I don’t know. Maybe, instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying “how do the tides work? Science can’t explain it”, you could try showing a little initiative and seeing what the science says? Maybe start with Wikipedia? How about this: Testing situations that highlight the fact that intelligence is being measured tend to lower the scores of individuals from racial-ethnic groups who already score lower on average or are expected to score lower. Stereotype threat conditions cause larger than expected IQ differences among groups. Psychometrician Nicholas Mackintosh considers that there is little doubt that the effects of stereotype threat contribute to the IQ gap between blacks and whites. and this: The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care. Mackintosh points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with IQ for low birthweight infants. In this way a wide number of health related factors that influence IQ are unequally distributed between the two groups. and this: Racial discrimination in education has been proposed as one possible cause of differences in educational quality between races. According to a paper by Hala Elhoweris, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh and Pauline Holloway, teachers’ referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs were influenced in part by the students’ ethnicity. and this: Assuming that the IQ gap was the result of lower exposure to tasks using the cognitive functions usually found in IQ tests among African American test takes, they prepared a group of African Americans in this type of tasks before taking an IQ test. The researchers found that there was no subsequent difference in performance between the African-Americans and White test takers. Daley and Onwugbuezie conclude that Fagan and Holland demonstrate that “differences in knowledge between Blacks and Whites for intelligence test items can be erased when equal opportunity is provided for exposure to the information to be tested”. A similar argument is made by David Marks who argues that IQ differences correlate well with differences in literacy suggesting that developing literacy skills through education causes an increase in IQ test performance. and more… And just in general, as a helpful hint, it you can’t be bother to even get off your ass and do even minimal research, maybe you shouldn’t participate in the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1119 "2014-08-01T16:24:56Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > John McWhorter is wrong. High performing Black students get along better with their peers than high performing White kids. There is no ‘Black culture of underachievement’, or whatever. He was only speaking of his own personal experience (including others he observed directly), and I didn’t suggest otherwise. In his world, there was indeed a “Black culture of underachievement.” I would be very surprised if his experience were unique. Sorry to burst your bubble. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1120 "2014-08-01T16:36:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re talking about the best explanation for the test-score gap. And I think there’s ample evidence that discrimination can impact self-esteem, confidence, focus, and other things that quite clearly can effect test-scores. But that’s not the question I asked. The question was: “\*Is there any evidence of the extent to which the “day-to-day discrimination faced by black people” is capable of impacting intelligence (other than the extent to which it influences other socioeconomic variables)? \*” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=57)