# 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:** 57
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1121 "2014-08-01T16:41:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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)? \*” It doesn’t matter – this isn’t necessary for there to be an effect on test scores. I don’t know if there’s evidence of this, but I’m pretty confident that there’s evidence (like posted above by **Evil Economist** ) that such discrimination can affect test performance. ---
**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, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1122 "2014-08-01T16:52:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It doesn’t matter – this isn’t necessary for there to be an effect on test scores. I don’t know if there’s evidence of this, but I’m pretty confident that there’s evidence (like posted above by **Evil Economist** ) that such discrimination can affect test performance. That may be so. But you have no way to assess how likely it is, which is what’s relevant to the specific question you asked (post #1115). Until you can come up with some sort of realistic assessment of the impact of the level of day to day discrimination faced by black Americans, you can’t assess the likelihood that this, rather than any sort of genetic factor, accounts for the current disparity. (Which is what I said in post #1116.) ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1123 "2014-08-01T16:58:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That may be so. But you have no way to assess how likely it is, which is what’s relevant to the specific question you asked (post #1115). > > Until you can come up with some sort of realistic assessment of the impact of the level of day to day discrimination faced by black Americans, you can’t assess the likelihood that this, rather than any sort of genetic factor, accounts for the current disparity. (Which is what I said in post #1116.) I can compare their likelihoods because there is direct evidence in refutation of one of the explanations – genetics. There is no direct evidence in refutation of day-to-day discrimination as a cause. As you said in post #1096, we can compare their “theoretical basis” – and both genetics and discrimination are a reasonable cause, with a reasonable theoretical basis. Since there is direct evidence refuting genes but not discrimination, we can conclude that, at this time, discrimination is a stronger and more likely cause than genes. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1124 "2014-08-01T17:02:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I can compare their likelihoods because there is direct evidence in refutation of one of the explanations – genetics. There is no direct evidence in refutation of day-to-day discrimination as a cause. > > As you said in post #1096, we can compare their “theoretical basis” – and both genetics and discrimination are a reasonable cause, with a reasonable theoretical basis. Since there is direct evidence refuting genes but not discrimination, we can conclude that, at this time, discrimination is a stronger and more likely cause than genes. That’s not how it works. The a priori likelihood is too big a component to just ignore. If you don’t know it, then you can’t make any sort of likelihood assessment. You’re repeating yourself here, as am I in response. Unless you have anything new on this, I have nothing further to add. ---
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1125 "2014-08-01T17:07:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not how it works. The a priori likelihood is too big a component to just ignore. If you don’t know it, then you can’t make any sort of likelihood assessment. > > You’re repeating yourself here, as am I in response. Unless you have anything new on this, I have nothing further to add. This makes absolutely no sense. We have two explanations (among many others) – genes and discrimination. They both have reasonable/comparable theoretical basis. There is no direct evidence that points specifically at either explanation. There is direct evidence that points specifically away from genes, but not from discrimination. Therefore, discrimination is a stronger/more likely explanation. These seems pretty simple. Which part of that chain are you challenging? ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1126 "2014-08-01T17:17:50Z")
The word “comparable”. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1127 "2014-08-01T17:24:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The word “comparable”. Then we disagree on this point. What stronger theoretical basis is there for genes than for discrimination? ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1128 "2014-08-01T17:26:27Z")
I don’t know that it’s stronger. But I also don’t know that it’s comparable. They are both unknown. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1129 "2014-08-01T17:32:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not how it works. The a priori likelihood is too big a component to just ignore. If you don’t know it, then you can’t make any sort of likelihood assessment. > > You’re repeating yourself here, as am I in response. Unless you have anything new on this, I have nothing further to add. The lover of Bayesian statistics should be aware that we can never know the a priori liklihood for any social sciences statistic. So if you claim that you can’t make any comparisons until you know the a prioris, then you are saying that you can never know anything. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1130 "2014-08-01T17:40:45Z")
I’m not sure that’s true across the board, but even if it is, that’s at most only true of precise measures. That doesn’t mean you can’t get a sense. But more important than that: no one is saying you can’t know anything without knowing the a priori likelihood. What I’m saying is that in a situation like this one, where there’s a paucity of actual evidence for either side, the a priori assumption weighs heavily. The point is that iiandyiiii is saying that since both alternatives are theoretically plausible, the mere fact that there is _ **some** _ evidence against one explanation and not the other means that the second is more likely. This is incorrect, since the strength of the counter-evidence needs to be balanced against the relative a priori likelihoods of both alternatives, which are unknown. That would not apply in a case where the a priori likelihoods were unknown but there was more solid and conclusive evidence for or against one of the alternatives. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1131 "2014-08-01T17:50:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure that’s true across the board, but even if it is, that’s at most only true of precise measures. That doesn’t mean you can’t get a sense. > > But more important than that: no one is saying you can’t know anything without knowing the a priori likelihood. What I’m saying is that in a situation like this one, where there’s a paucity of actual evidence for either side, the a priori assumption weighs heavily. > > The point is that iiandyiiii is saying that since both alternatives are theoretically plausible, the mere fact that there is _ **some** _ evidence against one explanation and not the other means that the second is more likely. This is incorrect, since the strength of the counter-evidence needs to be balanced against the relative a priori likelihoods of both alternatives, which are unknown. > > That would not apply in a case where the a priori likelihoods were unknown but there was more solid and conclusive evidence for or against one of the alternatives. How about this as an alternative: If you can’t know the priors, then don’t apply Bayesian statistics? Or I guess you could just sit around waiting for God to hand you down the priors from on high. Meantime make a decision based on the evidence you do have, which I personally find pretty compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1132 "2014-08-01T17:50:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not how it works. The a priori likelihood is too big a component to just ignore. If you don’t know it, then you can’t make any sort of likelihood assessment. This would be the a priori likelihood that a difficult-to-define trait that has not been linked to any particular gene or set of genes is genetically inherent to a population group that has no possible genetic definition? ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1133 "2014-08-01T17:53:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure that’s true across the board, but even if it is, that’s at most only true of precise measures. That doesn’t mean you can’t get a sense. > > But more important than that: no one is saying you can’t know anything without knowing the a priori likelihood. What I’m saying is that in a situation like this one, where there’s a paucity of actual evidence for either side, the a priori assumption weighs heavily. > > The point is that iiandyiiii is saying that since both alternatives are theoretically plausible, the mere fact that there is _ **some** _ evidence against one explanation and not the other means that the second is more likely. This is incorrect, since the strength of the counter-evidence needs to be balanced against the relative a priori likelihoods of both alternatives, which are unknown. > > That would not apply in a case where the a priori likelihoods were unknown but there was more solid and conclusive evidence for or against one of the alternatives. Then by this different sort of logic, you would agree that based on the evidence, it’s very foolish to conclude (as **CP** does) that inferior genes for intelligence among black people are a significant contributor to the test score gap? ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1134 "2014-08-01T18:06:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > How about this as an alternative: If you can’t know the priors, then don’t apply Bayesian statistics? > > Or I guess you could just sit around waiting for God to hand you down the priors from on high. Meantime make a decision based on the evidence you do have, which I personally find pretty compelling. Or how about this as an alternative? If you don’t know then just say upfront that you don’t know, instead of just pretending that you do in order to “make a decision”? > [@Acsenray](#): > > This would be the a priori likelihood that a difficult-to-define trait that has not been linked to any particular gene or set of genes is genetically inherent to a population group that has no possible genetic definition? That would be the a priori likelihood that some unknown gene or set of genes is more prevalent in some population groups that have no possible genetic definition, and account for part of the current disparity in average measures WRT a certain difficult-to-define trait. “Inherent” is your strawman term here. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then by this different sort of logic, you would agree that based on the evidence, it’s very foolish to conclude (as **CP** does) that inferior genes for intelligence among black people are a significant contributor to the test score gap? I think it’s wrong. I wouldn’t say it’s foolish. If you think the evidence for a genetic case is compelling then it wouldn’t violate the logic. I don’t think the evidence is compelling. CP thinks it is. But where he’s going wrong is in overestimating the strength of the evidence, not in the logic. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1135 "2014-08-01T18:11:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think it’s wrong. I wouldn’t say it’s foolish. Then our only disagreement, I suppose, is our vehemence with which we disagree with **CP**. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1136 "2014-08-01T19:24:53Z")
> [@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. So much confusion here. By incorrectly stating the real issues, you create a strawman with all the silly counterarguments to the wrong thing. Let me help you get by the careful strawman wordsmithing and give you a better recap to bite your teeth into: 1. When we self-identify as a “race,” even though there is not a discrete biological category defining that race, we identify with a group that, on average, has a different gene pool that another self-identified race group. What that means is that, if I self-idenitfy as “black,” the average frequency of genes which drive my phenotypic expressions is different than the average frequency of genes which drive the phenotypic expressions for those who self-identify as “white.” That there is no “discrete biological category” has no bearing on this disparate gene pool whatsoever. 2. “Intelligence” is a word. Various psychometric exams measure the human brain’s ability for reasoning. There are multiple other brain-based skillsets that can be quanitifed, and among them is the ability to perform on academic exams considered to be measures of information retention, intellectual reasoning, and subject mastery. The average performance on those exams–regardless of whether or not they correlate with “intelligence” is vastly different between blacks and the white/asian self-identified group. That disparate performance is not erased by providing a black cohort with every possible advantage such as wealth, income, parental education, and educational opportunity. A similar gap exists across every political system and every cultural and social history across the world. At issue here is not “intelligence” but whether or not the academic skillset gap between blacks and other races is because of a difference in gene pools or nurture. 3. Scales used to measure psychometric evaluations of human neurological function are not perfect, but they are pretty damn good, and those who use them are pretty damn good at how to apply them. However, a skillset such as mathematics is fairly culture-independent, and mathematics is a good example of a skillset where the black/white-asian pattern is stubbornly resistant to being erased. For example, children of educated and wealthy black parents score on par only with children of poverty-stricken and uneducated white parents, and far far below children from white and asian families with equivalent socioeconomic and educational status. ---
**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, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1137 "2014-08-01T19:29:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Or how about this as an alternative? If you don’t know then just say upfront that you don’t know, instead of just pretending that you do in order to “make a decision”? Not knowing the priors is not equivalent to not knowing anything. It’s not possible to know the priors, but I’m not going to throw my hands in the air, say “nothing can be known!” and then cry and eat ice cream–I’m going to make a conclusion based on what \*is \*known. Actually, I’d like you to provide me some evidence that you apply this level of semantic nitpicking to any other issue. Do you have a post saying “we can’t say for sure whether this frog is the King of Mexico–unless we know the priors we can’t reach a conclusion one way or the other?” Or are you just trolling this specific topic for some reason? ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1138 "2014-08-01T19:31:18Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 1. When we self-identify as a “race,” even though there is not a discrete biological category defining that race, we identify with a group that, on average, has a different gene pool that another self-identified race group. What that means is that, if I self-idenitfy as “black,” the average frequency of genes which drive my phenotypic expressions is different than the average frequency of genes which drive the phenotypic expressions for those who self-identify as “white.” So I guess this leads to to a clear solution to the issue–have blacks self-identify as East Asian, and watch their test scores go up. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1139 "2014-08-01T19:36:35Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Not knowing the priors is not equivalent to not knowing anything. It’s not possible to know the priors, but I’m not going to throw my hands in the air, say “nothing can be known!” and then cry and eat ice cream–I’m going to make a conclusion based on what \*is \*known. Reread post #1134. > [@](#): > > Actually, I’d like you to provide me some evidence that you apply this level of semantic nitpicking to any other issue. Do you have a post saying “we can’t say for sure whether this frog is the King of Mexico–unless we know the priors we can’t reach a conclusion one way or the other?” Reread post #1130. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/1140 "2014-08-01T19:42:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Reread post #1134. > > Reread post #1130. Nothing you say in 1130 is right. Also, you clearly don’t know anything about the topic, so you are not entitled to use the word “paucity”. Try reading post 1118. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=56) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=58)