# At what level is racialism accepted in the scientific community? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257 "2014-08-10T18:55:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/41 "2014-08-11T16:22:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Which is besides for the No True Scotsman aspect as well. Anyone taking a “pro-racial” position is automatically going to find his credentials impugned and be declared a crackpot and/or bigot, so that the consensus of True Scientists will be strengthened. (Wade himself, for example, has a very reputable mainstream resume. If his position wins out, he will be something of a Galileo, but right now he’s a retroactive bigot and crackpot.) > > Conspiracies involve some sort of secret collusion. This is just about a shared self-interest. > > The secret collusion is generally the far-fetched aspect of conspiracy theories. People who disputing the possibility of shared self-interest like to call it a conspiracy so as to give it the connotation of being far fetched, but shared self-interest is actually fairly common. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is an unfalsifiable claim that can be used to justify any line of reasoning without on shred of evidence. People claim that doctors know that vaccines cause autism but are too afraid to speak out. People claim that climate scientist know that global warming is a hoax but are too afraid to speak out. People claim that that the holocaust was a hoax but that historians are too afraid to speak out. People claim that geologists know that the world was created 5,000 years ago but are too afraid to speak out. The truth is, as the OP showed, that the claims made by Wade and others have been evaluated by scientists and have been found to be total garbage. Of course it is possible that the SNP that produces also has a side effect that happens to result in having a great fadeaway jump shot and a fondness for gangsta rap, but as it stands now there is no evidence that this is the case. And science without isn’t science it’s just BSing. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/42 "2014-08-11T16:39:16Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > This post pertains to the NYtimes science Journalist Nicolas Wade, but it has some relevance to how the community of biological scientists view “race science” > > In April 28th of this year, Nicholas Wade authored a book called “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History” I read a free copy of the book (it’s quite a short and easy read) and I’d summarize it in a few points: > > 1. Humans are biologically clustered into the “5 major races.” > 2. These well known races are genetically separate due to (recent) evolution. > 3. Jews/Europeans/Asians are genetically wired for intelligent/peaceful civilizations/culture. > 4. Blacks/Africans/“tribals” are wired for violent/mindless/criminal actions. > 5. This simple knowledge is not racist, its scientific fact. **You** are not a racist for agreeing with science. > 6. There’s a gigantic (liberal?) conspiracy to keep this science from being proven/taught/discussed. All/most scientists fear openly speaking the truth due to this conspiracy. Having recently read the book, IMO, this is an inaccurate and unfair summary. The book is divided into 2 parts. The first is an attempt to survey the recent findings of the relevant sciences, Mainly, he contends: 1. Human evolution has been more “recent, copious and regional” than we had previously thought/than the general public still thinks, 2. That there are distinct population clusters that generally correspond to the traditional Caucasion/African/Asian/Aboriginal racial identifications. 3. Those population clusters all carry multiple genetic variations - more or less proneness to this or that disease, differing muscle and bone structures, etc. He argues that the idea that the popular conception of biological differnces among populations being only about exterior observables (i.e. “only skin deep”) is a myth. 4. We know that, in general, lots of behavioral traits are based in genetic predispositions; metal illnesses such as schizophrenia, but even personality traits like introversion, propensity to violence, risk tolerance, time preference, etc. Not \*determined \*-- predisposed, or more or less likely. This part is pretty heavily documented, and Wade freely acknowledges that that’s as far as the facts take him. I’ve been looking for any criticisms that focus on the first part of the book, and disputes that those are the facts, but I haven’t seen any; I will read the links in the OP with some interest (though I doubt I will participate in any debate here). The second part of the book is Wade’s speculative conjectures about what implications those findings might have – to wit, if we know that there are population clusters that are largely genetically distinct, and if we know that personality traits have genetic components, it’s plausible that different population clusters might have a more or less greater tendency to this or that behavioral traits, whether due to direct selection (living in a cold climate selects for low time preference, as those disinclined to save will starve), or merely becuase of the founder effect, bottlenecking, and/or genetic drift. And if all that’s true, he argues, maybe it explains a lot about the way the world is and what we can/should do about it. Personally, I’d wish he’d kept the second part out and just expanded on the first; if his summary of the research is accurate, it seems controversial enough, and confining himself to the science would be a good thing. Most of the criticism I’ve seen levelled at the book aims at the second part of the book, not the first (I’ll be looking for this in the OP’s links). The speculative parts are, given the premises of the first, plausible enough, but after awhile he’s building speculation on top of speculation, and I kind of lost track of how far we’d moved from the foundation. To address a couple things the OP mischaracterizes: 1. Wade makes no claim of any"conspiracy," in fact he explictly dismisses the idea. He simply says that these are controversial ideas, that have at times been used as justification for all sorts of horrible acts (hence the title), and that scientists, especially post-holocaust, have been exceptionally wary of saying anything that goes against the “only skin deep/we are all the same” ideas as they exist in the popular mind, whether out of a desire to avoid controversy or for fear of what people might do with their findings. No conspiracy. 2. Wade does not really address intelligence. In fact, in a couple of places, he goes out of his way to imply that is IQ somehow exempt from the other genetic pressures and effects he talks about. 3. Wade also repeatedly and explicitly dismisses the idea that anyone, anywhere is “wired” for anything. He is talking about genetically-based _tendencies_ as they occur in _populations_, not individuals. – IOW, the idea that if we were to take two groups of 1000 people and send them off to two isolated landmasses for a fifty generations of isolation, at the end the two groups would likely develop very distinct cultures based on both 1) the environments they were living in and had to adapt to, and 2) the characteristics of the initial groups of 1,000. e.g. perhaps in one group 25% had a combination of genes associated with higher desire for dopamine, which would entail more risk-taking, and the other population only had 10%. That kind of difference would be invisible to casual observation, and says nothing at all about how any one person is “wired,” but would, over time, affect the shape of the culture those two groups created. I think that’s a fuller and fairer summary of the book. Thanks to the OP for compiling some of the responses. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/43 "2014-08-11T16:41:42Z")
Are #3 and #4 accurate inasmuch as they are stated or implied in the second part of the book? ---
**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 11, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/44 "2014-08-11T16:42:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What scientist doing good science has found “his credentials impugned” and been “declared a crackpot and/or bigot”? > > What reason is there to believe this is the case here? What good scientists have had their reputations tarnished? Who has suffered here? Here’s a deal. How about you answer the questions I asked Marley in post #27? If you dispute this or are even genuinely uncertain I’ll dig up a scientist or two. [I mean, I wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re JAQ :)] > [@](#): > > So you’re “just asking questions”? What is your point here? That the conclusion of the OP does not follow from the evidence in it. > [@](#): > > What are you offering that logically might change my mind? Nothing. There’s nothing that might conceivably change your mind. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? Wade is a _journalist_ with no formal scientific training (as far as I can tell) beyond the baccalaureate level. Of course. But the issue here is not whether Wade has come up with some incredible new research in his lab. He is assessing the state of scientific studies done by others. Which is exactly what he’s been paid to do by Nature and the NYT for several decades. IMO if he was incapable of understanding and assessing scientific research it’s unlikely that he could have held these positions. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is an unfalsifiable claim that can be used to justify any line of reasoning without on shred of evidence. > > People claim that doctors know that vaccines cause autism but are too afraid to speak out. People claim that climate scientist know that global warming is a hoax but are too afraid to speak out. People claim that that the holocaust was a hoax but that historians are too afraid to speak out. People claim that geologists know that the world was created 5,000 years ago but are too afraid to speak out. I agree that it’s a problem. But although from the standpoint of logical process these may be similar, that doesn’t mean that they’re all comparable. You need to assess the likelihood of each on an individual level. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/45 "2014-08-11T16:46:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > … the issue here is not whether Wade has come up with some incredible new research in his lab. He is assessing the state of scientific studies done by others. Which is exactly what he’s been paid to do by Nature and the NYT for several decades. IMO if he was incapable of understanding and assessing scientific research it’s unlikely that he could have held these positions. Fair enough. Calling him “a [potential] Galileo” made it sound like this was original research. ---
**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 11, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/46 "2014-08-11T16:46:51Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 1. Wade also repeatedly and explicitly dismisses the idea that anyone, anywhere is “wired” for anything. He is talking about genetically-based _tendencies_ as they occur in _populations_, not individuals. This sounds suspiciously like the defense some Dopers (unfortunately) use to defend the assertion that black people have inferior genes for intelligence. ‘We’re not saying all black people are less intelligent,’ they say, ‘we’re just saying that black people are more likely, genetically speaking, to have genes for lower intelligence’. ---
**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 11, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/47 "2014-08-11T16:53:36Z")
As requested by **F-P** , answering these questions: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Is it in fact your opinion that there are no political overtones to this issue? No. And this goes for pretty much every issue for every topic ever. Most things have political overtones. > [@](#): > > And that (independent of the scientific validity) scientists considering what to say and write about these matters do not face any possible repercussions from taking the non-PC position? Probably not, but I think these repercussions (if they even have occurred) have been very minor. And considering that there hasn’t yet actually been any good science for the “blacks are genetically dumber” crowd, there’s no way to really determine if any of these repercussions have been due to poor science or political concerns. Considering the fame and fortune that would await anyone with actual good science to upend the accepted views on this subject, I’m not concerned that the ‘possible repercussions’ dissuade anyone from doing good science. Principally, this is because the ‘possible repercussions’ discussed so far have been very, very minor, when they even exist at all; and that historically, in the long-term, science and society has adapted very positively to good science and good data. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/48 "2014-08-11T17:10:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No. The conclusion from the mainstream is that “races” are not a sensible scientific grouping for human beings in the first place. Is any better one proposed? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/49 "2014-08-11T17:19:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What scientist doing good science has found “his credentials impugned” and been “declared a crackpot and/or bigot”? > > What reason is there to believe this is the case here? What good scientists have had their reputations tarnished? Who has suffered here? Seconded. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/50 "2014-08-11T17:19:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is any better one proposed? Wade admitted that his 5 race grouping was for the sake of convenience. The actual research he references came up with anywhere from 14 to 20 “races”. He conveniently omits this fact. In general, the more tightly you specify the parameters of the population you’re studying, the more useful genetic data you’re going to get. Ascertaining that someone is “white” or European doesn’t tell you much. OTOH, ascertaining that this person is Sicilian let’s you know to be on the lookout for sickle cell anemia, caused by the same genetic mutation that causes sickle cell in West Africans and black Americans. Alternatively, ascertaining that this person is French Canadian would tell you to be on the lookout for the genetics that can lead to Tay Sachs disease. ---
**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 11, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/51 "2014-08-11T17:20:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Probably not, but I think these repercussions (if they even have occurred) have been very minor. And considering that there hasn’t yet actually been any good science for the “blacks are genetically dumber” crowd, there’s no way to really determine if any of these repercussions have been due to poor science or political concerns. > > Considering the fame and fortune that would await anyone with actual good science to upend the accepted views on this subject, I’m not concerned that the ‘possible repercussions’ dissuade anyone from doing good science. Principally, this is because the ‘possible repercussions’ discussed so far have been very, very minor, when they even exist at all; and that historically, in the long-term, science and society has adapted very positively to good science and good data. This seems to presuppose that “good science” will produce an answer that will settle the issue once and for all, bringing fame and glory to whoever produced it. But that’s not how science works. For the most part, change is incremental, resulting from many studies, most of which have critics who claim they don’t prove their case, and only get “settled” many many years later. (It’s been said that new theories don’t win acceptance by convincing their detractors, but only by having the detractors die out and winning over the next generation.) In the case of this issue, most of your detractors are not just guys who are unconvinced you’ve made your case, but they’re guys who think you’re an evil racist. Safer to try to make your mark elsewhere. But anyway, I said I would dig up a scientist or two. Here you go. [Arthur Jensen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen) > [@](#): > > Arthur Robert Jensen (August 24, 1923 – October 22, 2012) was a professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.[1][2] Jensen was known for his work in psychometrics and differential psychology, which is concerned with how and why individuals differ behaviorally from one another. > > He was a major proponent of the hereditarian position in the nature and nurture debate, the position that genetics play a significant role in behavioral traits, such as intelligence and personality. He was the author of over 400 scientific papers published in refereed journals[3] and sat on the editorial boards of the scientific journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.[4] > > He was rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. > [@](#): > > Jensen’s most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen’s estimation, 80% of the variance in IQ in the population studied was the result of genetic factors and the remainder was due to environmental influences.[10] > > The work became one of—if not the most—cited papers in the history of psychological testing and intelligence research.[11] It sparked a huge academic controversy. Although his paper was widely cited, a random selection of 60 of these citations revealed that 29 of the papers were direct rebuttals or criticisms of Jensen’s arguments, 8 cited the paper as an “example of controversy,” 8 used it as a background reference. Only 15 citations of Jensen’s paper were in any way supportive of his theories, and 7 of these 15 were only in relation to minor points.[10] > > After the paper was released, students and faculty staged large protests outside Jensen’s U.C. Berkeley office. Jensen was denied reprints of his work by his publisher and was not permitted to reply in response to letters of criticism—both extremely unusual policies for their day. [More detail here:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_controversy#1960-1980) > [@](#): > > Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the anti-hereditarian establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein’s refusal to endorse Jensen’s views on race and intelligence. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen’s article, the Berkeley chapter of the militant student organization Students for a Democratic Society staged protests against Arthur Jensen on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, chanting “Fight racism. Fire Jensen!”[63][75] Jensen himself states that he even lost his employment at Berkeley because of the controversy.[54] Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behavior through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the left wing organization Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence. Also at that source: > [@](#): > > In 2007 James D. Watson, Nobel laureate in biology, gave a controversial interview to the Sunday Times Magazine during a book tour in the United Kingdom. Watson stated he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” He also wrote that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” This resulted in the cancellation of a Royal Society lecture, along with other public engagements, and his suspension from his administrative duties at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He subsequently cancelled the tour and resigned from his position at CSHL, where he had served as either director, president or chancellor since 1968. However, Watson was later appointed chancellor emeritus of CSHL, and, as of 2009, he continued to advise and guide project work at the laboratory. [See also:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence) > [@](#): > > Mainstream Science on Intelligence was a public statement issued by a group of academic researchers in fields associated with intelligence testing that claimed to present those findings widely accepted in the expert community. It was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on December 13, 1994 as a response to what the authors viewed as the inaccurate and misleading reports made by the media regarding academic consensus on the results of intelligence research in the wake of the appearance of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray earlier the same year. It was drafted by professor of psychology Linda Gottfredson and signed by Gottfredson and 51 other university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence,[1] in which it was subsequently reprinted in 1997. > [@](#): > > The invitation to sign was sent to 131 researchers, of whom 100 responded by the deadline. The signature form asked whether the respondent would sign the statement, and if not, why. 52 respondents agreed to sign, while 48 did not. 38 supplied an explanation for their refusal, with 11 explicitly disagreeing that it represented the mainstream (or at least disagreeing with some of the claims in it), another 11 saying they did not know whether it did, and the rest citing various other reasons, including the fear of jeopardizing their position or project. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/52 "2014-08-11T17:25:04Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > One other general note: the 6th point is that scientists are intimated from speaking the truth about this. If this is correct, then you can’t refute Wade by pointing out that reaction in the scientific community is overwhelmingly negative, since it follows that those who support him will be silent. This is exactly why the scientific community continues to deny the existence of leprechauns. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/53 "2014-08-11T17:29:52Z")
Thanks, Orcenio, for the links. Enlightening. > **[How A Troublesome Inheritance gets human genetics wrong](https://www.molecularecologist.com/2014/05/29/troublesome-inheritance/)** > > Image by Lara Mukahirn. Probably since before the origin of modern Homo sapiens, we have known that people from other places—the next village over, the other side of the mountains, or some distant … > [@](#): > > A 2009 study by Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues added more than 2,000 individuals from Africa to the data analyzed by Rosenberg et al. The authors ran STRUCTURE on this new global dataset, evaluating the “fit” of a range of K values—and they found that the data best supported not five population clusters but 14. In other words, if we were to split humanity into “objective” races using genetic clustering, we’d end up with a lot more than five races, and at least half would be within Africa. > **[Nicholas Wade and race: building a scientific façade](https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/)** > > “…for he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define.” –Charles Darwin Do “races” exist as meaningful biological categories? Physical anthropologists and human biologists have been… > [@](#): > > Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, who recently reviewed Wade’s book in the Wall Street Journal, agrees: > > ``` > A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit. > > ``` > > But Wade and Murray are both wrong. Structure didn’t simply identify five clusters. It also identified two, three, four, six, and seven clusters. (Rosenberg et al. 2002 actually identified up to 20 divisions, but 1-7 are the primary ones they discussed. They also divided their worldwide sample up into regions, and then ran structure within those regions, to look at more fine-scale population structure.) ---
**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 11, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/54 "2014-08-11T17:33:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This seems to presuppose that “good science” will produce an answer that will settle the issue once and for all, bringing fame and glory to whoever produced it. No it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > In the case of this issue, most of your detractors are not just guys who are unconvinced you’ve made your case, but they’re guys who think you’re an evil racist. Cite? Or is this just your unsupported opinion? > [@](#): > > But anyway, I said I would dig up a scientist or two. Here you go. > > [Arthur Jensen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen) So “one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century”, whose paper in question became one of the most cited in history, suffered significantly because of PC criticism? How did he suffer? It seems to me like he _greatly benefited_ from all this controversy! As Wade probably is, as well! The Pioneer Fund gave Jensen over a million dollars for further research! Hell, writing a book that concludes “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” sounds like a pretty good profit-plan to me, based on the history of such books! What’s the name, again, of the posting-style in which your own cite pretty much demolishes the point you were trying to make? ---
**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 11, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/55 "2014-08-11T17:38:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So “one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century”, whose paper in question became one of the most cited in history, suffered significantly because of PC criticism? How did he suffer? It seems to me like he _greatly benefited_ from all this controversy! As Wade probably is, as well! The Pioneer Fund gave Jensen over a million dollars for further research! > > Hell, writing a book that concludes “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” sounds like a pretty good profit-plan to me, based on the history of such books! Perhaps it would have helped had I bolded the relevant parts of those quotes for you. But I doubt it. ---
**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 11, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/56 "2014-08-11T17:41:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Perhaps it would have helped had I bolded the relevant parts of those quotes for you. > > But I doubt it. Any “suffering” by Jensen due to the controversial nature of his conclusions seems to be massively outweighed by the fiscal benefits, fame, and even notoriety he enjoyed, which were precisely due to the same controversial conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/57 "2014-08-11T17:50:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Perhaps it would have helped had I bolded the relevant parts of those quotes for you. > > But I doubt it. Give it a try. Jensen seems to have suffered about as much as Charles Murray has, which is not at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/58 "2014-08-11T18:06:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This is exactly why the scientific community continues to deny the existence of leprechauns. Nah, they just don’t wanna suck Cartman’s balls. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/59 "2014-08-11T18:07:27Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Wade admitted that his 5 race grouping was for the sake of convenience. The actual research he references came up with anywhere from 14 to 20 “races”. He conveniently omits this fact. > > In general, the more tightly you specify the parameters of the population you’re studying, the more useful genetic data you’re going to get. Ascertaining that someone is “white” or European doesn’t tell you much. > > OTOH, ascertaining that this person is Sicilian let’s you know to be on the lookout for sickle cell anemia, caused by the same genetic mutation that causes sickle cell in West Africans and black Americans. Alternatively, ascertaining that this person is French Canadian would tell you to be on the lookout for the genetics that can lead to Tay Sachs disease. Of course, by now most “white” Americans would be a genetic mixture of European “races.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/60 "2014-08-11T18:13:49Z")
While the OP is a truly impressive compendium of information, I must take issue with one point. It’s not a statement about how racialism is perceived by the scientific community; it’s a statement about how Wade’s particular racialist views are perceived by the scientific community. There are some racialist ideas, like Wade’s, which are patently false and recognized as such. There are other ideas which could be described as “racialist” which are accepted by almost everyone, such as the fact that there’s a correlation between dark skin color and sickle-cell anemia. And then there are a wide range of ideas in between: For instance, the hypothesis that different sorts of muscle fibers are better suited for sprinting and marathons, and that genetic differences in the preponderance of those fibers account for the dominance of those sports by different ethnic groups. Is that true? I don’t know, and the information in the OP would not help me determine its truth, but it could still fit under the label of “racialism”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=4)