# Correlation between 'extra' racism and intelligence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775 "2003-03-28T14:09:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/1 "2003-03-28T14:09:13Z")
I was thinking about something: on one hand, there’s a smidge of evidence ([http://www.clubs.psu.edu/sayar/riqs.htm](http://www.clubs.psu.edu/sayar/riqs.htm) , _Racism and Mental Health_ that implies that there might be a correlation between holding racist beliefs and not having everything 100% upstairs. On the other hand, there have been uncountable times throughout history where more or less everyone held said beliefs. Plus, there are depressingly many examples of intelligent racists. So, how can there be a correlation between racist beliefs and possible mental dysfunction now, but not throughout history? My theory: In a society where you are taught that, f’rinstance, black people are inferior people, it takes at least some intelligence to notice that they are not. I would posit that it also would take some sort of disconnect with reality to conclude that black people are inhuman animals. In summary, I am guessing that there is a statistical correlation between people who are more racist than their society and a mental disfunction of some sort. Is there any evidence either way, or possibly a logical flaw in my guess somewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/2 "2003-03-28T15:01:35Z")
Just wanna point out that the “smidge” of evidence is IMO more like “a flyspeck of evidence, one of those flyspecks on a glass that only a mother-in-law can see with her MIL Super-Vision”. > [@](#): > > **The average IQ of racists is up to 4 IQ points less than this (Montagu 1952 & 1988, Allport 1946, Frenkel-Brunswick and Sanford 1945).** Studies that only proved that it’s “up to 4 points less”? Besides questioning the methodology of IQ tests performed back in the 1940s and 50s, before it was understood how IQ tests could be culturally biased, I’d point out that four points don’t actually make much difference on the IQ scale. It’s a bell curve, but these kids don’t seem to “get” what a bell curve means. > [@](#): > > \*\*The average intelligence quotient (IQ) of all members of the human race is 100 on the Stanford-Binet scale \*\* No, it isn’t. “Average” on the Stanford Binet test is a sliding scale from 85 to 115. “Average” is not just the 100 at the very tippy-top of the bell curve, but comprises the whole topmost curvy part of the bell. [http://www.bngraphics.com/personal/IQScale.html](http://www.bngraphics.com/personal/IQScale.html) This all betrays a misunderstanding of how IQ tests work, an assumption that a 100 is somehow a perfect score, an A on the test, and that four points less equals a 96 or an A-. So if they’re assuming that a perfect 100 is “average”, and that their cited studies show that racists score “four points less”, then that puts racists at a 96, which is actually well within the “average” score. So this statement, which is apparently their main premise, is totally meaningless. > [@](#): > > \*\*Since the average IQ of a racist is less than the average, racists have two-digit IQs, while normal people have three-digit IQs, on the average. \*\* That web page is essentially just one big sneer at racists, cloaked in scientific terminology and “proof”. I applaud the students’ motives, but they’re fighting racism the wrong way. Trying to prove that “racists are stupid” is pointless because there are lots and lots of three-digit IQ racists out there. I’m not even gonna address their blissful quoting of the supposed “gender bias” statistics. “_Males, furthermore, have a higher incidence of idiocy and mental deficiency than do females. That is, females tend to be more normal than males and are less inclined to both mental extremes and behavioral extremes_”? Sheesh. :rolleyes: I sincerely hope that somebody at Penn State sees this web page and sets them straight before they graduate. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/3 "2003-03-28T20:54:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _"Males, furthermore, have a higher incidence of idiocy and mental deficiency than do females. That is, females tend to be more normal than males and are less inclined to both mental extremes and behavioral extremes._ I had heard that this was correct, and that males tend to have higher incidences at both extremes. Thus there are both more male geniuses, and males who are mentally deficient. I suppose nobody better tell those that created the linked site that they are making the same sort of arguments as appeared in The Bell Curve. Somehow I don’t think they would care for the comparison. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/4 "2003-03-28T21:24:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*I’m not even gonna address their blissful quoting of the supposed “gender bias” statistics. “_Males, furthermore, have a higher incidence of idiocy and mental deficiency than do females. That is, females tend to be more normal than males and are less inclined to both mental extremes and behavioral extremes_”? Sheesh. :rolleyes: \*\* Well, males _do_ have a higher incidence of birth defects than females. This is only natural, however, since males don’t have to serve as incubators as females do, so males can _afford_ to have more birth defects than females. Of course, this whole study reminds me of the claims that the reason why Africans never achieved the same level of civilization as Europeans was because they had bigger peckers than the Europeans. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/5 "2003-03-29T01:46:10Z")
Like I said, I don’t have much in the way of hard evidence. Just this site and the book, really. Does anyone have any contradictory cites? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/6 "2003-03-29T01:51:53Z")
Most of the people who criticize **The Bell Curve** didn’t understand the point it was making. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/7 "2003-03-29T01:56:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Most of the people who criticize **The Bell Curve** didn’t understand the point it was making. \*\* And what, pray tell is that? ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/8 "2003-03-29T02:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > I was thinking about something: on one hand, there’s a smidge[n] of evidence ([http://www.clubs.psu.edu/sayar/riqs.htm](http://www.clubs.psu.edu/sayar/riqs.htm) , _Racism and Mental Health_ that implies that there might be a correlation between holding racist beliefs and not having everything 100% upstairs. Ipso Facto > [@](#): > > On the other hand, there have been uncountable times throughout history where more or less everyone held said beliefs. “Everyone” who is rational? Or just some sort of nebulous “everyone?” > [@](#): > > Plus, there are depressingly many examples of intelligent racists. “Intelligent?” Perhaps, although doubtful. Rational, definitely not! > [@](#): > > So, how can there be a correlation between racist beliefs and possible mental dysfunction now, but not throughout history? There has always been a correlation between racism and stupidity. Prejudicial thought precludes at least some certain expansion of the mind. Disallowing the growth of consciousness automatically predicts a deficit in reasoning ability. > [@](#): > > My theory: In a society where you are taught that, f’rinstance, black people are inferior people, it takes at least some intelligence to notice that they are not. I’d substitute “rationality” for “intelligence.” But let us continue. > [@](#): > > I would posit that it also would take some sort of disconnect with reality to conclude that black people are inhuman animals. This is why I recommend the term rationality. > [@](#): > > In summary, I am guessing that there is a statistical correlation between people who are more racist than their society and a mental dysfunction of some sort. Is there any evidence either way, or possibly a logical flaw in my guess somewhere? While I’ll allow more deft folks to provide the cites, please consider how much a bigoted person limits their chances for survival by rejecting significant portions of the world’s population from contributing to their own livelihood when they disallow their participation in it. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correlation-between-extra-racism-and-intelligence/164775/9 "2003-03-31T14:43:06Z")
I am not too impressed from quickly glancing at the website. But the post by DDG contained some erroneous information, and regardless of the validity of the intitial claims, the ignorance here should be rebutted, IMHO. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > I’d point out that four points don’t actually make much difference on the IQ scale. It’s a bell curve, but these kids don’t seem to “get” what a bell curve means. Actually, _you_ don’t get what a bell curve is - more on that later. Whether 4 points is a lot on the IQ curve is a better question. It is likely that in an individual case it is not that meaningful, but if accurately measured over a larger group it could be a meaningful difference. > [@](#): > > “Average” on the Stanford Binet test is a sliding scale from 85 to 115. “Average” is not just the 100 at the very tippy-top of the bell curve, but comprises the whole topmost curvy part of the bell. > > [http://www.bngraphics.com/personal/IQScale.html](http://www.bngraphics.com/personal/IQScale.html) > > This all betrays a misunderstanding of how IQ tests work, an assumption that a 100 is somehow a perfect score, an A on the test, and that four points less equals a 96 or an A-. > > So if they’re assuming that a perfect 100 is “average”, and that their cited studies show that racists score “four points less”, then that puts racists at a 96, which is actually well within the “average” score. > > So this statement, which is apparently their main premise, is totally meaningless. This is pure ignorance. Average on the Stanford Binet - as commonly used to refer to the mean - is no different than any other average. It is an exact point. What is true is that average is frequently used loosely to refer to a range that does not meaningfully depart from the average - this is not unique to IQ scores or bell curves. Someone might be said to be of average height or talent without measuring to see if the guy is truly at the exact point of mathematical average. The link that you’ve cited is using it in this way. But when people say that 100 is the average score, then that score is the real average, as much as any other average. And no one is assuming 100 is a “perfect score, an A on the test” - no one has claimed that average means perfect - don’t know where you picked that up. Your reference to “100 at the very tippy-top of the bell curve” is another misconception. The very tippy-top of the bell curve is not the average - it is the mode. The mode can also be the average, and will be if the bell curve is truly symmetrical. I don’t think the bell curve can be truly symmetrical (e.g. Marylyn Vos Savant is supposed to have an IQ above 200) but it may well be close enough to make the mode close enough to the mean. In which case it would indeed be accurate to refer to the average as being the “100 at the very tippy-top of the bell curve”. Again, this is not to endorse anything in the OP’s link.