# Let's define "racism" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357 "2010-04-26T01:18:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/41 "2010-04-29T18:03:56Z")
“Leti it go”? I’m not holding onto anything to let go of. All I’ve said is that I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do or read research like the Bell Curve. I read the book and the appendices when it came out and haven’t thought much about the issue since then. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/42 "2010-04-29T18:14:56Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > The multiple regression they use has tiny, likely non-material parameters in a model that explains hardly any of the variance in the dependent variable. I can believe that you read the book, but you definitely didn’t read the appendices. This is old stuff, man. Let it go. I read the Bell Curve and found it pretty compelling (except the chapters on race; but whatever). Can you point me to where I can read a compelling refutation of the statistics in the book? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/43 "2010-04-29T18:17:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > “Leti it go”? I’m not holding onto anything to let go of. All I’ve said is that I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do or read research like the Bell Curve. I read the book and the appendices when it came out and haven’t thought much about the issue since then. It’s definitely a bad thing to do terrible research. It’s also a bad thing to wade through 900 pages of crap to get to the center of the crapsie roll pop. Research like this agitates people not because it has the temerity to look at (OMG) standardized test scores but because it coats naked prejudice and false belief with a veneer of science, and worse, it tries to backpedal from the implications of its own intellectual bankruptcy with endless caveats. From the other side of its mouth, it casually proposes that the sub-intellectuals should live on a high tech Indian reservation. This is bad. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/44 "2010-04-29T18:24:12Z")
Maeglin, what is your support for the proposition that the Bell Curve simply coats naked prejudice with a veneer of science? And what do you mean about the high tech reservations? Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I discussed above–dismissing the science out of hand because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived notions. THIS is bad. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/45 "2010-04-29T18:47:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Maeglin, what is your support for the proposition that the Bell Curve simply coats naked prejudice with a veneer of science? And what do you mean about the high tech reservations? For their nightmare scenario of the “custodial state”, begin on page 523. For their vision of the cognitive sub-elite ending up on high-tech Indian reservations, see page 526. > [@](#): > > Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I discussed above–dismissing the science out of hand because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived notions. THIS is bad. I’m dismissing the science because it is of poor quality. It has nothing to do with the conclusions of the study but the method. You don’t even know what my notions _are_, preconceived or otherwise. I don’t need to rehearse all of the objections to homeopathy to say that it’s crap, either. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/46 "2010-04-29T18:53:51Z")
Take a little brown baby from some African village and bring it up in an environment suitable for learning in, and it’ll do just as well as a little white baby, is my guess. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/47 "2010-04-29T18:57:09Z")
You still haven’t supported your proposition that the authors of the bell curve are prejudiced. Engaging in bad science doesn’t mean they are prejudiced, just means they are bad scientists. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/48 "2010-04-29T19:02:54Z")
I find it dubious that researchers can fully control for background factors regarding intelligence, so I dismiss standardized test research that purports to do so as reaching too far in its conclusions. I will continue doing so until more research is done on stereotype threat, showing whether it can be a factor in test taking. I suppose I am agnostic until then. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I discussed above–dismissing the science out of hand because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived notions. THIS is bad. Also bad is accepting incomplete/shoddy scientific research that agrees with your preconceived notions. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/49 "2010-04-29T19:04:05Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Take a little brown baby from some African village and bring it up in an environment suitable for learning in, and it’ll do just as well as a little white baby, is my guess. Yeah, a lot of people guess that. Which is why they bristle when the authors of the Bell Curve say that that idea is not supported by the evidence. They think it must be wrong even though they don’t understand it. Some of them then hear that other scientists have criticized the research in the Bell Curve, so they embrace that criticism without understanding it either. All I am saying is that the authors of the Bell Curve (and people that do not automatically dismiss its conclusions) are not racist, they are just doing or looking at research (assuming that that’s what they are really doing and are not just doing or embracing the research because it fits their preconceived notions). ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/50 "2010-04-29T19:06:29Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > Also bad is accepting incomplete/shoddy scientific research that agrees with your preconceived notions. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/51 "2010-04-29T19:09:39Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Yeah, a lot of people guess that. Which is why they bristle when the authors of the Bell Curve say that that idea is not supported by the evidence. They think it must be wrong even though they don’t understand it. Some of them then hear that other scientists have criticized the research in the Bell Curve, so they embrace that criticism without understanding it either. > > All I am saying is that the authors of the Bell Curve (and people that do not automatically dismiss its conclusions) are not racist, they are just doing or looking at research (assuming that that’s what they are really doing and are not just doing or embracing the research because it fits their preconceived notions). How well do you know the authors of the Bell Curve? Have you ever sat in on one of their dinner parties, when they are among those with similar opinions? ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/52 "2010-04-29T19:11:23Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > All I am saying is that the authors of the Bell Curve (and people that do not automatically dismiss its conclusions) are not racist, they are just doing or looking at research (assuming that that’s what they are really doing and are not just doing or embracing the research because it fits their preconceived notions). I have not seen anyone here claiming there are no people simply interested in bell curve type research that are not racist. Where are these anti-science claims? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/53 "2010-04-29T19:16:45Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You still haven’t supported your proposition that the authors of the bell curve are prejudiced. Engaging in bad science doesn’t mean they are prejudiced, just means they are bad scientists. I don’t know their personal motivations for a fact any more than I know anyone else’s. I infer their motivations because prejudice seems to me to be the best fit for the following. Any of these errors could be made individually and could easily be attributed to bad science, but taken together, they suggest another motivation to me. I am open to alternative explanations that fit the facts better. 1. M & H obfuscate the state of the debate on general intelligence. Not only do they assume what has yet to be proven, they mislead the readers as to the opinions of other “experts”. 2. M & H conceal data that does not confirm their hypotheses. 3. They conceal the fact that their models explain almost none of the actual variation in their dependent variables. This does not stop them from inventing tendentious causal arguments that do not flow from even a generous reading of the data. 4. This weakness is compounded by policy proposals. At the end of the day, the data are basically window dressing for the somewhat run-of-the-mill and unimaginative conservative policy prescriptions. These prescriptions can be made rigorously and honestly, but TBC does not do this. Their policy prescriptions do not even flow from their false discoveries in a meaningful way. I infer that Murray & Hernstein are bad social scientists and ideologues. The methodological errors are too consistent and tendentious. They are too determined to find what they set out to find. On this basis I am comfortable inferring their personal motivations, though obviously this is always subject to error. I welcome more convincing alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/54 "2010-04-30T20:41:48Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > On the second part of your post, are you saying that government policies should be designed to insure equality of outcomes across racial lines? I’d say we should start with ensuring equality of opportunity and go from there. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/55 "2010-05-01T02:22:32Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I’d say we should start with ensuring equality of opportunity and go from there. I’d say we should start with that and stop there. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/56 "2010-05-01T18:25:44Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Despite the above evidence to the contrary, I will assume you are capable of actual rational thought for the purposes of the following question: > > Why do you think that it is a bad thing to say that people of different races have measurable differences in IQ _ **if** _ that is supported by the evidence?(bolding/underlining/italicizing mine) Your presumptions and leading questions belie your attempts at realistically defining racism. This occurs throughout the entire thread. [QUOTE=LonesomePolecat] But if the reality is that significant differences due to nature rather than nurture exist, is it then racist to accept reality? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rand Rover] If we can agree that being a racist is a bad thing, then we need to confine the definition of racism to those things that we agree are bad for people to believe. [/QUOTE] When you state: “yyy” if “xxx” you are working within a hypothetical of “xxx.” 1. Don’t assume “xxx” is an accurate depiction of reality. 2. If you do, don’t assume that everyone agrees with you. 3. If you do, don’t assume everyone will play along. 4. I find that this is just a lazy ploy to prevent people from even questioning (or having to defend the accuracy of) “race science.” [All you need to do, is to put all racist statements in the form of a hypothetical and you can prevent the topic from **ever resembling** reality.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550121) Later in the thread, you even stop pretending that you are working within a hypothetical (that racialist work like _the bell curve_ **could be** misleading) in your attempts to redefine “racism”. [QUOTE=Rand Rover] Those definitions fail because they don’t allow for actual observable differences between people of different races (i.e, the Bell Curve argument–see more below). [/QUOTE] That is when I gave my reply. I’ll state this again because it is really important: Working from the assumption that 18th century racist/racialist theories are correct then trying to bend language itself to accommodate those assumptions has the pleasant effect of never requiring you to prove the reality of your racialist ideas, but it also has the negative of not accurately describing the reality that we live in. It just becomes one big game. As long as you are working in this hypothetical (the “race-realism” hypothetical), you will not get an accurate definition of racism. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/57 "2010-05-01T20:49:48Z")
I don’t think I’m “working within a hypothetical” or anything like that. I’m not assuming that the Bell Curve is correct. I’m just saying that it’s not racist to say there are observable differences among people of different races. Do you think it’s racist to say that black people are more prone to sickle-cell anemia or Jewish people are more prone to Tay-Sachs disease? Similarly, I don’t think it’s racist to say that white people on average have a lower IQ than asian people on average (if that is supported by the evidence, and I’m not saying it is). ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/58 "2010-05-01T22:07:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t think I’m “working within a hypothetical” or anything like that. I’m not assuming that the Bell Curve is correct. I’m just saying that it’s not racist to say there are **observable differences among people of different races**.(bolding mine) :rolleyes: Don’t play games. “observable differences among people of different races” = “Da blecks iz dumb” = [definition number 1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12384656&postcount=12). > [@](#): > > Do you think it’s racist to say that black people are more prone to sickle-cell anemia or Jewish people are more prone to Tay-Sachs disease? Similarly, I don’t think it’s racist to say that white people on average have a lower IQ than asian people on average (if that is supported by the evidence, and I’m not saying it is). I’ve underlined that hypothetical which you can never seem to find. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/59 "2010-05-01T22:21:58Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > :rolleyes: Don’t play games. “observable differences among people of different races” = “Da blecks iz dumb” = [definition number 1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12384656&postcount=12). Let’s say I tell you “I have performed research showing that black people have sickle-cell anemia more often than people of other races.” Does performing that research make me a racist? ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357/60 "2010-05-01T23:14:12Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Let’s say I tell you “I have performed research showing that black people have sickle-cell anemia more often than people of other races.” Does performing that research make me a racist? You would have convinced me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you qualitatively define both “black people” and “people of other races.” Your research (and all your holistic statements) are bunk, right out of the gate. You see, whether you are a racist (or not) is very important as I, personally, need to know if it’s worth my time to even look at your data/conclusions. However, researchers who use poor scientific parameters like “the blacks” make that decision moot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-define-racism/537357.md?page=4)