# What is racism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334 "2013-11-07T15:15:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**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:** [November 22, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/241 "2013-11-22T23:50:27Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’d like to challenge you to advance a couple of decent reasons this might be so, and further challenge you to explain why it is so only for blacks, at least in the USA, where this discrepancy is well studied by looking at SAT scores. Done, many times. For example, lower teacher expectations, oppositional culture peer pressure, and my hypothesized general environmental challenges, which might include media depictions, personal interactions, and many other day-to-day things that serve as a barrier in the “black experience” in the USA. Basically, in day-to-day life, I hypothesize that simply being black in America (and, therefore, to be treated as a black person in America), regardless of economic status, makes it harder to reach one’s intellectual potential. It’s hard to measure how media depictions affect kids, or day-to-day little tiny bits of racism affect kids. > [@](#): > > What special reasons do you want to assign to being black that are so special a kid cannot overcome them even when their parents did? Who says they can’t be overcome? Obviously they can… there are plenty of black geniuses and high achievers. But these obstacles make it harder, and therefore skew the statistics. > [@](#): > > You are correct that, having interviewed hundreds of students from the backgrounds I describe, I am unpersuaded that stuff like “poor teacher expectations” or “culture” or some other reason along those lines is worth a fig. What a coincidence- based on my personal experience with people of many different backgrounds, I’m totally unpersuaded by your argument that the genes for high intelligence (of which we know pretty much nothing) are less prevalent among black people. ---
**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:** [November 22, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/242 "2013-11-22T23:53:30Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Quite simply, it’s racist to group people into races\* , in-and-of-itself. If it’s racial, it’s racist. If people self-identify into groups that can be shown to have disparate average gene pools, is it racist to comment/study/etc the effect of those disparate gene pools? I’ve never quite understood the approach that tries to get rid of the “race” problem by arguing there are no biologically defined races. As I point out above, that’s an argument about how to use the term “race.” It doesn’t get rid of the issue that self-defined categories differ for average gene pools because of the history of human migration and evolution. So for example, there might be 15 black “races” what with all the diversity in africa, and 5 white “races” by whatever categories might be used for someone who likes the “race” categories. But forget the races; it’s easy to show if people self-lump into one superset for the black group, and another for the white group, their average gene pools differ, driven at the point of the post L3 split (if we use mtDNA). No biologically-definable races (lets give that point away) but certainly different average gene pools for two self-defined groups (and plenty of average physical differences to prove that there really are average gene pool differences). ---
**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:** [November 23, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/243 "2013-11-23T00:00:29Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But forget the races; it’s easy to show if people self-lump into one superset for the black group, and another for the white group, their average gene pools differ, driven at the point of the post L3 split (if we use mtDNA). But there are many individuals and even population groups in the “black group” that will be more closely related to individuals and groups in the “white group” than to certain other individuals and groups in the “black group”. This seems to make it a pretty useless biological grouping, it seems to me. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/244 "2013-11-23T00:07:46Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’d like to challenge you to advance a couple of decent reasons this might be so, and further challenge you to explain why it is so only for blacks, at least in the USA, where this discrepancy is well studied by looking at SAT scores. It’s called stereotype threat. The makers of the SAT test thought it quaint (and funny, I suppose) to ask the SAT test taker to cough up their race just before they take the test. The same with the GRE; at least the MCAT has the decency to ask your race\* before \* test day. Frankly, I think the SAT, ACT, and GRE ask that question - on test day - because they specifically do not want blacks to succeed. Here’s a helpful tip for college-test administrators and U.S in general: STOP ASKING BLACK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR RACE AND ALLOW THEM TO TAKE THE TEST WITHOUT STEREOTYPE THREAT. I can’t fill out a single application without white people begging, pleading, bugging me about my race on the census forms, on employment applications, on medical sign-up sheets; hell, if I were on food stamps, white people direct the government bureaucrat to record my race without my permission. No joke. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/245 "2013-11-23T00:10:41Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If people self-identify into groups that can be shown to have disparate average gene pools, is it racist to comment/study/etc the effect of those disparate gene pools? > > I’ve never quite understood the approach that tries to get rid of the “race” problem by arguing there are no biologically defined races. As I point out above, that’s an argument about how to use the term “race.” It doesn’t get rid of the issue that self-defined categories differ for average gene pools because of the history of human migration and evolution. > > So for example, there might be 15 black “races” what with all the diversity in africa, and 5 white “races” by whatever categories might be used for someone who likes the “race” categories. But forget the races; it’s easy to show if people self-lump into one superset for the black group, and another for the white group, their average gene pools differ, driven at the point of the post L3 split (if we use mtDNA). No biologically-definable races (lets give that point away) but certainly different average gene pools for two self-defined groups (and plenty of average physical differences to prove that there really are average gene pool differences). What gene(s) does one group have, that the other group does not have? - Honesty ---
**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:** [November 23, 2013, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/246 "2013-11-23T00:17:51Z")
Stereotype threat- that’s something I didn’t know about it. Off to do more reading! Thanks, **Honesty**! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/247 "2013-11-23T01:31:50Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > So nobody’s on to the Jews’ and Asians’ secret that a good education drives success? Certainly, it seems to have escaped the notice of most people who want to exalt genetics as the major driver for IQ tests. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I find the notion that educated and wealthy black parents are simply too ignorant(?) to press for their children to achieve academically to be pretty lame. Were I an educated black parent, successful precisely because of my education, I think I’d be insulted at the suggestion I am that stupid. > > What’s the cultural tradition educated blacks are promoting for their children that supercedes a good education? Ignorance? Basketball? Rapper culture? > > Most of the highly educated blacks I know live lives and walk in circles pretty much like the other highly educated blacks I know…I’m not terribly convinced their lives or paradigms are much different at all, in terms of goals, values and an understanding of the value of an education to drive success. You are still pretending your own variation of egalitarianism. As I noted, there are many routes to success. Education is a good one, but not anywhere near the only one. If a number of people have achieved success without actually buying into the current educational system, they are unlikely to think of that system as being the only route to success. If they have achieved success in spite of roadblocks that they have encountered in the educational system, they are unlikely to put much faith in “education.” If you can provide some evidence that a significant number of wealthy black people believed that education was the single most important factor in achieving their success and that there is external evidence to support that belief, you will have established a basis for your beliefs. (Not proof, but certainly a basis.) Until then, you are simply inventing scenarios that support your beliefs. If you would like to wave around anecdotes, I will note that I have worked with a number of quite wealthy (white) people and I have only rarely found that education was a prime factor in their wealth. (Salesmanship and gamesmanship seemed to be much bigger factors.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/248 "2013-11-23T02:43:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Certainly, it seems to have escaped the notice of most people who want to exalt genetics as the major driver for IQ tests. Are you talking about someone on this board? I’ve understood the argument to simply be that genetics may very well account for a higher or lower baseline IQ. Not “the major driver”. Can you point to a post that expresses what you indicate? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/249 "2013-11-23T06:55:41Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If people self-identify into groups that can be shown to have disparate average gene pools, is it racist to comment/study/etc the effect of those disparate gene pools? See what I said about confusing clustering with correlation? > [@](#): > > But forget the races; it’s easy to show if people self-lump into one superset for the black group, and another for the white group, their average gene pools differ, driven at the point of the post L3 split (if we use mtDNA). No biologically-definable races (lets give that point away) but certainly different average gene pools for two self-defined groups (and plenty of average physical differences to prove that there really are average gene pool differences). So there are just two races, Black and White? Talk about your lumpers! And Melanesians and Negritos are White? I’m cool with that, but … so what? Now you have these two arbitrary groupings, what possible scientific use are they? And this _isn’t_ “biologically-definable”. But it’s on the basis of a genetic split? Are you even reading your own posts? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/250 "2013-11-23T11:30:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Are you talking about someone on this board? I’ve understood the argument to simply be that genetics may very well account for a higher or lower baseline IQ. Not “the major driver”. What is the difference between a phenomnon that is baseline and a phenomenon that is a major driver? If the baseline for IQ, (that is, the point where it begins), is higher or lower based on genetics, then where it goes from there is most likely going to be higher or lower. Your question seems odd. Note: I don’t actually argue against genetics playing a role in intelligence. I simply note that nothing has ever persuaded me that _g_ exists or that IQ measures anything more than the ability to take IQ tests. People who are raised in an environment where schooling is highly valued are going to, on average, do better on IQ tests and educationally based tests than people who are not raised with the same expectation. Two groups who are routinely cited as having “higher” IQs and other test scores are also two groups who have a cultural tradition that strongly supports education. In that situation, I find **Chief Pedant** ’s claims for genetics in regard to wealthy black kids’ test scores problematic and his casual dismissal of culture to be naive. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/251 "2013-11-23T14:39:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What is the difference between a phenomnon that is baseline and a phenomenon that is a major driver? I don’t understand this question; I am not even sure that it has a meaning. Nonetheless, you alleged that people were claiming that genetics were “the major driver” for IQ. (You said IQ tests, but that also doesn’t make any sense, so I will assume you meant to say something that did.) Please cite someone on the SDMB who has said that genetics are “the major driver” for IQ. Not one factor among several, the major driver. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/252 "2013-11-23T14:58:42Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What is the difference between a phenomnon that is baseline and a phenomenon that is a major driver? > If the baseline for IQ, (that is, the point where it begins), is higher or lower based on genetics, then where it goes from there is most likely going to be higher or lower. Your question seems odd. What I mean is that let’s assume for a second that genetics causes one group top be on average 1% more intelligent than another group. And let’s assume that that is true for each individual in those groups (not that I think that is the case). My point is that that small baseline advantage, i.e., nature, should it exist, can be easily overridden via nurture. You said: [QUOTE=tomndebb] Certainly, it seems to have escaped the notice of most people who want to exalt genetics as the major driver for IQ tests. [/QUOTE] I can’t recall anyone stating that genetics is the major driver of anything having to do with intelligence. Can you point to what you had in mind. I’m not trying to play gotcha here, I’m genuinely curious as to what sparked your assessment. On review, or what **Shodan** said. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/253 "2013-11-23T18:33:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What I mean is that let’s assume for a second that genetics causes one group top be on average 1% more intelligent than another group. And let’s assume that that is true for each individual in those groups (not that I think that is the case). My point is that that small baseline advantage, i.e., nature, should it exist, can be easily overridden via nurture. They can be, and if the average nurture for the lower group is better than for the upper, then the 1% difference disappears. If “average nurture” is the same for both groups, then the difference will persist. Genetics is often a limiting factor. A given individual might be born with the potential to be (for instance) 6’2" tall, but suffers malnutrition in childhood and winds up only 6’. If he had gotten better nurture, he would have been taller, but no amount of force feeding is going to make him 6’4". And, more cogent to the discussion, if group A has the genetic potential to be 6’2" on average, and group B only 6"1’, and they receive the same nurture, then group B is going to be shorter on average. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/254 "2013-11-23T19:54:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They can be, and if the average nurture for the lower group is better than for the upper, then the 1% difference disappears. If “average nurture” is the same for both groups, then the difference will persist. > > Genetics is often a limiting factor. A given individual might be born with the potential to be (for instance) 6’2" tall, but suffers malnutrition in childhood and winds up only 6’. If he had gotten better nurture, he would have been taller, but no amount of force feeding is going to make him 6’4". > > And, more cogent to the discussion, if group A has the genetic potential to be 6’2" on average, and group B only 6"1’, and they receive the same nurture, then group B is going to be shorter on average. > > Regards, > Shodan Yes. I think we are in agreement. Similarly, a more gifted athlete can be outperformed by one who has better coaching, training or work ethic. ---
**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:** [November 23, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/255 "2013-11-23T20:35:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. I think we are in agreement. Similarly, a more gifted athlete can be outperformed by one who has better coaching, training or work ethic. None of this actually disputes anything we in the non-“blacks are dumber” crowd are saying. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/256 "2013-11-24T00:16:28Z")
magellan01 and Shodan, I have no idea what you guys think you are trying to get at. If no one is arguing that genetics is a major driver of intelligence, (_and note that I only said IQ tests_), why do we keep seeing these threads? Here are a couple of examples: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16047094&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16047094](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16047094&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16047094) (Note the very first point.) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16812122&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16812122](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16812122&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16812122) (Note the third to last parageaph.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/257 "2013-11-24T00:38:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > magellan01 and Shodan, I have no idea what you guys think you are trying to get at. If no one is arguing that genetics is a major driver of intelligence, (_and note that I only said IQ tests_), why do we keep seeing these threads? > > Here are a couple of examples: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16047094&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16047094](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16047094&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16047094) > (Note the very first point.) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16812122&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16812122](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16812122&highlight=intelligence+genetic#post16812122) > (Note the third to last parageaph.) Let’s recap, shall we? This is what you said and I questioned you about: > [@](#): > > Certainly, it seems to have escaped the notice of most people who want to exalt genetics as **the** major driver for IQ tests. (emphasis mine) I see that you have decided to play innocent and backpedal while using a little sleight of hand and moving your “the major driver” to “a major driver”. Even with that you offer thin evidence. But do you have any cites that would support the actual statement I asked you about? I tried to let you know that I’m not trying to play gotcha here, but that I was genuinely curious who you thought was making that argument. If the best you have is what you already offered up, shall I take that as simply a misstatement on your part? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/258 "2013-11-24T01:29:50Z")
How are the citations I posted not an assertion that genetics is _ **"THE"** _ driver for intelligence? I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless you are misreading “major” for “exclusive,” which I certainly did not say. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/259 "2013-11-24T18:24:36Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > What gene(s) does one group have, that the other group does not have? > > - Honesty The whole reason various populations look different is that they have different genes along with different average frequencies for (nearly identical) genes driving their phenotypic appearance. Migration patterns have separated populations, and then evolution acts on the genes of the descendants to alter those genes. New genes then achieve variable degrees of penetration in the descendant groups. There are other reasons gene pool average frequencies might be different even where (nearly) similar genes retain an essentially unaltered function. Let me give a few examples. For a gene variant: MCPH1 Haplogroup D variant is about 70% penetrated into Eurasian poplutions; we hardly find this variant at all in groups whose recent ancestry is sub-saharan africa. For genes with similar function but different average frequencies, driving differences at a SIRE group level: HbS is found in much greater frequency within populations where malaria has (historically) been endemic. It’s thought that heterozygosity for S has some protection against malaria. If you look at black and white SIRE groups in the US, you won’t find the same average gene frequency for HbS, and therefore even at a self-identified level of grouping, there will be a different outcome for those two groups if you look for SS-based sickle disease (or, for that matter, the average ability to survive malaria). For physiology: Any number of genes driving physiology are thought to be found in average frequencies which differ among SIRE groups. Reference ranges for creatine kinase are different for adult male blacks and whites, for example. If we look at ACTN3, the variant with the rs1815739; R577X mutation has a much higher frequency in asian populations than african ones. The examples of gene variants which cluster by SIRE group would fill a book, and more are being identified every day. It is this average difference in genetic pools that drives so many of the outcomes we see among even self-identified groups. I may be Navin Johnson, but if I self-identify as “black,” then I have self-identified with a group that has a higher average outcome for HbS sickle cell anemia, and a lower average outcome for cystic fibrosis even though I myself have exactly the opposite chance of having that outcome. This is because the average gene pools of SIRE groups are quite different, and quite easily shown to cluster (because not only are genes and gene frequencies different; penetration for new genes is quite different). Many people (and I believe you were one of them, at least in the past), get confused because we use the same name (nicknames, really) for parts of the DNA code lumped into a “gene.” However, just because a “gene” has the same nickname does not mean it’s an identical gene. As a nice example, there is a gene nicknamed HGMA2 that has been linked to brain size and intelligence. People with one of its variants (with a single substitution of a cytosine for a thymine at a single position), have an average of 2% larger brains and perhaps a 2% increase in intelligence. A beginner to the world of genes might think, “Well; we all have HGMA2, so we all have the same genes, right?” The answer, of course, is that we all have (about) the same general genes (humans are pretty much humans), but the are definitely NOT the same genes from human to human. Evolution is constantly at work altering them all, and when she’s lucky enough to create a variant that produces a reproduction advantage, the descendants of that person gain that advantage. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/260 "2013-11-24T18:33:00Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > It’s called stereotype threat. The makers of the SAT test thought it quaint (and funny, I suppose) to ask the SAT test taker to cough up their race just before they take the test. The same with the GRE; at least the MCAT has the decency to ask your race\* before \* test day. Frankly, I think the SAT, ACT, and GRE ask that question - on test day - because they specifically do not want blacks to succeed. > > Here’s a helpful tip for college-test administrators and U.S in general: STOP ASKING BLACK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR RACE AND ALLOW THEM TO TAKE THE TEST WITHOUT STEREOTYPE THREAT. I can’t fill out a single application without white people begging, pleading, bugging me about my race on the census forms, on employment applications, on medical sign-up sheets; hell, if I were on food stamps, white people direct the government bureaucrat to record my race without my permission. No joke. > > - Honesty I am well acquainted with Steele’s work–along with criticisms of it. I don’t think it holds water. If you find it persuasive, fine. Of course, one cannot help but notice that it only works for certain pursuits, and extremely variably so. So stereotype threat apparently keeps blacks from performing well on STEM-related exams, but not other pursuits. Beyond that silliness, even where the race of the examinee is unknown, the disparity persists. We don’t ask “race” on many many exams along the pathway from med school to specialty certification. However the exam outcomes are identically ranked by SIRE group. In fact, a major criticism of the process for residency application is that using exams at the post-med school level screens out blacks as a by-product because their exam results are poorer and their race is not identified… Out in the practical world, the same pattern persists. For example, on exams to be on the police or fire force, race may not be identified but outcomes still exhibit the same pattern (see Ricci v DeStefano), e.g. And as you know, the reason the Feds collect race is that if they did not, there would be no way to selectively protect underperformers by race. It’s essentially collected to protect blacks and hispanics; not to undermine their ability to remember the correct answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=14)