# 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:** 15
**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:** [November 25, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/281 "2013-11-25T20:07:05Z")
> [@](#): > > On another note, if I can repeat something from post #166 which you might have missed, > Quote: > Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post > Chief Pedant, > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you care to address two arguments from evidence against your position? > > > > 1. The claim that among recent immigrants there is no difference in intelligence between these different groups. > > > > 2. That among people whose ancestry is a mixture of different groups, there is no correlation between the percentage of ancestry from one or another group and intelligence. > > Any comment? Per Sweet, recent immigrants of African ancestry don’t show a test score gap. This may be because they haven’t been assimilated into US culture yet. In Britain, African immigrant girls outscore poor white boys. All of this to say, the US pattern is not universal. Per Nisbett, and cited by Sweet, degree of admixture doesn’t make a difference in the test score gap. These are settled issues in this field of research, so I don’t have much interest in debating them. I’ve cited the works of both scholars countless times. Here are some nice rundowns on why the genetic hypothesis has failed thus far, and is not likely to triumph in the future: [http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/brain\_evolution.html](http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/brain_evolution.html) [http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/here\_come\_the\_c.html](http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/09/here_come_the_c.html) > [@](#): > > Let it also be noted in the face of the all-too frequent claims that the “scientific establishment” is reinforcing a “PC orthodoxy” by “suppressing” research into group differences, that Dr. Lahn’s work has been funded by such obscure organizations as the National Institutes of Health, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and the Searle Scholars Program, while he himself toils away at the fringe institution called the Howard Hughes Medical Institute … Let’s dispense with the conspiracy theories about certain types of research being repressed. That’s just silly. [http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2006/02/mapping\_quantit.html](http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2006/02/mapping_quantit.html) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/282 "2013-11-25T20:18:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As even Fotheringay-Phipps mentions, it is not unreasonable to demand genetic evidence that is an important cause of the difference of intelligence among races when one side claims that that is the case. Can you cite where he said that? I’m not seeing it. I stand by supporting his comment that I did cite. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > After so many years of claiming that it is there, it is not unreasonable to demand it, but as per the previous link I looked at (that was brought by an skeptic) it actually gave us more evidence that the suspected intelligence genes in that study are present in \*\*all \*\*“races”. > > That study also pointed to even more studies that mentioned that environmental factors like nutrition are important for those genes to be more active. Evidence is good. Counter evidence is good. Do you disagree? ---
**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:** [November 25, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/283 "2013-11-25T20:25:55Z")
More on genetics, African and otherwise: > **[Genes, IQ and "Race Realism"](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/12/genes_iq_and_ma.html)** > > Now here's a news story guaranteed to get all the usual crackpots abuzzing over the holiday season. DALLAS — Scientists in North Carolina say they have identified a gene that affects IQ, a finding that, if confirmed, would be a... > **[The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/03/the_distributio.html)** > > My statement in an earlier post that I would pick mostly Africans, if I were thinking about ensuring maximum genetic variation in a small group of settlers, has evidently gotten under the skin of no small number of ignorant racist... > **[The Minimal Set](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/03/the_minimal_set.html)** > > I've finally gotten round to acting on the recommendation to watch the show 'Lost', and while I've found it fascinating viewing thus far, and can appreciate why it's as much of a hit as it is, it set my mind... > **[Murder and Race](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2004/12/murder_rates_ac.html)** > > This Economist story touches on the research on left-handedness I mentioned earlier in the week, but what is most interesting about it to me is the following excerpt on murder rates in different societies. Raiding and warfare are central to... > **[Advantage to Lefties](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2004/12/advantage_to_le.html)** > > Now here's an interesting theory; someone's come up with the hypothesis that left-handedness exists because it gives a combat advantage in a society dominated by righties. The team was inspired to carry out the study by the observation that, in... > **[How Heritability Misleads about Race](https://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2004/11/how_heritabilit.html)** > > An excellent overview by Ned Block of certain errors in reasoning that advocates of "innate" racial differences in intelligence can be relied upon to commit. In a recent article on "The Real Bell Curve," Charles Murray grumbles about critics, such... [http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html](http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html) ---
**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 25, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/284 "2013-11-25T20:38:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Depends on the claim. > > If the claim is that such-and-such might be true, or even seems to be true, or is probably true, then requiring proof is unreasonable. Errr, no. Even speculation needs backing up with facts, or else it’s only JAQing off, not real scientific debate. ---
**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 25, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/285 "2013-11-25T20:41:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: Roll eyes all you want, fact is you made completely unfounded claims of correlation between race and physical characteristics that you haven’t even \*attempted \*to justify. So I guess it’s just “we all know what one looks like” with you, yes? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/286 "2013-11-25T20:47:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you cite where he said that? I’m not seeing it. I stand by supporting his comment that I did cite. “If the claim is is definitely true, then it’s not unreasonable.” So, I’m still waiting for the genetic evidence that genes are the main cause of the difference in intelligence among “races”. Unless, of course, all the huffing and puffing from the “race realists” is not really true. > [@magellan01](#): > > Evidence is good. Counter evidence is good. Do you disagree? I don’t disagree, so lets have it coming from your side. As I looked at, the “counter” evidence mentioned as being a very important one was only related to the inheritance of intelligence, from a study that also pointed out that all humans have those genes and there are environmental factors affecting them. Point being that that is what I see in this and many discussions in the past, in general the “evidence” the “race realists” look at actually does help the ones that do not think that genes should be looked as being the most likely reason why there is a difference in intelligence among “races”. And the “race realists” continue to rely on discredited researchers and research from 30 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/287 "2013-11-25T21:18:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. Anti-racist propaganda. IMO, one unintended side effect of the constant harping about racism and alleged racism in this country is that it sends a message to blacks and black kids that they will have a very tough time “playing by the rules”, that whites who are successful working with the system have a much easier time than they would and they will have to work twice as hard to make it. It’s tough enough for kids to defer instant gratification in favor of studying boring schoolwork, but if you additionally think this is not likely to lead to success anyway you might be even more inclined to just chuck it all and focus on having a good time and being cool and tell yourself you’ll eventually make it big as a rapper like that other guy. Just to be clear, do you think that, absent being told that they’ll have a tough time playing by the rules relative to white kids, black kids wouldn’t figure that out on their lonesome? In other words, do you think that the effects of racism both institutional and personal in modern society are too faint or subtle for children to become aware of them? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/288 "2013-11-25T21:38:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because neither of them say that genetics is THE major driver for intelligence, which is what you claimed. > > Since you are now denying that you meant what you said, I guess we can consider the point refuted. Actually, I said IQ tests, not intelligence, so I guess we have one more example of you making up your own version of what has been posted and trying to refute the argument not made. You already noted in your first post in this exchange that you had no idea what you were talking about and then claimed that I meant something I did not say. Pretty standard stuff from you. Of course, now your interpretation of the links I provided is also completely wrong, so you are certainly maintaining your record of error. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/289 "2013-11-25T22:16:01Z")
On reflection, I was wrong to engage you when you start doing what you do. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [November 25, 2013, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/290 "2013-11-25T22:45:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As even Fotheringay-Phipps mentions, it is not unreasonable to demand genetic evidence that is an important cause of the difference of intelligence among races when one side claims that that is the case. If they claim it’s definitely the case, then yes. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Errr, no. Even speculation needs backing up with facts, or else it’s only JAQing off, not real scientific debate. We’re not talking about “facts”. The assertion was about “proof”. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Just to be clear, do you think that, absent being told that they’ll have a tough time playing by the rules relative to white kids, black kids wouldn’t figure that out on their lonesome? In other words, do you think that the effects of racism both institutional and personal in modern society are too faint or subtle for children to become aware of them? No. They would know anyway. But it wouldn’t be as big a part of their consciousness. And in addition, even people who suffer from real discrimination aren’t always able to accurately judge what’s discrimination and what’s not. This is partially because they don’t always have an accurate sense of how easy or hard other people have it by comparison. (I believe this is being lampooned by Eddie Murphy in the classic [White Like Me](http://criticalmediaproject.org/cml/media/eddie-murphy-white-like-me/) skit.) But it’s also part of human nature. I know when my kids get in trouble in school it’s generally because the teacher doesn’t like them and is picking on them. Even if they agree they’re somewhat at fault, there are always other kids who did even worse and didn’t get punished as much, which proves it’s really the teacher having it in for them, and so on. People are sometimes discriminated against but sometimes people attribute their own failings to other people discriminating against them, and sometimes people attribute bad breaks or other people just being jerks and so on to discrimination. Which is significant, because having a bad break and the like is not as much of a deterrent to forging ahead as the sense the entire system is stacked against you. In sum, while racism and discrimination definitely exist, constant harping about them have the impact of exaggerating their significance in people’s minds and consciousness, which makes hard work and deferred gratification seem less worthwhile than they otherwise would, which is a deterrent to black achievement and advancement as compared to whites of the same socio-economic class. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/291 "2013-11-26T00:03:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On reflection, I was wrong to engage you when you start doing what you do. :rolleyes: ---
**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 26, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/292 "2013-11-26T04:46:54Z")
Coupla comments, beginning with an apology for being mostly too busy to play on the Dope. Regarding the correlation of wealth and the skillset for taking SATs: The data is remarkable. Essentially, the uncontested data point is that children from black families where the parents are highly educated (college and above) perform more poorly than do children of white families where the parents have less than high school education and under 10K/yr of income. In a word, (and in practice for Universities looking for well-qualified black applicants), high SES does NOT get rid of a huge score gap. Cultural? Peer Pressure? Rap music? Crappy bookshelves? Teacher expectation? Stereotype threat? Sure…whatever. If you find all those to be persuasive and me to be naive, have at it. Please, just one favor here on the Dope. Let me never again have to defend the point that these poor scores are NOT because the parents are poor or the parents are uneducated. If we give a HUGE economic and educational advantage to black families, their kids still turn in pretty crappy scores. And it matters. It matters because it is precisely this issue that is at the heart of Fisher v UTexas. UTexas needs to protect its “black is a disadvantage” policy because if it only uses SES and class ranks, then the black students it gets are the top ten percent of their mostly black schools, and those students are academically weak. It wants to get the best black students possible, and these come from high SES backgrounds and go to school with the rich white kids. So just let me never have to hear the knee-jerk response again that black scores are weak because of poor economic opportunity, and I’ll be all kinds of happy. Regarding the “what about the immigrants doing so well” question raised above: I thought I made my comments on this earlier. First, any sub-group from a larger group might well score higher. For all I know the Kalenjin are massively better at the SAT than is the average “white” student in the US. We’re talking overall averages here, and average gene pools; not an individual subgroup. Mbuti immigrants might suck at basketball, but that doesn’t mean the average gene pool difference between the SIRE group of white and black in the US doesn’t drive an average performance difference for a given skillset at the SIRE group average level. Beyond that, I doubt immigrants are a typical cross section of the source population they left behind, but I have no data to support that. ---
**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 26, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/293 "2013-11-26T04:56:57Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Per Sweet, recent immigrants of African ancestry don’t show a test score gap. This may be because they haven’t been assimilated into US culture yet. In Britain, African immigrant girls outscore poor white boys. All of this to say, the US pattern is not universal. Out of curiosity, could you present a bit of background regarding Mr Sweet’s qualifications as a researcher, and would you mind presenting any of his cites beyond the newspaper story level? I don’t disagree with some of the stories he cites (from the British press; I think), but I haven’t seen any formal studies actually looking at some of the data he coughs up rather breathlessly, and I haven’t seen much beyond sort of newspaper-level reporting on the issues. Having said that, it makes good sense to me that a bright and motivated sub-group of female african immigrants might outscore some lower-class white males in the British school system, particularly on subjects where scores have shifted from quantitative exams to grade-based evaluations. I’d be curious what happens when students are followed into the STEM fields where more formal quantifiable exams are undertaken. Interestingly, in the British system (if I recall those reports correctly and the research I’ve done in the past around them) the same rank order of asians on top holds true, even where the asians are in similarly disadavantaged new-immigrant groups. Why would that be? Culture, again? ---
**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 26, 2013, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/294 "2013-11-26T05:08:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And the “race realists” continue to rely on discredited researchers and research from 30 years ago. Hmmm. Out of curiosity, have you actually read Rushton and Jensen’s [summary paper on their 30 years of research?](http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf) It’s pretty easy reading, and it’s not very long. I encourage reading on all sides of the issue, and it’s not actually clear to me what you mean by “discredited.” There certainly are hostile opinions opposed to their conclusions in this paper. But I don’t the American Psychological Association (which publishes Psychology) is quite as dismissive as are you. It usually brings a :dubious: from me when I see broad strokes like “discredited” or “debunked” for reseach that peer-reviewed and respected journals still feel worthy of publication. That doesn’t mean there’s no controversy. It does mean it may be worth reading the other side. Unless, of course, it’s a racist side, I guess. Apparently we can slap that label on and it carries a weight independent of the science involved. For what it’s worth, I myself don’t bother to cite Rushton and Jensen, etc. There is way too much other data that show that genes evolve, genes are highly penetrated enough to cluster within SIRE groups, gene clustering drives all sorts of differences, there’s no reason mother nature would exempt genes for “significant” things, and no amount of nurturing to date has been shown to erase stubbornly persistent patterns across all socioeconomic groups, all political systems, and all cultural histories. You might try “Strange Fruit” if you are still confused about whether or not “race” is important as a concept for me. (It’s not.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/295 "2013-11-26T05:17:24Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Hmmm. Out of curiosity, have you actually read Rushton and Jensen’s [summary paper on their 30 years of research?](http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf) It’s pretty easy reading, and it’s not very long. > > I encourage reading on all sides of the issue, and it’s not actually clear to me what you mean by “discredited.” There certainly are hostile opinions opposed to their conclusions in this paper. But I don’t the American Psychological Association (which publishes Psychology) is quite as dismissive as are you. It usually brings a :dubious: from me when I see broad strokes like “discredited” or “debunked” for reseach that peer-reviewed and respected journals still feel worthy of publication. That doesn’t mean there’s no controversy. It does mean it may be worth reading the other side. > > Unless, of course, it’s a racist side, I guess. Apparently we can slap that label on and it carries a weight independent of the science involved. This demonstrates that you really have no idea how science progresses, peer review is not enough, there is also confirmations and new research that should come from those conclusions if it was so valid as you think. Discredited works are usually not removed from the publications, what counts is the new talent that is expanding on the previous research, **the point that I made was that if after more than 30 years the new talent has not made much from the previous research and you need to continue to rely on the same old, it only shows that you are even wrong on how “supportive” the American Psychological Association is of people like Rushton and others.** ---
**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 26, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/296 "2013-11-26T05:22:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > We’re not talking about “facts”. The assertion was about “proof”. :rolleyes: _backing up_ an assertion with “facts” (you know, the entirety of what I said) is what we, in the non-misdirect-and-obfuscate community, _call_ “proof”. ---
**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 26, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/297 "2013-11-26T05:35:51Z")
Oh, for fuck’s sake, **Pedant**. Rushton? Seriously, you think the APA still _endorses_ him? So they didn’t publish [Nisbett’s rebuttal paper](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30years.pdf) right after in the same publication, I take it? Their conclusion: > [@](#): > > In short, Rushton and Jensen (2005) ride roughshod over the evidence > concerning the question of whether the Black–White IQ gap has a hereditary > basis. The most directly relevant research concerns degree of European ancestry > in the Black population. There is not a shred of evidence in this literature, which > draws on studies having a total of five very different designs, that the gap has a > genetic basis. Adoption studies give scarcely more support to the heritability > position. Finally, Black and White IQ scores have converged in recent decades, > and in addition, we know that intervention programs can produce substantial and > lasting effects on Black IQ. The most obvious policy relevance of this set of > findings is that at-risk children—those born to impoverished women, especially > those likely to be unable to provide a stimulating environment, and in particular > children who have low birth weight or other factors predisposing to low IQ— > should be exposed to the most extensive intervention programs that it is practical > to provide. This group happens to include a disproportionate percentage of Black > infants, but race need not, and perhaps should not, be made a criterion for > inclusion ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/298 "2013-11-26T06:26:20Z")
Indeed **MrDibble** , and when I look at recent research there are many examples of how most researchers see people like Rushton and Jensen, many now investigate why many “Racial Determinists” are getting wrong. Like in this article, pointed at before, that comes \*\*also \*\*from the American Psychological Association: > **[Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3394457/)** > > This paper introduces the notion of genetic essentialist biases: cognitive biases associated with essentialist thinking that are elicited when people encounter arguments that genes are relevant for a behavior, condition, or social group. Learning ... > [@](#): > > An emphasis on the heritable basis of intelligence was evident in the initial development of intellectual testing, and indeed, such testing was a critical component of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century (Kevles, 1985). For example, the fact that American Blacks have been found to score lower than American Whites on IQ tests, has been interpreted by some researchers as indicating that there was little hope in being able to improve the academic performance among Blacks (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969; for critiques of this work, see Flynn, 2007; Gould, 1996; Nisbett, 2009). More recently, James Watson, a Nobel Prize laureate for the discovery of the double helix structure of the DNA, offered in an interview for the London Sunday Times, that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa,” since “all of our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really” (Nugent, 2007). That is, the heritable component of intelligence has often been interpreted as showing that the intellectual potential of people, and entire races of people, lies beyond the reach of any environmental or educational influence. > > There are two key fallacies in these conclusions and both reflect the somewhat irresistible power of genetic essentialism. First, is the notion that heritability estimates calculated within groups are assumed to demonstrate that between-group differences are due to the postulated genes underlying the heritability. This fallacy reflects how the genes underlying heritable traits are assumed to be the sole factor (i.e., they represent a specific etiology) underlying both individual- and group-variability in the phenotype (see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGffin, 2008). Demonstrating the appeal of this fallacy, research finds that people who use genetic explanations for individual differences are also more likely to use genes to explain perceived group differences for that same trait (Sternthal, Jayaratne, & Feldman, 2009). > > The second fallacy is that the heritability of a trait is assumed to indicate that the trait cannot be modified by environmental elements – that is, a phenotype is viewed as a predetermined and immutable outcome of the underlying (but unidentified) genotype. But, of course, the heritability of any trait says nothing about its modifiability. That heritability is frequently interpreted in these erroneous ways (and for many topics in addition to race and intelligence), even by some behavioral geneticists and intelligence researchers, underscores how such arguments resonate with people’s essentialist biases. People often view intelligence in essentialist terms in that it is viewed as the immutable product of a fundamental cause (the genotype) that is coterminous with the individual’s race. Once these essentialist biases are prompted people focus their attention almost exclusively on the perceived underlying genetic foundation and thereby disempower environmental influences on intelligence. > [@](#): > > Conclusion > > People are motivated to make sense of their social worlds. They encounter much human diversity, and in making sense of this, people are affected by at least two broad classes of etiological accounts, nativist and environmentalist explanations. These two kinds of explanations seem to be differentially emphasized across contexts and historical periods. While the pendulum continues to swing between these two classes of explanations, recent indications suggest that nativist perceptions are gaining the advantage in contemporary Western societies (e.g., Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Paul, 1995), arguably reinforced by the zeal with which scientific explorations into the genome are communicated by the media. How people come to make sense of this information is a topic that psychologists have only recently begun to address. > > There is much evidence now, in a variety of domains such as sexual orientation, criminality, mental illness, obesity, gender, race, and ethnicity, of causal relationships between genetic attributions explaining group differences and perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. The common theme among these attributions is that they go beyond the scientific evidence, with weak genetic explanations being interpreted as strong genetic explanations, which results in the gene being endowed with an almost mystical ability to shape individual and group characteristics, and sociocultural and environmental elements largely being ignored. Once people consider the notion that genes are relevant for understanding some kinds of human conditions they come to think of those conditions differently; the heritable component becomes the essential feature of the condition increasing its causal influence. And once we frame genes as the cause of a problem, we are likely to also dwell on the notion that genes will represent the solution, and genetic engineering or eugenic policies may show an increase in their appeal. ---
**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:** [November 26, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/299 "2013-11-26T14:37:03Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Regarding the “what about the immigrants doing so well” question raised above: > I thought I made my comments on this earlier. First, any sub-group from a larger group might well score higher. For all I know the Kalenjin are massively better at the SAT than is the average “white” student in the US. We’re talking overall averages here, and average gene pools; not an individual subgroup. Fair point. It depends on how robust the tests being discussed are, i.e. did they test one specific sub-group of black immigrants or a broader group. > [@](#): > > Beyond that, I doubt immigrants are a typical cross section of the source population they left behind, but I have no data to support that. Yeah, but they’re being compared to other groups of immigrants, which should be equally non-typical. > [@MrDibble](#): > > :rolleyes: _backing up_ an assertion with “facts” (you know, the entirety of what I said) is what we, in the non-misdirect-and-obfuscate community, _call_ “proof”. I’m not sure what community you claim to be from, but what you’re doing seems a lot like “misdirect-and-obfuscate” to me. Your assertion (post #284) was that “speculation needs backing up with facts”. I pointed out that facts and proof are not the same so you respond that backing up with facts is proof. So you’re effectively saying that speculation needs proof, which is obvious nonsense, because something which is proven is not speculation - the whole point of speculation is that it’s not proven. So I think you’re playing a game. You’re trying to raise the bar as high as possible on the admissibility of evidence of racial differences and to do that you’re switching terms as needed. You use the term “facts” when discussing speculation because you couldn’t get “proof” in at that point, but then convert “facts” into “proof” in a separate step when it’s no longer as obvious that you’re talking about speculation, and you’re where you want to be. Which is solidly in middle of the “misdirect-and-obfuscate community”, apparently. ---
**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 26, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/300 "2013-11-26T15:30:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your assertion (post #284) was that “speculation needs backing up with facts”. I pointed out that facts and proof are not the same so you respond that backing up with facts is proof. So you’re effectively saying that speculation needs proof, which is obvious nonsense, because something which is proven is not speculation - the whole point of speculation is that it’s not proven. My point exactly - unproven speculation (i.e. that which isn’t backed up) is just that - idle speculation, and as such, _worse than useless_ in a scientific debate. Which the “race realist” debate _claims_ to be. > [@](#): > > So I think you’re playing a game. You’re trying to raise the bar as high as possible on the admissibility of evidence of racial differences and to do that you’re switching terms as needed. _I’m_ not raising the bar, the bar is _already set_ where it is by, you know, the scientific community, and its gosh-darn fiddly methodologies and practices. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=16)