Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

[IAmMetaphysical]

The problem with racism and with all studies that deal with race and attributes is that it denies the individual. It doe snot matter if 75 percent of blacks are superior athletes than whites. Individual whites will be better athletes than individual blacks, and that is what is important. The abilities of others who are a member of your race have nothing to do with your attirbutes. One is not inferior based on race, but on actuall comparitive attributes with another. I am physically inferior to Mike tyson, but intellectually superior. This does not make me physically inferior to every black man, nor intellectually superior.

The problem with racism is that it blinds one to the individual, so that all one sees is the group, the mob, the tribe, etc.

[The Wrath]

That's why I have gone to great pains to use the phrase "in general."

[IAmMetaphysical]

Why should you care personally if there is a certain segment of the polulation that is better at certain things than others? What effect does it have on you personally? Are you going to start judging people based on their "group characteristics" or by THEIR characteristics?

....then, by the definition that I put forth at the beginning of this thread, I think it would be perfectly logical to call oneself racist.

It is not logical to assume that every member of a certain group you encounter will have those characteristics that you find in the group "in general."

Edited November 13, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[aequalsa]

Why should you care personally if there is a certain segment of the polulation that is better at certain things than others? What effect does it have on you personally? Are you going to start judging people based on their "group characteristics" or by THEIR characteristics?

It is not logical to assume that every member of a certain group you encounter will have those characteristics that you find in the group "in general."

I think that quite often stereotypes are useful to take into consideration. If I were invited to a potluck dinner by people who were semetic, I wouldn't bring bacon, even if I didn't have direct knowledge of their religious beliefs. By that same token, I would be a lot more weary of walking down a street at night in O'town(bad neighborhood in miami) then I would in Lexington(nice suburb of Boston). When I encounter an individual, their particular traits are a more important concern, but I don't think it inappropriate at all to consider people by group when you have nothing else to go on. It helps you establish some expectations of their behaviour. The problem comes if you hold those initial expectations as fact rather then probability.

[IAmMetaphysical]

By that same token, I would be a lot more weary of walking down a street at night in O'town(bad neighborhood in miami) then I would in Lexington(nice suburb of Boston).

This would have nothing to do with race, but with a geographical area where it is more dangerous regardless of the race of the people who live there.

The thing is: there is no such thing as "the race," just as there is no such thing as "society" as an entity. So if 75 percent of blacks are superior runners than whites, it does not mean that THE RACE is thus superior at running, because "the race" is just a number of individuals, and for the race to superior, each and every individual of that race would need to be superior than each and every member of every other race.

[aequalsa]

This would have nothing to do with race, but with a geographical area where it is more dangerous regardless of the race of the people who live there.

I don't think that is accurate. It is decidedly the people that live in that location that make the area dangerous. The buildings don't shoot at you, after all.

I don't understand why you would deny that differences exist between groups of people. Or that sociological probabilities are a valid means of knowledge. The differences may be culturally based rather then genetic, but the differences exist just the same. And more times then not, those differences devide loosely on racial lines. To not take those differences into consideration would be foolish and possibly dangerous.

So what are you opposed to here, exactly? That an individuals worth should not be judged based on on their genetics alone or that you should take any notice whatsoever of someones physical characteristics regardless of whether or not there is correlational data to warrant a certain level of prejudgement?

[IAmMetaphysical]

I am against the notion that it is proper judge an entire group of people or an individual based on the traits of some other people who share certain traits with those people or that group.

The dangers of people come from their ideology, namely their ideology in regards to the issue of force and its proper role in human interaction. Thus it is not the blackness of south central that makes it dangerous, but the residents' attitude toward force. I would just as much be wary of a white person in south central as a black person. The rule should be: when in south central, be aware of everyone.

I don't understand why you would deny that differences exist between groups of people.

I don't deny it. I think it is unimportant, mainly because "groups of people" are not important. Individuals are. Groups only gain importance from the individuals subsumed under them.

[DavidOdden]

Has anyone come across a study where they study blacks raised in white households for example?

The fact that they haven't even bothered to conduct such a test is one of a number of reasons for rejecting the claim that low performance on intelligence scores is caused by racial genetics. You can also look at upper-class blacks who have rejected the culture of despair that predominates modern black culture, or look at immigrant populations, i.e. those who come to the US from Africa or the West Indies and have already embraced western cultural values. If the racial genetic theory were correct, you would find that they perform miserably as well. Similarly, if the racial genetic theory were correct, you would not find white people performing as lousily as they do, in some places. But Appalachian test scores are low, despite a predominantly Germano-Celtic genetic background. So the predictions of the racial genetic theory are simply unsupported, and thus don't deserve any further consideration until such time as some researcher does present relevant facts.

You mention the paper "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"; it's then interesting to see what they say about genetic factors. "There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. Once piece of evidence comes from a study of the children of American soldiers stationed in Germany after the Second World War (Eyferth, 1961): there was no mean difference between the test scores of those children whose fathers were White and those whose fathers were Black". The point that may confuse the issue is that there may be non-racial genetic effects -- random individual differences which can be passed from parent to offspring, but which has no correlation with race.

BTW, don't cite Wikipedia as a credible source for scientific information. It's okay to use it as a way of collecting basic ideas and especially finding out where the reputable scientific sources are, but remember that Wikipedia is essentially a public blog, and it has no effective means of enforcing basic scientific research standards. The IQ article would be an example: look for a peer-reviewed scientific article on the topic. Note that their made-up table doesn't even imply that race is relevant.

[blackdiamond]

I believe that the proper definition of racism is "the belief that one race is inherently and genetically superior to another." If this definition is correct, shouldn't racism be defined as a scientific position rather than an immoral and irrational prejudice?

By this definition, I am racist against white people (despite the fact that I am one), because I believe blacks be more athletic. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case. I don't know of any evidence that suggests that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks but, if such evidence were made available, why would it be considered immoral to hold such a belief? This is somewhat analogous to the president of Harvard suggesting that men are better at math and science than women. Studies suggest that it is true, but there was outrage over his statements. This outrage, however, would be nothing compared to what would happen if he claimed that whites were smarter than blacks.

Of course, such things are always spoken of in generalities but, given that such statements are provably true in general would you be willing to identify yourself as a racist?

Hi Moose.

BLACKdiamond here:).

I think the definition you have used doesn't fully capture the way the term is generally used. i don't think anyone would consider you racist for thinking that whites are better swimmers than blacks or blacks better boxers than whites, for example, even if you were wrong for generalising. So, if this is all you meant, you would be wrong to call yourself 'racist'. Racism has to do with a more fundamental action: intellectual (and spiritual) judgment (i.e., judgment of intellectual or spiritual capacity) of a race of people.

if you limit your racial judgments to physical things, your position would probably be scientific (rather than moral), but judgment of a human consciousness' ability to think is surely not just science. As humans, we give the highest respect to the mind (as our primary means of survival), which is why in any language, it is a hurtful insult to suggest to someone that he has very low intelligence (stupid, idiot, fool, imbecile, moron, etc in any language leads to fights!). But a charge of physical 'inferiority' does not have the same effect (with the possible exception of 'fat', although this is also not universal: in my country, "you are becoming fat" is usually a complement!).

Also, a racist does not just limit his judgment to academic intelligence, but to spiritual ability as well. Thus, if i remember very well, the Bell Curve, discussed not just the "inherently" lower IQ of blacks, but also their "inherently" higher inclination to crime! So, as i said, real racism is a judgment of the consciousness of members of a race. Just as a dog's consciousness is lower than that of a man, a racist considers some humans to possess a consciousness that is between that of an animal and a human (or highest human). (Which essentially means he calls all of them 'idiots' or 'criminals' before they even act; a rational person can only pass judgment AFTER individual action, not BEFORE, as that would be a reversal of causality, i think).

There is nothing wrong with conducting studies in IQ differences among the different races, but the deterministic racist conclusions derived from these statistics always involve a number of major logical fallacies by the researchers - which is not a sign of a very high intellect!

[DavidOdden]

Racism - "the belief that there are inherent differences between the races that determine peoples achievement"

...

Using the first definition, I would definitely qualify as a racist.

Hey, I just noticed this. Are you saying that you're an intrinsicist and a determinist? There's a difference between saying that fact X has some bearing on a person's actions and that it determines their actions. Are you arguing for the latter claim?

[Viking]

So if 75 percent of blacks are superior runners than whites, it does not mean that THE RACE is thus superior at running, because "the race" is just a number of individuals, and for the race to superior, each and every individual of that race would need to be superior than each and every member of every other race.

It is true that each and every black person wouldn't be better than every white person, but you could definitely say that on average, blacks are better runners than whites. With this information, you could make some very useful assumptions if you lack information about someone.

For example, given this information, from the Bureau of Justice.

"Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males."

Based on this information, if you had to trust either a black man or a white man, and you knew nothing about them except their skin color, who would you choose to trust? Would you still claim that the information above is "unimportant," and pull out a quarter instead? Give me a break.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Viking

[DavidOdden]

Based on this information, if you had to trust either a black man or a white man, and you knew nothing about them except their skin color, who would you choose to trust? Would you still claim that the information above is "unimportant," and pull out a quarter instead?

Why would you "have to" trust either one? Tell me what kind of clothes each is wearing -- I'd put more trust in that that in skin color.

[Viking]

The fact that they haven't even bothered to conduct such a test is one of a number of reasons for rejecting the claim that low performance on intelligence scores is caused by racial genetics. You can also look at upper-class blacks who have rejected the culture of despair that predominates modern black culture, or look at immigrant populations, i.e. those who come to the US from Africa or the West Indies and have already embraced western cultural values. If the racial genetic theory were correct, you would find that they perform miserably as well. Similarly, if the racial genetic theory were correct, you would not find white people performing as lousily as they do, in some places. But Appalachian test scores are low, despite a predominantly Germano-Celtic genetic background. So the predictions of the racial genetic theory are simply unsupported, and thus don't deserve any further consideration until such time as some researcher does present relevant facts.

I didn't mean to imply that they haven't done such a study, I've actually heard that there may be one, but I haven't been able to find it.

It is true that some many white people can be stupid, and many black people can be very smart, but exceptions don't disprove the rule. If someone is able to drive fine under the affects of alcohol, that doesn't mean it is safe to drink and drive. I don't think anyone here is saying that every white man is smarter than every black man, for example.

You mention the paper "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"; it's then interesting to see what they say about genetic factors. "There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. Once piece of evidence comes from a study of the children of American soldiers stationed in Germany after the Second World War (Eyferth, 1961): there was no mean difference between the test scores of those children whose fathers were White and those whose fathers were Black". The point that may confuse the issue is that there may be non-racial genetic effects -- random individual differences which can be passed from parent to offspring, but which has no correlation with race.

BTW, don't cite Wikipedia as a credible source for scientific information. It's okay to use it as a way of collecting basic ideas and especially finding out where the reputable scientific sources are, but remember that Wikipedia is essentially a public blog, and it has no effective means of enforcing basic scientific research standards. The IQ article would be an example: look for a peer-reviewed scientific article on the topic. Note that their made-up table doesn't even imply that race is relevant.

Fair enough, you got me there. I assumed too much when they said socioeconomic factors do not explain this gap.

Did you get a chance to look at the other study, though? That one seems to be more solid.

[Viking]

Hey, I just noticed this. Are you saying that you're an intrinsicist and a determinist? There's a difference between saying that fact X has some bearing on a person's actions and that it determines their actions. Are you arguing for the latter claim?

Good eye. I'm arguing for the first claim, but I do think being born with an extra 50 points of IQ would have more than "some" bearing on one's actions. And I don't think people can will their way to a higher IQ.

[Viking]

Why would you "have to" trust either one? Tell me what kind of clothes each is wearing -- I'd put more trust in that that in skin color.

Well assume it is a dilemma. And you don't know anything except their skin color...or, if you'd like, everything but the skin color is equal in their appearance.

[IAmMetaphysical]

but you could definitely say that on average, blacks are better runners than whites.

What the hell does that even mean?? Point out "blacks" for me.

Based on this information, if you had to trust either a black man or a white man, and you knew nothing about them except their skin color, who would you choose to trust? Would you still claim that the information above is "unimportant," and pull out a quarter instead? Give me a break.

I would not make any decision about anything with such little information. The first thing I would do is gather more relevant information, relevant to the issue fo trust.

[Viking]

What the hell does that even mean?? Point out "blacks" for me.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

I would not make any decision about anything with such little information. The first thing I would do is gather more relevant information, relevant to the issue fo trust.

There are two options in this scenario.

1) Trust the white man, OR

2) Trust the black man.

There is no secret third option of doing neither 1 nor 2, or gathering more information on these men.

[IAmMetaphysical]

There is no secret third option of doing neither 1 nor 2, or gathering more information on these men.

What? I don't have volition in this hypothetical?

What I would do, is not trust either. I do not trust stangers. If I were unable to gather relevant information about their characters I would not trust either of them.

My point about pointing out "blacks" as a group is to illustrate that there is no such existent as "blacks", just as there is not such existent as "society", do you understand that second part, because that is what I am appealing to.

[RationalBiker]

There is no secret third option of doing neither 1 nor 2, or gathering more information on these men.

Sorry, but reality demands there is at least one other option, trust neither of them. You can't alter reality to fit your scenario. If you are going to pose a hypothetical scenario it must contain all the necessary context and it must conform to reality. My experience is that most scenarios are lacking in either or both of those requirements.

Also, as a moderator, if you continue to make such generalizations as you have so far in this thread, I'm going to require you to provide proof. This is not because you are being a self-described racist, but because intellectually it's unacceptably sloppy.

[aequalsa]

What the hell does that even mean?? Point out "blacks" for me.

I would not make any decision about anything with such little information. The first thing I would do is gather more relevant information, relevant to the issue fo trust.

I believe that I understand your position but am not certain that I agree. Other things such as dress and posture certainly take presidence in forming an initial impression but I do not see how it is improper to hold a prejudicial impression of a person based on probability asociated with race or any other immediately noticable fact.

Here's what I mean. Say, from a distance, you see 4 people on the corner. Now say, as you get closer, you see 4 men on the corner. Now say they are wearing army uniforms. without knowing much about them, your subconcious at each step is bringing up a list of associations with the facts that you possess. I am not declaring their total worth as people, but my judgements(and they are mine) are going to form on whatever information I have at that time, race included.

Obviusly as more information is presented those judgements will likely change, but the basis of judgement seems sound. When all you have to go on is probabilities, it beats having no oppinion at all. I think people form these judgements all the time whether they realize it or not. I have to because I need the placeholders. I am not certain that it applies to anyone else, but for me, early judgements are necessary since I can't keep a zero in my brain. I have to have a running assessment.

So in other words, I am not recommending that anyone make absolute moral judgements on individuals based on their peripheral traits, but I believe the nature of our minds is such that these initial judgments have to occur. Otherwise I am curious where the cutoff line is with regard to making judgements. How many years must you know an individual before you are qualified to judge them? How long do you hold yourself in that realm of indecision. And I am curious, actually, how you are able to do it. The only possibility I can think of is some form of evasion(don't mean that in a bad way) where you refocus on some other fact or issue so as to not let the associations enter your concious mind.

I assume generally positive things about soldiers(discipline, moral code, etc) but they could just as easily be rapists or murderers. But generally, the first discription is more accurate, so I base my expectations on that even though I may not know the individual. Not sure what the danger is in applying this same system of evaluation based on race-other then upsetting the multiculturalists, that is.

[blackdiamond]

I don't think there are inherent intelligence differences between blacks and whites, mainly because of the reasons that David Odden mentioned. When you take all your sample from the same social class, the differences disappear.

I'd like to see some studies, however, that measure the athleticism between blacks and whites. If it turns out that there is real evidence supporting the idea that blacks are more athletic, then, by the definition that I put forth at the beginning of this thread, I think it would be perfectly logical to call oneself racist.

Would you find it "perfectly logical" to call yourself 'sexist' if you find "studies" that confirm your belief that men are more athletic than women (generally and/or genetically)? (My bet here is that your dictionary has a similarly sloppy definition of a sexist).

Edited November 15, 2006 by blackdiamond

[IAmMetaphysical]

How many years must you know an individual before you are qualified to judge them? How long do you hold yourself in that realm of indecision.

I don't have much time, so I will just answer this point, which leapt out at me.

It takes me about a minute to gain my first impression of a person, and race is not included in that. It takes me about an hour of conversation to gain an even better judgement of someone, and race isn't included in that either. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between perceptual instantaneous assessment, and having to devote years to knwing EVERYTHING about someone. I do not advocate getting to know or having to know EVERYTHING about someone, just the relevant things about them, and since race is not a determining factor in the personalities of men, then it is not relevant no matter how many people of one race are a certain way, it remains a fact that men are volitional.

[aequalsa]

I don't have much time, so I will just answer this point, which leapt out at me.

It takes me about a minute to gain my first impression of a person, and race is not included in that. It takes me about an hour of conversation to gain an even better judgement of someone, and race isn't included in that either. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between perceptual instantaneous assessment, and having to devote years to knwing EVERYTHING about someone. I do not advocate getting to know or having to know EVERYTHING about someone, just the relevant things about them, and since race is not a determining factor in the personalities of men, then it is not relevant no matter how many people of one race are a certain way, it remains a fact that men are volitional.

Im having trouble with this idea. I think we might be talking about two different things. Are you saying that as an individual you don't judge their full characters without more in depth knowledge(if so, I absolutely agree), or do you mean that you do not realize that they are black, white, tall, or poorly dressed when you meet someone? So tall people statistcally make more money, though not all of them. Poorly dressed people are poor, though not all of them. Are these bits of knowledge ok to consider in certain contexts-say marketing or sales-even though exceptions exist? Or, for you, must all circumstances be judged on the individual level?

[RationalBiker]

How many years must you know an individual before you are qualified to judge them?

"How long" is the wrong way to look at it. Rather it's more a matter of how much of their behavior I've observed, what is that behavior, and/or how consistent is it with their words, attitude, etc. One starts judging on words and behaviors as they occur and they should be doing it from the very moment the begin observing them. Appearance (beyond simply their genetic appearance) can be indicative of behavior, i.e. sloppy, dirty, etc. One may make minor or substantial judgements relative to these things regardless of how much time is involved. Granted, longer lengths of time to make observations may lead to more data with which to judge someone, but it's not always necessary.

Second, the amount of trust granted is relevant to the above gained information and the relative risk involved for whatever action requires the trust to be extended. "Would you please hold my drink for me?" does not require a high threshold of trust. "Can you watch my child while I go out of town for the weekend?" requires a significant level of trust. In my case, "Can you hold my gun for me?" requires a significant level of trust as well. (Note: that last example doesn't come up very often.)

[aequalsa]

"How long" is the wrong way to look at it. Rather it's more a matter of how much of their behavior I've observed, what is that behavior, and/or how consistent is it with their words, attitude, etc. One starts judging on words and behaviors as they occur and they should be doing it from the very moment the begin observing them. Appearance (beyond simply their genetic appearance) can be indicative of behavior, i.e. sloppy, dirty, etc. One may make minor or substantial judgements relative to these things regardless of how much time is involved. Granted, longer lengths of time to make observations may lead to more data with which to judge someone, but it's not always necessary.

Second, the amount of trust granted is relevant to the above gained information and the relative risk involved for whatever action requires the trust to be extended. "Would you please hold my drink for me?" does not require a high threshold of trust. "Can you watch my child while I go out of town for the weekend?" requires a significant level of trust. In my case, "Can you hold my gun for me?" requires a significant level of trust as well. (Note: that last example doesn't come up very often.)

I shouldn't have put that question in there. I'm trying to understand something else. It was poorly worded and I apologize. So Ill try again.

Those small judgements about people based on (non-genetic)appearances are not always true. They're just usually true in the same sense that you might find certain racial stereotypes to be usually true. Why, then, is making a preliminary assessment about someone based on general traits(specifically genetic traits) wrong?