I Expected A Racist Diatribe From A White Supremacist

I can’t remember the last time I called somebody a racist. In fact, I’m pretty sure I never have. Not because there aren’t racist people out there, of the conscious and subconscious variety, but because labelling somebody in this way assigns them an identity that places us in opposition to each other. Not just our ideas, but us as people.

It’s very difficult to make progress in this way.

I’ve called ideas racist. I’ve called assumptions racist. I’ve certainly called beliefs racist. But while I’d rather these weren’t racist either, ideas, assumptions and beliefs can be abandoned if they prove to be flawed. Identities? Well, that’s a lot harder.

In my article, What If Black People Are Just Stupid?, I challenged the idea that racial IQ differences are synonymous with racial intelligence differences. I challenged the assumption that differences between “races” were likely to be genetic. More to the point, I challenged the belief that “race” is even a meaningful way to classify people. 

Cas found some of these beliefs easier to abandon than others.

[I had to do some very minor juggling to present the conversation in chronological order, but the replies themselves are unaffected.]

---

Cas:

In the article and in the comments, I find a tendency to conflate two things.

* The idea that IQ differs at the statistical aggregate level between population groups

* The idea that any population level differences must be due to genetics

As a result, there are lots of comments "debunking" IQ tests as proof of genetic differences in intelligence between groups (eg: in regard to race, the study of military kids).

That's way off the mark. IQ tests are designed to measure a particular component of smarts called "general intelligence". They are not designed to make any genetic inferences. Abundant research has demonstrated that differences in intelligence (and IQ scores) result from multipe factor, and the IQ test makes zero attempt to distinguish between those factors. It just attempts to measure the net outcome of all factors - genetic, physical environment, family environment, culture, etc.

We could have more meaningful discussions if this confusion went away. I for one am not that interested in "how much of group differences is genetic?".

Some principles:

(1) The intelligences differences within all groups (based on sex, race, national origins, religion, whatever) are far greater than the differences between the means or medians of the groups.

(2) As such, knowing which group an individual belongs to gives you no useful information about their intelligence (or many other things, but that's another discussion). So we should treat all members of all groups (sex, race, etc) as individuals, and evaluate them on their individual merits rather than on any "group-wide" average.

(3) The only place where group statistics may be relevant is in addressing group differences which may be misattributed. So if somebody were to say that "the only possible reason for so many more Chinese than Latino physicians is educational discrimination" they are talking about group statistitics rather than about an individual, and group level IQ scores might be relevant to some discussions.

(4) Even if the situation in #3 were to arise (adding statistics about intelligence to other statistics being considered in exploring an inherently population group level question), that discussion does NOT need to involve genetics! The compared population groups usually have statistically different environments (socio-economic class, family dynamics, average parental characteristics, culture, etc). Going right fo "genetics is the only explanation" is profoundly anti-scientific; we know that there are other major factors.

(5) For some analyses, it doesn't matter what portion of intelligence (and IQ) might be influenced by genetics or by the many different facets of environment - the analysis may be about differences, no matter the (poorly known) reasons behind them. For example, if an employer or college attempts to neutrally filter by some relevant factors which correlate to intelligence. then it might might wind up accepting more of some population groups than others, even without any discrimination *on the basis of group membership*.

If so, the proper solution is to address the enviromental factors which might have led to the group-level differences in the first place, rather than blaming the school or employer for encountering this aspect of the real world - which they did not create and cannot fix through their own policies.

And yes, addressing that origin could involve analysing concepts of systemic sexism or racism or prejudice as hypotheses, past or present. This message isn't suggesting that there are no systemic problems, only that we need to be more rational in assessing the dynamics. If one diagnoses "racially biased employer" as the root of the problem when it's really "poor education" or "poor nutrition" or "excessive violence" or "lead paint", then we will perpetually flail about without fixing them. Or if the problem IS a racially biased employer, then that needs to be addressed. But we need to distinguish which it is based on evidence, rather than just choosing based on which ones are emotionally satisfying to blame.

---

---

Steve QJ:

In the article and in the comments, I find a tendency to conflate two things.

No. This is what happens in society. IQ is used by many, including researchers and educators pretty much as a synonym for intelligence. That black people, on average, have lower IQ scores is used in many cases, some described in the article, to argue that black people are less intellignet.

Literally the entire article debunks the idea that these population level differences must be due to genetics.

Whether or not IQ tests are designed to make genetic inferences, people do so all the time. Including some IQ researchers like Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade.

---

Cas:

Actually, having read some of Murray's work, that is incorrect. In The Bell Curve, the distinctions between g and IQ tests, and the evidence (at that time) for both genetic and non-genetic factors were well explained in a nuanced way.

After the Middlebury College incident, I decided to read The Bell Curve, expecting a racist diatribe from a white supremacist (as he was labeled by the SPLC). I got a used copy so as not to provide the authors any money. I was rather surprised to find the book quite different than the assertions about it. (In fact, the disparity was one of the things which began my dissent from progressivism, as I discovered that I needed to read more things for myself rather than just echo what progressive opinion leaders told me about the world, or what somebody said).

They made a number of points about the origins and evidence for g, the measurment of it via IQ tests, cultural biases, correlations with success, and the mixed evidence regarding genetics and environment. They made a strong point that neither genetics nor environment can explain it all, and that the proportions of influence from each factor could not be determined from the data. It even made the point that intelligence, which a major factor which population level research needs to consider, is not the most important trait of a person. Incidentally, all of these points were made using only data about white people. There was also one chapter about the differences between races (as self-identified), which was not overplayed. The overall conclusion was that society inherently needs to humanely accomodate a wide range of intelligence as intelligence is distributed in a bell curve among the human population, and we need respected roles for people at all levels. Current society tends to be designed by and for the cognitive elites, and was becoming less accomodating of the whole bell curve. One might agree or disagree, but it was far from a racist screed as portrayed. And the idea that the book was mainly about Black genetic inferiority was absolute bunk. I actually think the core point about building a society which works for everyone and not just the cognitive elite was a very liberal concept.

Have you actually read the book for yourself?

Listen to Coleman Hughes' interview with Murray in the last couple of years. Murray suggested that the data indicates that there are persistant racial gaps which have been hard to close, but he agreed with Coleman that there could be for example cultural explanations, not just genetic ones. (In the US, Asians come in first, then whites, Latinos and Blacks - and this order shows up in many places, hard to fully explain by just income levels, discrimination, etc).

Again, I'm not saying he is correct, but his position has been distorted and demonized by his critics. Read for yourself.

---

Steve QJ:

After the Middlebury College incident, I decided to read The Bell Curve, expecting a racist diatribe from a white supremacist (as he was labeled by the SPLC)

But I haven't labelled him that way. In fact, I didn't even mention Charles Murray in the article. I don't think his book is a "racist screed." I don't have any interest in labelling him a racist or not a racist. I think the key issue here is just an unquestioned embrace of the idea that there is even such a thing as race, that can be discerned by looking at skin. But Murray has made the case that these differences are genetic. Or at least very strongly implied it. Even in his interview with Coleman.

And while Murray says any number of hilariously out of touch and/or boneheaded things in that interview (yes, I'd already listened to it), one of the comments I found especially telling is the part where he talks about "wanting to defend the proposition that America is not systemically racist." Here, I think, we see Murray's problem. He has a conclusion, that he is determined to defend, and works backwards from there.

But what if America is systemically racist? At least to a degree. What if, less than 60 years after America was unabashedly and legally racist, bias and prejudice still linger within the cultural and legal fabric of America? Does this really seem far-fetched to any reasonable person? Especially when that racist era lasted for centuries?

I'm not arguing that there aren't cultural reasons for racial disparities. Not at all. I've even written about them a few times. But even the reasons behind those cultural issues are complex. The impact of racism is nuanced. And frustratingly invisible to people, like Murray, who can say with a straight face that we need to "get back" to the time where Americans were treated without regard to their race, colour or creed.

There is no "getting back" to that period for black people. Because it only ever existed for white people.

The point in time where everyone is treated without regard to their race, colour or creed is (hopefully) in the future. I think some of the recent attempts to get there are incredibly wrongheaded and can only make matters worse. Which is why I’ve criticised them. But that's not at all to say that things were fine before people started attacking “whiteness.”

---

Cas:

Perhaps I was unclear. The conflation I was refereeing to is not between general intelligence and IQ scores - that's not very controvesial (the latter being pretty well validated as a good approximation).

The problem is treating "observed differences between population groups" and "genetic differences between population groups". In many statements, people treat any observation of measured differences, as an argument that it must be genetic and inherent - but that does NOT follow and should not be conflated. All researchers know that there are multiple factors involved, and it is certainly not all genetic.

Let me use an example. You made the statement:

> "That black people, on average, have lower IQ scores is used in many cases, some described in the article, to argue that black people are less intellignet."

Let's use Asian-Americans and European-Ameicans for slightly less inflamed emotions (in general, not attributing such emotions to you). If the population of Asian-Americans living in the US in 2022 on average have higher IQ scores than the population of European Americans, then I think it would be fair to say that the former population group is on average more intelligent. And they will tend to have less crime, fewer unwed mothers, more education and higher incomes on average. But that does not mean they are genetically or inherently more intelligent! Only that operationally, at the population level, lumping together all subgroups and all ages, the aggregate has been observed to be more intelligent on average. That might be nearly 100% due to family and culture, and any delta might flatten or reverse over time if such environmental factors change.

I have no problem with accepting that. It says nothing meaningful about me or about any other individual.

Going back to the quoted statement from you, whther the last clause is true or not depends on whether you mean "inherently due to genetics" or just "as measured as accurately as we know how".

Conflating an observed fact (IQ test score differences between various population groups), with an unproven cause (eg: hereditary genetics), as if one automatically implies the other, is just plain bad thinking.

Because the less well informed in society conflate things which should distinguished if one wants clear understanding, is not a good reason to continue to ratify that conflation and build arguments atop it.

It's an understandably touchy subject, but it is not helpful if discussants confuse factual observations by inferring that a cause is being asserted when it is not. And that sloppy thinking gets reinforced by rhetoric which fails to acknowledge that group differences need not be genetic or inherent. They could still be the result of past discrimination which has residues of less rich environmental stimuli (through poverty or culture or some other mediating factor). The cause may be relevant for devising interventions, but for purposes of understanding the downstream effects of what exists now in the real world, the observed measurements are salient regardless of (unproven) causes.

---

“If the population of Asian-Americans living in the US in 2022 on average have higher IQ scores than the population of European Americans, then I think it would be fair to say that the former population group is on average more intelligent.”

I don’t address this point as directly as I’d like in my reply below, but no, this isn’t fair to say.

If the population of Asian-Americans living in the US in 2022 on average have higher IQ scores than the population of European Americans, then it’s fair to say that the former population group, on average…has higher IQ scores.

As Cas points out, there are fairly well-documented correlations between crime, single-parenthood, even longevity, and IQ. But hopefully, nobody would be tempted to argue that if I live longer than my neighbour, I’m more intelligent. 

Similarly, the temptation to claim that if I have a higher IQ than my neighbour, I’m more intelligent than they are is a failure to grasp what IQ is. IQ is a measure of the ability to think in a certain way. Just as a physics test is a measure of the ability to think in a certain way (as well as a test of specific knowledge).

But if I score higher on a physics test than my neighbour, is it “fair to say” I’m more intelligent than they are? No! I’m just better at physics. I know physicists who can barely tie their shoelaces.

---

Steve QJ:

In many statements, people treat any observation of measured differences, as an argument that it must be genetic and inherent - but that does NOT follow and should not be conflated.

Again, I'm not sure why you're telling me this. This is a significant part of the thesis of the article. I'm well aware of it. But many people aren't. Which is why I wrote the article.

But again, yes, many IQ researchers make exactly this argument. Lewis Terman made this case numerous times (including arguments for segregation and eugenics). So did Nicholas Wade. And Charles Murray's latest book "Facing Reality" (whose work I have read), is about his belief that racial disparities will always persist because of the differences between the "races." If they will always persist, if we just have to "face reality" on this point, that suggests that he's talking about genetics, no? Culture and environment can certainly change.

And no, the truth of my statement don't simply depend on the last clause. It depends on a fundamental lack of understanding of genetics that allows one to categorise all people with brown skin as similar, whether you mean genetically or culturally. I'm not genetically or culturally similar to a black person living in Kenya. Or Namibia. Or Zimbabwe. They aren't similar to each other. Using this superficial similarity to categorise billions of people is silly whether it's Asians or black people or white people.

Wilfred Reilly does a fairly good job of criticising those arguments here (https://www.commentary.org/articles/wilfred-reilly/charles-murray-facing-reality/), but there's much more out there.

I'm not sure how you could have spent any time looking at the discourse regarding race and IQ and not heard people (not just members of the public or outright racists but some researchers themselves), claiming that these differences are genetic. Never, it's worth noting, with any evidence.

---

Cas is clearly an intelligent guy, but he’s only applying that intelligence to one side of the debate. Which is why I found this sentence from Cas’ second reply especially interesting:

In fact, the disparity was one of the things which began my dissent from progressivism, as I discovered that I needed to read more things for myself rather than just echo what progressive opinion leaders told me about the world, or what somebody said.

I’ve known people from both sides of the political aisle who responded to the discovery that “their side” is occasionally dishonest by thinking less critically about information from the other side.

The problem is, this just shapes our ideas, assumptions and beliefs in new, not necessarily better ways. Because, surprise, surprise, both left and right-wing media lie (or at least tell half-truths) pretty consistently.

All of which is why, just as I don’t find it particularly useful to label people “racist,” I don’t think it's useful to label them (or myself) “liberal” or “conservative” either. Increasingly, these are just identities that place us in opposition to each other. But I’m not interested in changing people’s identities. I’d rather focus on changing ideas.