I’ve been meaning to blog about this for days (of course, I’ve been non-blog ready for a couple days now, but back from West Texas today)—from PZ, it looks like Michael Medved is going to be a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. I love the move, because it’s so transparent. The weak claims to be an institution dedicated to scientific research fall away; Medved is no scientist, just a dedicated culture war soldier. Which of course means that the Discovery Institute is less interested in discovery than in squelching any perceived threat to the cultural dominance of white Christians of a fundamentalist stripe. Medved no doubt was hired because of his willingness to lie, deceive, conceal, and distract from any realities that clash with his and the Discovery Institute’s culture war goals.
For instance, Medved is a slavery denialist, a practice that’s going the way of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. As usual with denialism, it’s not so much about denying that the event ever happened—they usually realize they can’t even get their foot in the door with that—but raising a bunch of objections that imply that it wasn’t as widespread or as violent or as horrible as people make it out to be. Medved’s slavery denialism is a rundown of the standard objections to treating slavery like it was a bad thing—black people should be grateful, slavery is nothing new and therefore whining is inappropriate, there was barely any slavery at all,* slave owners were nice to slaves, everything but arguing that slaves made a game out of rattling their chains. To sane, normal people, the willingness to engage in slavery denialism is a sign that someone is both delusional and a rabid racist, but to the Discovery Institute, it no doubt showed a stellar willingness to stand up to the tyranny of reality.
The well-financed distribution of right wing crank theories that would, in a sane world, be relegated to being distributed by mimeograph, are a constant source of embarrassment to reality-based Americans. I’ve been reading the blogs respond to Lord Saletan’s embarrassing series on IQ and race, where Saletan is clearly puffed up on the idea that he’s a nifty contrarian pushing back against the tyranny of public opinion that blacks are as intelligent as whites. Saletan is clearly sheltered in a world where people are more attached to reality than casting around for any kind of crank theory to justify their prejudices, or else he’d realize that in the real world, the racist belief that black people are born stupid is neither clever nor new. As Robert at LGM says:
Right; the idea that African-Americans are intellectually inferior to whites is hardly new to the American political scene, and there’s every reason to think that it’s still widely held in many corners. Indeed, it was widely held well before the latest round of shoddy race science convinced Saletan, and was used to justify any number of political and social arrangements designed to guarantee that African-Americans didn’t escape their “genetic” inheritance.
The IQ and race thing has a lot in common with creationism in terms of being a crank theory masquerading as scientific-esque skepticism. Creationists made up their mind based on their own prejudices and, more importantly, dedication to Christian (and white) supremacy, and are grasping at straws. Creationism doesn’t really change itself, but it gets repackaged every generation as the old version gets shot down; they get more sophisticated in making their packaging look scientific as more and more evidence pours in against them. Same with the “blacks are mental children” theory. It’s been the lie used to justify white supremacy ever since slavery started being questioned in this society. During the time of slavery and for a long time after, there didn’t need to be a scientific-sounding package for the belief, since there wasn’t much to challenge it. Black people were largely denied opportunities and literacy, and to keep from getting killed, they were often wise to affect being stupid in front of white people.** But over time, the founding of black colleges, the emergence of black scientists, writers, doctors, lawyers, etc. presented an unavoidable challenge to this theory of black inferiority.
Is it a coincidence that during this time, the widespread use of the IQ test became popular? Ever since it was popularized, there’s been a lot of hope put into the test that it could prove scientifically what people already believed, that Northern Europeans were smarter than everyone else, in no small part because most people do best on tests they develop specifically so they’ll do better than everyone else. It’s not worth going into the myriad fallacies of the IQ test here; you can read about them in The Mismeasure of Man and all over the blogs; just like with creationism or any kind of denialism, new duds is treated like an emergence of a new idea, but all that’s going on is a renewed attempt to revive a thoroughly debunked idea because people are fond of the idea because it puffs up their egos.
It’s also not surprising that we’re seeing the same old racists dredge up the same old racist bullshit (slavery denialism, IQ blather) right now. After Hurricane Katrina, there’s a need to justify the treatment of black citizens as second class. Also, the war is causing the Republicans to flounder at the polls, and their advocates are understandably tempted to return to race-baiting as a strategy, since it’s a winning strategy. Also, the popular enthusiasm for universal health care is growing, and the main arguments against it from the right are thinly veiled racist ideas. The obsession with “waiting lists” is a racist dog whistle; the idea is that if all those blacks and Mexicans get to have health care and next thing you know, you’ll be sitting in waiting rooms with them. Or having to have minor surgeries scheduled whole weeks later than they would be before, due to all the undeserving non-whites clogging up the system. Pushing back against the growing support for universal health care is going to require a lot of race-baiting, so it’s not really much of a coincidence that you see these IQ theories getting pushed so hard in the mainstream media yet again. It’s a lot like the run up to “welfare reform”, now that I think about it.
*My favorite objection—if slavery was a minor, unimportant thing, then why on earth did the entire South choose to secede rather than abandon their economic reliance on unpaid labor?
**I’m currently reading Black Boy by Richard Wright, and he describes in distressing detail how people come to conform to this practice. Interesting if horrifying stuff.
95 Responses to “Racist science for choads”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
To those who will invariable come around defending the racist intelligence studies, I have a request:
Define “race.” Do so scientifically. Remember, in doing most research, we want exhaustive categories that are non-overlapping. If we’re talking about distinct types of people, you should be able to tell us what the lines of demarcation are between these types, as well as telling us what the criteria for placing people into one type or another should be.
Interesting that you bring up creationism and those nasty racist religious conservatives. Would now be a good or bad time to bring up James Watson?
I had an interesting example of this over the holiday. Playing Trivial Pursuit, I got the question, “What ethnic food is the most popular in the U.S.?” I answered, “Mexican” and was wrong. The card said “Italian”. I was annoyed, because Italians aren’t generally considered “ethnic” anymore, not in the sense that Mexicans are. I realize that these categories are constantly changing to justify current oppressions. Dammit, I know I’m right. My team won anyway, so I shouldn’t bitch.
James Watson is a good example of someone willing to fudge the truth to justify his own self-image, which includes white superiority. He’s well-known for being someone who will play fast with the truth if it suits his purposes, Petey. Arguing that Watson believes X, therefore it’s “science” is a good example of why it’s bad to argue from authority. That you scrambled for a lousy argument to uphold white supremacy makes me view you in a new light, though. I didn’t realize you had an affection for badly based racist “theories”. I suggest answering MAJeff’s questions before you continue.
After the public viewing and having all the annoying Calvinists tell me grandma was “with her savior now” *cough, hack* we went back to my cousins’ house. We four younger folks goofed off a bit , while the old people sat around the table, complaining about Hillary and all the Mexicans. Yup, I got to spend time with the 24-percenters. Racist as the day is long. Til her dying day, my grandmother still refer to black folks as “darkies.”
I hope I never have to spend time with most of those people again.
“Yup, I got to spend time with the 24-percenters. Racist as the day is long. Til her dying day, my grandmother still refer to black folks as “darkies.””
Jeff, I try to take solace from the fact that so many of us were raised among the 24% and still managed to overcome much of it and become (more) tolerant people.
If I had a $1 for every time I’ve heard racist/sexist/bigoted crap come out of the mouths of my relatives - well, I be in much better financial shape.
Nature and Nurture are both strong, but they aren’t all-powerful…
*My favorite objection—if slavery was a minor, unimportant thing, then why on earth did the entire South choose to secede rather than abandon their economic reliance on unpaid labor?
My favorite objection too, but surely you’ve heard the answer to that, as I have?
Namely, that the South seceded over states’ rights; i.e., the North was intent on destroying the Federal structure of the Constitution. They carefully elide over the fact that the states’ right in question was whether or not a state could allow/abolish slavery.
Arun, all us Americans have heard that “reasoning” to explain the Civil War.
That don’t mean we all buy it…
What are you blathering about? I’ve longed to cockpunch Watson for some time for exactly those reasons. And before you go any further…um…I’m about the same shade as Pam. That makes me a pretty lousy white supremacist, unless maybe you’re just a Dave Chappelle fan.And I don’t buy for a second that you “view me in a new light.” It’s interesting, maybe a little disappointing, but definately not surprising to me to see what your opinion has been this entire time.
Arun
The ‘problem’ was, could the Federal government abolish slavery in all states? As the more states entered the Union, the question of slavery was hotly debated. An anti slave state could not be added unless a pro-slave state was offered as a counter to a balanced congress. The south succeeded from the Union when it was obvious that an anti slave majority was inevitable. There was only one way the south could protect its southern slave holding culture and economic base.
Read the newspapers of that time, slavery was the issue.
Petey, possibly part of the miscommunication was because your link was broken. Without being able to view the content you linked to, many of us did not have the iinformation we needed to pinpoint your thoughts on the subject.
Arun, the States did not have the right to slavery. Go read up on the presidential debates between Lincoln and Douglas…Abe pretty much spells it out right there (if you want a more modern interpretation, you can look to Hadley Arkes for a conservative spin and Peter Singer for a liberal spin that basically amount to the same thing…that people’s rights to be sovereign over themselves eclipses the right of the State to exist).
Look, what do you think would happen if the states voted against slavery? Would the slaveowners then say it was up to the county or the mayor or that it was an individual choice (theirs, of course)? Eventually they would just become libertarians.
Though, linking Dave Chappelle makes it a bit clearer……
Man, I hate the Dave Chappelle show.
I think many of us know what he’s referring to. Watson made some comments a month or so ago, claiming that blacks were less intelligent. He lost a position and had a couple speeches canceled because of it, as I recall.
This really is the key to destroying any racist assumptions about ethnic groups–how do you determine, what with the intermingling of ethnicities for the last few thousand years, who belongs to what groups? The “one drop” rule doesn’t work in an honest study of this type.
I dunno why the link was broken. Possibly my HTML-fu is weak today. It worked fine in the preview.
Anyway, I only wanted to point out that there are several assaults upon equality underway today, including one from some eminent scientists. Watson is only perpetuating a false idea we’ve had to deal with since Malthus. I think Amanda is narrowing her scope too much, but I’m not looking to shift blame from one group of assholes onto a different group of assholes. We can include them all into one group.
I looked into creationism and the Discovery Institute extensively back when I was a history of science student; what I found was that to a large extent the current wave of creationists do not attempt to engage with science, or even with theological views regarding creation, but instead present themselves as lawyers. The current wave came to prominence largely through the writings of a lawyer, Phillip E Johnson (and guess what, the guy is also an AIDS denier). They’ve been trying to popularise their views not by peer review, but by staging show trials.
What I’m saying is, it might be more helpful to think of the arguments that get put forward by these cranks as *legal* arguments rather than scientific ones. They’re interested in case law, not scientific research; they’re seeing themselves not as scientists making contributions to a paradigm, but as adversarial opponents to mainstream science. I can see a slavery denier fitting right in with that bunch - someone who wasn’t contributing to our understanding of the history of slavery but instead trying to attack and disprove it, someone who wanted to build a fault-finding, adversarial defence against reality as we know it. Someone who pines for a pat on the head from an activist judge who’s willing to bend the Constitution their way.
So, by all means point and laugh at the bad science - but I think you’re right to see it more in social terms, and I think reality-based America needs to watch its back in the courtroom rather than the lab.
That actually surprises me. The 24-percenters in my family behaved as I expected this year– no talk of politics, though a late night, post-thanksgiving outburst from my father about how “all politicians are crooks.”
Namely, that the South seceded over states’ rights; i.e., the North was intent on destroying the Federal structure of the Constitution.
Yes, but that’s a weak dodge. The state’s right to what? Run their own economy, of which the backbone is slavery. The idea that you come to war over a constitutional issue of no practical importance is nonsense; to suggest otherwise is actually disrespectful of the Old South, in that it implies that Southern whites were utter and complete morons.
What are you blathering about? I’ve longed to cockpunch Watson for some time for exactly those reasons. And before you go any further…um…I’m about the same shade as Pam.
My sincere apologies. You looked like you were trying to introduce the same argument that inspired Saletan to rush to a white supremacist argument, which is that the great Watson is a nasty white supremacist, ergo it’s science. I didn’t mean to misread you. He should be cockpunched, he’s an asshole. You were widening the scope, and I read it as saying something like, “Yeah, but REAL scientists believe this racist crap, too.” But we are agreeing vigorously that even real scientists can be lured into pseudo-science that says what they want to hear.
Incidentally, what’s frustrating to me about Medved is that my first encounter with him was reading the book What Really Happened to the Class of ‘65, which he co-wrote with one of the high school classmates. They produced a lot of insightful, interesting reading on culture and the place they grew up. Andnow Medved’s turned into a wacked-out crank with nothing interesting to say.
Also, the state’s “right” to define entire classes of people as non-citizens, which is why “states’ rights” is the dodge of people seeking to oppress women and gays, as well as racial minorities.
I think the racist science stuff is even weirder and more upsetting than “people like it cause it suits their egos” idea suggests.
I took a look at that Slate article that’s also been causing such a to-do, and it repeated a puzzling parallel claim: that not only are black people stupider than white people, but Asian people are smarter than white people.
So it seems to me that the way these wack theories just keep coming back every generation in slightly modified form (this being the “you can’t call me a racist I said Asians are smart” form) is less about white-people ego than the kind of continuing, super-sick-making American hellbent obsession with hating on black people. Like, you got a theory that says I’m dumber than Asians — but lets me hate on blacks? Woo-hoo! Sign me up!
It’s like all the policy decisions of the Southern strategy — you got a policy that impoverishes me, ruins my health, destroys my workplace safety, crushes the souls of my children — but lets me hate on black people? woo-hoo! sign me up!
It’s, wow. I don’t even know what to say about it, but it’s pretty effed up.
It doesn’t help when you have scientists trying to wipe out the line between science and religion either.
Define “race.” Do so scientifically.
A tricky endeavour; I surely would not want to make the attempt.
I take it that since race doesn’t exist, programs like affirmative action should also be extinguished.
I take it that since race doesn’t exist, programs like affirmative action should also be extinguished.
Race is a social, not biological construct. AA is a social policy, not a scientific one.
But I suspect you knew that and were just trying to be a smartass.
Quiet Truths: as race is a social construct I see no problem with using social policy to tackle the social ills done to people who are deemed to be within the social groups we call ‘black’ or ‘Hispanic’, etc.
But I suspect you knew that and were just trying to be a smartass.
And failing on the smart end of that.
Okay, Quiet Truths, you caught us.
We’re all about making sure the “negroes” (as I’m sure you call them out of public view - or worse) get raised above their “natural” superiors, for some undefined nefarious reason.
If thinking that affirmative action is wrong is one of your “quiet truths”, perhaps it would be best for you, and the rest of us, if your really do keep that “truth” quiet…
Incertus, that was a good one. But I defy anyone to match the inanities put out by Alister McGrath. Never have so many words been put to use in saying so little.
I’m all for affirmative action. It seems like a reasonable accommodation to our country’s racist history.
But if you really don’t believe that race has real existence, then it’s hard for me to understand how you think that policies predicated on race can be a good thing.
The social definition of race -> social racial policies argument, I can buy.
I never said race isn’t “real.” It’s just not biological. Race is a social phenomenon, one that has been built up over several centuries. Affirmative Action is a step toward dismantling the inequalities caused by the social system of race. Unfortunately, it has the perverse effect of simultaneously reifying the same system.
Um, what is “real”? Conflating scientific realities with social/cultural realities isn’t useful.
Unfortunately, it has the perverse effect of simultaneously reifying the same system.
Uh, master’s tools, master’s house?
Uh, master’s tools, master’s house?
Unfortunately true, but barring an incredible social, economic, cultural, and political revolution, I think we’re most likely stuck with working through such systems, and trying to dismantle things using those same tools.
But if you really don’t believe that race has real existence, then it’s hard for me to understand how you think that policies predicated on race can be a good thing.
You’re confusing biological race and social constructs of race.
I’ll admit to being a little Pollyanna-ish on this, but I hope that the recent interest in genetic testing–the cheap test that will give you percentages of your ancestry–will go some distance in bridging the distance between ethnic groups. the more we collectively realize just how mutt-ish our genealogies are, the sooner we can get past some of our tribalism.
I’ve mentioned before that I teach the Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, so these are topics I spend a lot of time with. If folks are interested, here’s my reading list.
It’s like all the policy decisions of the Southern strategy — you got a policy that impoverishes me, ruins my health, destroys my workplace safety, crushes the souls of my children — but lets me hate on black people? woo-hoo! sign me up!
That’s the fig leaf that lets the racists pretend this is science. “But look!” they say. “There’s proof that we’re not racist, because the Asians score better than whites!” Never mind that Asians were scoring significantly worse than whites on the test two generations ago — yet another sign that IQ has a whole lot to do with education and socioeconomic status, and not so much to do with innate intelligence — they’re scoring better now.
Of course, when the day comes when African Americans score higher than whites on the IQ tests, they’ll become a fatally flawed measure of intelligence, and we’ll need to revamp them totally.
Frankly, I don’t know why people don’t get this: you can study to improve your score on an IQ test. Ipso facto, it is not a measure of innate anything. Yes, if you’re smarter you have a better chance of scoring higher, but you also have a better chance of scoring higher if you come from a supportive family where your parents have time to help you study. You score higher if you had breakfast that morning. You score higher if you attend a wealthy school.
There are just too many overarching variables to tell what, if any, relation inter-group differences in IQ score mean. I think you can make a far more persuasive argument that the gap in IQ is socioeconomic, and that as we help raise the standard of living of African Americans and Latinos (a race that isn’t even a race), we will see the IQ gap continue to shrink. And that’s got a basis in actual observed history. Come talk to me when we have real socioeconomic parity in this country and there’s still an IQ gap. Until then, I’d like the racist assholes to go Cheney themselves.
There needs to be a racist ev-psych bingo card like the sexist one over on Punkassblog.
I recall reading in David Shipler’s The Working Poor that what is called “mild mental retardation” (as opposed to the severe kind which is caused by a particular gene or chromosome malfunctioning, like Down’s Syndrome or Fragile X)is more prevalent among the poor - because of the lack of prenatal care, chaotic home environments, and sexual and physical abuse which tend to occur farther down the social scale. Leaving aside the fact that “IQ” is a totally arbitrary measurement, this suggests to me that if we want a nation of geniuses, we need to make sure all kids get prenatal care and a decent home life, free from abuse and chaos.
This requires actually spending money on social programs, which the genetic determinists hate. Why waste money on those who are “genetically inferior” anyway? is their rationale. This was noted by Steven and Hillary Rose in their book Alas, Poor Darwin: according to the Roses, it is no coincidence that “genetic” theories of racial and gender “inferiority” mushroomed during an era when the free-market became king. Social Darwinism got its start during the last Gilded Age. It seems to me that these theories are part and parcel of right-wing libertarianism.
I wonder if such science for choads is as widespread in France, Spain, or the Nordic countries, or is it an Anglo-American phenomenon?
Oh, and Jeff - sorry to hear you had to endure such an ordeal! Have some good wine and chocolate.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Define “race.” Do so scientifically.
That’s simple:
Superior Race: O bloodtype
Saintly Givers: O- Bloodtype
Fags: A bloodtype
Sluts: B bloodtype
Nerds: AB bloodtype
Really Selfish Takers: AB+ Bloodtype
This makes far more sense than stereotyping by skin colour, given how brown the recent good weather has turned me.
The one drawback is that it’s sometimes slow to figure out who not to hire or sell to, and in the worst case scenario the blood tests can really be a bottleneck when loading people into cattlecars, but you can’t have everything.
Feel free to start raving about the dirty B bloodtypes the next time someone brings up racial differences. Bonus points if you can throw in the phrase “welfare queens”.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Ailurophile,
Thanks. mom said I was actually manic. Eep.
Tonight it’s a friend’s birthday party and Indian food…vindaloo shrimp here i come!
I spent some time building a response to someone touting The Bell Curve as good science, back in 1999. It might help someone not have to do the same research again, so here it is:
http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/bellcurve.html
I find it hilarious that Medved also fervently believes in Bigfoot. Crank magnetism strikes again!
A couple of points:
(1) The southern states all issued statements similar to the Declaration of Independence prior to secession (some individually, some with multiple states signing on). All of these statements prominently mention slavery as a major, if not *the* major, cause of secession. There’s no need to do deep historiographic analysis - these statements are on the web (Google “Declaration of Causes”).
(2) Africa is the original home of humankind, which is why it has the largest genetic variation of any continent. There were essentially two major waves of emigration, and all the non-African “races” come from these two waves. Within Africa the amount of genetic variation is enormous - larger by orders of magnitude than the genetic variation between any two non-African groups. Lumping Africans into one (or two or three) “races” while dividing non-Africans into more than two is utterly absurd and completely devoid of scientific justification.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
Oops, forgot half of what I was going to post.
Thene:
It’s actually a sort of “common ancestry” issue: both law and Creationist/ID argument stem from the practices of formal debate.
Student debates typically assign debate positions at random rather than on the basis of merit or the individual’s personal beliefs. You learn to hide your side’s faults or confuse the audience, rather than search for the truth. Debate lets you “win” even if you’re wrong but better-prepared or more skillful.
I often argue with people who know nothing but the debate model, and are shocked to discover there’s any other way to discuss something.
Real life is better served with a dialectic model, which is sort of a group search for truth. “Let’s find out” rather than “Who can defend a fixed position better according to the rules.”
But, “let’s find out” can be a very dangerous approach to the worldview of these folks. The answer is already known, thus the “great mystery” must be invoked and retained.
Ailurophile-
I just picked up a copy of The Bell Curve Wars, a little book of short essays by various folks put out back in ‘95, and in it both Henry Louis Gates and Michael Lind (so far, and I’m sure some of the others) argue that these sorts of hereditarian/racist theories indeed serve as support, rationale, or excuse for specific policy preferences or effects - basically, cutting social spending, and/or explaining away the result of prior cuts.
The opening paragraph of Lind’s article, in particular, could with minor editing serve almost as well today, over a decade later:
“The controversy about [The Bell Curve] is not about [The Bell Curve only]. It is about the sudden and astonishing legitimization, by the leading intellectuals and journalists of the mainstream American right, of a body of racialist pseudoscience created over the past several decades by a small group of researchers [including Lynn and Rushton], most of them subsidized by the hereditarian Pioneer Fund. [The Bell Curve] os a layman’s introduction to this material . . .”
Obviously we’re changing the brackets, and the push isn’t - yet -as great, but otherwise . . .
What Amanda said, about the need to rationalize what was exposed in the wake of Katrina, also makes a lot of sense; there might also be a bit of gearing up to abandon whatever tiny spark of actual reform was imprisoned deep within the iron cage of NCLB.
Also - this last week a study was released confirming that even very low levels of lead can cause brain damage in kids:
“The study examined the effect of lead exposure on cognitive function in children whose blood-lead levels (BLLs) were below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) standard of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dl) — about 100 parts per billion. The researchers compared children whose BLLs were between 0 and 5 mcg/dl with children in the 5-10 mcg/dl range.
“Even after taking into consideration family and environmental factors known to affect a child’s cognitive performance, blood lead played a significant role in predicting nonverbal IQ scores,” says Richard Canfield, a senior researcher in Cornell’s Division of Nutritional Sciences and senior author of the study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. “We found that the average IQ scores of children with BLLs of only 5 to 10 mcg/dl were about 5 points lower than the IQ scores of children with BLLs less than 5 mcg/dl.”
Saletan was all over research about how a specific version of a gene might determine whether or not breastfeeding gives a baby a very small ~4 pt IQ boost,since he claims that a slightly smaller % of Nigerian babies have this version, compared to European-Americans. But the fact that poor, often minority kids are far more likely to be exposed to something that damages their brain, producing a similarly-sized disadvantage . . .well, I’m sure he and his allies have already been talking all about it, right?
JoAnn: I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I used to do those sorts of debates myself, and I can see how it would bleed into that worldview. So you think that’s why they try more for democracy-by-showtrial than either science or democratic politics?
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
It’s actually a sort of “common ancestry” issue: both law and Creationist/ID argument stem from the practices of formal debate.
Two words you might find useful, JoAnne are “sophistry” and “casuistry”.
JoAnn: I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I used to do those sorts of debates myself, and I can see how it would bleed into that worldview. So you think that’s why they try more for democracy-by-showtrial than either science or democratic politics? (Have a quick look at Johnson’s Amazon listings - even his book titles frame ID as a legal strategy, not a scientific hypothesis or a religious idea).
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
JoAnn: I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I used to do those sorts of debates myself, and I can see how it would bleed into that worldview. So you think that’s why they try more for democracy-by-showtrial than either science or democratic politics? (Have a quick look at Johnson’s Amazon listings - even his book titles frame ID as a legal strategy, not a scientific hypothesis or a religious idea).
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
JoAnn: I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I used to do those sorts of debates myself, and I can see how it would bleed into that worldview. So you think that’s why they try more for democracy-by-showtrial than either science or democratic politics? (Have a quick look at Johnson’s Amazon listings - even his book titles frame ID as a legal strategy, not a scientific hypothesis or a religious idea).
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
As for the state’s rights argument about the civil war, another point to make is that most of the southern states were more or less controlled by large plantation owners. County boundaries were often drawn on plantation ownership in earlier days and the development of a sort of feudal social system of patronage and obeisance developed around the plantation owner.
Even smaller farmers who had a smaller number of slaves, the poor white and the merchant, politician and preacher were dependent upon the graces and will of the large plantation owner, who most often hired, fired, doled out the charity and the punishment to all who lived in ‘his’ area.
Thus, the politicians were sent to carry out the wishes of the large plantation owner, there was no other interest, no other law, no other way in the south. jim Crow grew out of the poor and common white’s desire to gain an upper foothold in stature over the black slave who often enjoyed more protection as property than the poor white whose land was often stolen or bought for a song, who had to often bargain with slaves for stolen food and goods and of course grew very bitter about this perceived power imbalance.
Republicans capitalize on this age-old class/race struggle by constantly positioning the ‘other’ (whether a black man or an border crosser or a welfare queen) as having/getting more than the deserving poor whites who in truth, are being robbed by the wealthy, not their equally poor counterparts.
Just my thoughts. The racist apologists and slavery deniers just keep that ole song going, same tune just some new verses.
As for that abstraction: Nobody who actually believed in states’ rights could have voted for, or supported, the Fugitive Slave Act, in which the federal government enforced pro-slavery policy and practices on free states.
Kathleen @ 22 (*): a puzzling parallel claim: that not only are black people stupider than white people, but Asian people are smarter than white people.
That one goes back to Spengler at least.
Jeff Fecke @ 38 (on IQ tests): You score higher if you had breakfast that morning.
Heh. I’m 20 points more intelligent at 9 pm than at 9 am.
JoAnne @ 45: Debate lets you “win” even if you’re wrong but better-prepared or more skillful.
This kind of debate is pure playacting. A friend of mine accidentially convinced half her class and her teacher that pot should never be legalized, when in fact she held the opposite opinion. She only knew her lines and could act well.
—
(*) How come I see comment numbers in Opera, but not in IE?
JoAnn: I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I used to do those sorts of debates myself, and I can see how it would bleed into that worldview. So you think that’s why they try more for democracy-by-showtrial than either science or democratic politics? (Have a quick look at Johnson’s Amazon listings - even his book titles frame ID as a legal strategy, not a scientific hypothesis or a religious idea).
Incertus:
That link hurt my brain. :/ But I am indecently fond of philosophers like Cartwright and Feyerabend (lol) who ask the same questions. The difference is, their answers are pleasing to my brain rather than painfully dumb. When we rely so much on science in our day-to-day lives there’s every reason to explore its principles, even to be sceptical of them, but playing at ‘let’s-pretend-science-is-a-religion!’ is not that.
I suspect the uptick in pseudo scientifice race/intelligence correlations in the media is a dog whistle about Obama. Here you have the very real possibility of a Black presidential candidate so it makes sense for the RW to sow those seeds now.
DMG: good point. Among the Dems, we have a woman (Clinton), a black man (Obama) and a Latino (Richardson). The freepi must be peeing themselves about now. Even the non-freepi who still believe in their heart of hearts that white men are the superior beings of earth must be peeing themselves, in and in reaction out comes this racist pseudoscience.
(I can’t help adding that one hundred or so years ago, Giuliani would not have been considered “white” because he’s of Italian descent. How racial boundaries change.)
Dan: Great point about lead levels. A lot of poor people live in housing just riddled with lead. Also, I recall a study tying the decline in violent crime around the ’90’s to the fact that unleaded gasoline was introduced in the ’70’s, around the time those who were young adults in the ’90’s were born.
As far as a “difference in a gene” between Nigerian babies and white European ones that is activated by breastfeeding in the European ones: piffle, horse puckie, and hogwash. Until recently, ALL babies WORLDWIDE were breastfed. EVERY ONE. There was no infant formula until the 20th century and before that, no real substitutes for breastmilk that would raise a healthy baby. That’s the reason “breast is best,” because that is babies’ natural food. ALL babies.
There are just no words for some of the stupid crap that comes flying out of the mouth disguised as “science.”
But Vicki, it’s only state’s rights when they’re right! (H/t Orrin Hatch.)
“I suspect the uptick in pseudo scientifice race/intelligence correlations in the media is a dog whistle about Obama.”
Yeah, I’ve noticed the thinly veiled trends in all the “Obama’s a lightweight/empty suit” comments.
Dude, he MADE REVIEW at HARVARD LAW. That means he didn’t just get in via affirmative action or, unlike a certain other Harvard post-graduate, personal connections. He beat most of an extremely high-achieving class on a level playing field.
Namely, that the South seceded over states’ rights;
Arun, just no. “States rights” is bullshit, and always has been. The South didn’t give a shit about states rights. The counter evidence is pretty fucking obvious. Three Words: Fugitive Slave Act.
The Jacksonian Democrats had been on a push to basically rewrite federal law to make slavery de facto legal in all states. they also seceded BEFORE any imposition on “states rights” actually took place, so it was clearly on their perceptions of Lincoln as Abolitionist.
There are a whole bunch of causes for the Civil War: States Rights vs. Federalism, Economic tension caused by the rise of industrialism in the North, and obviously abolitionism/anti-abolitionism struggles.
Funny thing is, every last one of those draws directly to slavery.
Amanda and others,
I know it is a weak dodge. But it was used on a thread here, and when I objected in the same terms as Amanda used here, eventually the thread was deleted. Another discussion.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/2007/01/miltary_history.html
I want to state that these are normally sane people.
The great tragedy of America is that people are still fighting the Civil War.
-Arun
Here’s what I wrote back then (since then, I’ve been able to comment on that blog, I think it was a temporary thing).
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/10/still-fighting-civil-war.html
Ah, Phoencian, you saw this week’s episode of House, too!
Let me add that even The Bell Curve admitted that studies of identical twins raised in different environments showed that class differences could account for up to seven points’ difference in IQ. Add to that Claude Steele’s work on stereotype threat which gives a pretty complete explanation for black-white IQ/SAT gaps within socioeconomic classes, and we’ve reduced a 15-point gap to zero.
Moreover: there’s no evolutionary reason for broad differences in intellectual ability between human subgroups. I don’t see how the mental skills required for survival in pre-industrial sub-Saharan Africa are much different than those required for survival in pre-industrial Europe, or how either skill set could subsantively differ from that required in pre-industrial Asia. I don’t think that crossing the Sahara was that great a genetic bottleneck, compared to all of the natural disasters that have hit the world ad infinitum. Additionally, where do Native Americans fit into all of this? They’re descended from East Asians, so according to Lord Saletan they should be supersmart–but their IQ scores seem to be lower than average.
Finally: In a “Survivor”-esque contest, do you want to put your lot in with the group that scored slightly worse on the paper-and-pencil test, or the one that keeps electing idiots?
Anyway, I predict you’re going to have fun with the New York Times Magazine story “Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock” by Hanna Rosin, about creationist geologists that will appear tomorrow. (Us paper subscribers receive the magazine on Saturday.)
I wanted to respond to 1: MAJeff’s request for a scientific definition of race. 49: Togolosh already made part of the point, but let me flesh it out.
There were two major migrations out of our African homeland. The first colonized Australia, the second Eurasia. The three populations were fairly well isolated for tens of thousands of years, so we could term them races.
(The Americans were similarly isolated, but they’re basically a Eurasian offshoot, so let’s lump them in.)
The appeal of this view is that modern day Americans, to a first approximation, can be classified in two racial groups: Eurasians (whites, Asians, Native Americans and Latinos) and mixed Eurasian-African (blacks).
So can we stop quibbling about distinctions between whites and Asians and Latinos, and focus instead upon the Middle Eastern populations who are suspiciously close to Africa?
Repeat after me: Flynn Effect. Three IQ points per decade. That means everyone who had an average IQ in 1900 would register as seriously mentally disabled under today’s tests. Thomas Jefferson: little better than a vegetable.
But still people act is if those numbers mean something innate, objective and immutable.
As to the motivation behind the Civil War: during one of my periodic exiles to the library in high school, I happened to read through the Confederate constitution. As far as I could tell, the only difference between that and the U.S. constitution was that the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the the body of the document, and there was a provision protecting the institution of slavery from federal interference.
So, yeah, slavery was what the war was about.
22: Kathleen made the important point that too many people oppose any program which might involve their money benefiting someone they consider unworthy, even if such a program might actually benefit themselves or people like them. It’s one reason, and maybe a big one, why many people oppose progressive programs in general.
I’ve even heard this from some of my generally liberal, godless family. “Why should they get (a pension, medical care) when I don’t get it?” They don’t seem to get past the anger to the idea that we should all be working together to get these things for everyone.
I’m watching this now and I think it has some bearing on the conversation here. . . y’all may want to watch it too.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html
Arun
November 24, 2007 at 8:56 pm
The great tragedy of America is that people are still fighting the Civil War.
Of course.
This is why Bush is president.
The South stopped fighting, but they never truly surrendered. The Union failed to win the peace. Reconstruction was a failure. It was an imperfect plan at best: I call it that because even if it were to have tremendously good effects were it masterfully executed, a perfect plan is designed to handle the death of its progenitor. Lincoln’s death doomed it.
So, shortly after the war, a spate of voter fraud in Florida disenfranchised blacks and got the country a president far more right wing than the voters had chosen.
It was old the first time.
The war continues.
Let’s not forget that “blacks” and “whites” in the U.S. are more genetically related than American “blacks” are to Africans and American “whites” are to Europeans. Those annoying quotes are there to point out the absurdity of all this. The moment we take social racial concepts into the realm of hard biology, the entire endeavor becomes pointless.
What amazes me is how hard racists work to ignore environmental factors — what doesn’t is how successful they are in convincing middle-class whites to do the same. (The average U.S. citizen isn’t that well-versed in the scientific method and doesn’t understand the concept of a control, sad to say.) Example: on average, bus stations in the U.S. tend to be in poor neighborhoods, due to the exhaust. Unsurprisingly, blacks have disproportionately higher rates of asthma than whites. Here you have a medical (biological) condition caused by a racial (socio-environmental) phenomenon. It’s clear, it’s measurable, and it would have to be considered when controlling for race in these intelligence analyses.
But if you did that with every environmental factor the entire point of the anlysis is lost. If I control for every social racial factor possible, I’m not studying black people in general anymore! I’m studying a minority within a minority, a group of middle-class blacks with not only higher income but probably more wealth (assets) than your average black, one with a very different network of social contacts than many other black people. This isn’t because “all blacks are poor,” but because all non-white races are, in the aggregate, affected by racism, and if I control for racism, I’m really not talking about representative members of a race, now am I? I’m talking about the deviants (the term being nonperjorative).
It’s like I decided to study how deadly a new strain of influenza is by “controlling” for all those immune to it.
No one of Consequence: If you control for economic factors, the racist arguments fall away almost completely as poor whites often suffer similar fates to other groups due to their lack of economic power, is that not true?
Poor whites and others often have the short end of the stick in all environmental factors. Due to economic insecurity, transience among neighborhoods and cities is higher, leading to less cohesion for organization to demand better regulations or even enforcement of existing ones. Lead in tenements building paint, less opportunities for parents to direct their children’s lives (due to increasing work obligations in order to survive thus cutting into leisure time), living space shared with industrial and municipal polluters, lack of healthy green space and the stress of living in areas where economic shortcomings lead to increased exploitation and crime.
The role of Calvinist thinking certainly seems to play a huge part in the way in which funds are distributed do they not? The idea seems to persist that first one must prove oneself worthy by a set of standards imposed by the ruling class, which of course the lesser classes can never meet. The 24%er’s see themselves as righteously deserving, whether by virtue of economic pull or other more fixed factors such as race, gender and ethnic origin.
It seems no mystery to me that the wingnuttery loves to invoke Judeo Christian “values” into the mix as this is the crux of their justification for distribution as it stands; that somehow their wealth accumulation demonstrates their worthiness. How the wealth in accumulated or why of course, must never be examined.
Racist writings seems to serve as a means to eliminate as many players as possible with the presumption of fixed elements that justify complete exclusion and thus narrow the field of competitors for the pot.
Thene:
If that’s the only way they can win, it’s got to be a preferred tactic.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Thanks for the pointers.
I was somewhat familiar with the common use of the word “sophism,” but the wikipedia article on sophistry is interesting in that the original sophists were apparently anti-religionists as well as opportunists. “They contributed to the new democracy in part by subjectivizing truth, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others.” It sounds like they were Liberals in the classic sense.
Casuistry I was not so familiar with — it’s essentially case-based reasoning rather than reasoning by principle, if I’m reading correctly. Food for thought.
I’d guess that nowadays “Mexican” is the right answer even compared to “Italian”.
If you control for economic factors, the racist arguments fall away almost completely as poor whites often suffer similar fates to other groups due to their lack of economic power, is that not true?
Yes, but since a greater proportion of whites are middle class vis-a-vis other whites than the proportion of blacks that are middle class vis-a-vis other blacks, you’re still comparing mostly poor blacks with better-off whites.
But you’re right, there’s still a problem: it becomes a class-based analysis. You still had to, effectively, ignore poor whites.
All the methodology shows is that race is, surprise, a class function, not a biological one.
I was somewhat familiar with the common use of the word “sophism,” but the wikipedia article on sophistry is interesting in that the original sophists were apparently anti-religionists as well as opportunists. “They contributed to the new democracy in part by subjectivizing truth, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others.” It sounds like they were Liberals in the classic sense.
Mmm - if you haven’t read it already, I recommend you give this book a try.
Amanda, I was hoping you would blast the latest idiocy coming from Saletan with some of your most caustic prose.
I am disappointed in one thing, though. There is an attitude among the entrenched privilege set that credits them automatically with lack of racism. Thus, Saletan is not a racist, o not he, but he is simply ‘convinced’ ‘by the latest round of shoddy race science’ - the implication in Farley’s otherwise great posts being that Saletan never had a racist thought in his head until he decided to write his article. I don’t believe that for a second. Racism is second nature to a governing elite that have stretched the boundaries of impunity during the Bush years until we all feel like we are being held captive by a particularly nasty fraternity. I think Saletan is a racist - I think the conclusions he comes to are standard racist conclusions, including the horrifying, Mengele type suggesition that doctors should ‘intervene’ to operate on inferior black genetic code in babies - surely one of the most rancid things to be featured on a major media site in some time.
I say: give the guy a white sheet. He’s earned it.
Amanda, in-post:
In other words, creationism evolves.
Gotta love irony.
“In other words, creationism evolves.”
Just like a virus. Which is what it closely resembles…
If you consider pizza a form of italian food, i think italian would still come out ahead.
PitTR (@42):
Heh. I have a Japanese foreign exchange student who just wrote on that very topic for the prejudice section of her history class cuz it so happens they actually take that blood type stuff seriously over there. She remembered quite vividly controversial television programs that paired children up to see whether their blood types were compatible. The pseudoscience sorts folks’ intelligence by rareness, so O’s are the average slobs on the bottom and AB’s on the top since Rh factor is evidently not an issue. That is, B- is rarer than AB+, but ABs are all on top.
She says it’s no longer a problem, but I found it pretty damn scary.
Indy: If you consider pizza a form of italian food, i think italian would still come out ahead.
Depends on the pizza. As one Italian chef once said when asked to do a banana pizza (all Italian expletives deleted): “That is something only a German can come up with.”
And I learned yesterday that Doener, while Turkish, is native to Berlin. Even with food defining ethnicity is difficult…
Personally I’d have thought that the most popular ethnic food in the US was of Belgian origin.
I took a look at that Slate article that’s also been causing such a to-do, and it repeated a puzzling parallel claim: that not only are black people stupider than white people, but Asian people are smarter than white people.
But they still find a way to make white people superior — by, for example, claiming Asians are great mimics and technically proficient but they don’t got the creative genius that white folks got. And creativity can’t be measured, so …make any convenient claim you want!
So really, the only people who come out ahead in Saletan’s analysis are Ashkenazi Jews… hey wait….
they don’t got the creative genius that white folks got.
Yes, paper, gunpowder, paper currency, etc., all couldn’t have been created by folks with yellow skin.
I dunno why the link was broken. Possibly my HTML-fu is weak today.
“A” tags for hyperlinks only have one HREF argument; yours has two.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I recall reading years ago about the project in the 1930’s where people were recording the stories of former slaves. The men collecting the stories were very surprised that the former slaves did not fondly recall their bondage as a gentle, pleasant time rather than the grim reality it was.
I wish I could remember where I saw this, haven’t been able to track it down.
Here’s what I don’t get. If some races are naturally less intelligent, why is it necessary to oppress them? In the same vein, of course, as the painfully obvious question: if abortion/gay sex/atheism is against God’s will, why is it possible? But to return to the original: if black people are less intelligent (and of course they aren’t) then why not just treat them equally and watch, victoriously, as they drift to the bottom? The answer, of course, is that they are equal, and those who claim they aren’t are terrified of being proven wrong.