"I'm not a white supremacist b/c I think Asians are the smartest!"

[ronburgundy]

So, I encountered a prototypical pseudo-science racist (aka, alt-righter Trump supporter) who put forth several of standard tropes of this dogma that we hear often and which have been presented here by various folks at different times.

They included fallacies and unscientific nonsense such as attacking the Tabula Rasa strawman, falsely equating the decades of suffering by Jews in Nazi Germany to 4 centuries of slavery and Jim Crow laws, and a claim that cultural differences are mostly a result of genetic differences.
Those have been discussed and soundly refuted here, so they are not my focus.

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

So, I guess my point is to highlight yet another rhetorical trope that white supremacists use to deflect and cover up the fact that their racism is purely an unscientific attempt to advance a purely self-serving dogma.

 

[Gun Nut]

Somehow I don't think that white supremacists view intelligence as a necessary virtue of the master race. Ask this same white supremacist if he thinks Asians are more capable of being smart than white people are capable of, and I wager you will get a little pulling back on that.

 

[TSwizzle]

WTF has Biden said now ?

 

[Elixir]

Somehow I don't think that white supremacists view intelligence as a necessary virtue of the master race.

Maybe that's right. Personally I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

Stupid white supremacists could outlive us all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Somehow I don't think that white supremacists view intelligence as a necessary virtue of the master race.

Maybe that's right. Personally I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

Stupid white supremacists could outlive us all.

But not for long.
If everyone they hate were to die off, they'd find justificafion to divide and hate further.
Then when the white fauxpremacists were gone, and those who stank of soap, and those who spelled 'supremacists' the same way three times in a row, the True Spermaschists would die out from population depression.

 

[Elixir]

Somehow I don't think that white supremacists view intelligence as a necessary virtue of the master race.

Maybe that's right. Personally I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

Stupid white supremacists could outlive us all.

But not for long.
If everyone they hate were to die off, they'd find justificafion to divide and hate further.
Then when the white fauxpremacists were gone, and those who stank of soap, and those who spelled 'supremacists' the same way three times in a row, the True Spermaschists would die out from population depression.

I agree up to that projected extinction point - the males would end up living in caves after a generation or few, hunting down and killing any any male with the temerity to set up a cave in their vicinity, capturing any females in the process. And maybe that's best for the long term persistence of the human species, as the population could stabilize at some relatively low level.

 

[Gun Nut]

Somehow I don't think that white supremacists view intelligence as a necessary virtue of the master race.

Maybe that's right. Personally I tend to agree with Ernst Mayr that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

Stupid white supremacists could outlive us all.

But not for long.
If everyone they hate were to die off, they'd find justificafion to divide and hate further.
Then when the white fauxpremacists were gone, and those who stank of soap, and those who spelled 'supremacists' the same way three times in a row, the True Spermaschists would die out from population depression.

It's well established that genetic diversity is a key to evading extinction.
Their lack of diversity as a group all but guarantees their eventual demise... the day a few codons of sickle cells becomes the difference between contracting the New Disease or not...
This is starting to happen to the Jews. A long tradition of only marrying within their own has narrowed their genetic diversity to the point where Jews have a significantly higher risk of getting certain forms of cancer (Brest cancer is huge in their population, for example - way out of normal ranges for all other demographic groups).

I learned about this from a doctor... I asked why he thought Long Island has so much more cancer than the rest of the country. He said "because of the demographics"...
"there is a high concentration of Jews on Long Island".

I'm not criticizing... This is simply a medical fact arising from a lack of genetic diversity.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not criticizing... This is simply a medical fact arising from a lack of genetic diversity.

That's a valid point IMO, except that it ignores the true depth of white supremacist ignorance. Their gene pool is FAR more tainted (i.e. diverse) than almost any of them suspects. In fact, if they spread out geographically a bit after they kill off all the "others", traits like black, yellow, brown and red skin would quickly begin to re-emerge, ensuring plenty of continued conflict. The main point is that a low population level could be maintained. Yeah, there's always that risk of falling below some required minimum, but Toba teaches us that in a mere 75,000 years, all the human diversity we see today can arise from just a few thousand survivors.

 

[repoman]

But not for long.
If everyone they hate were to die off, they'd find justificafion to divide and hate further.
Then when the white fauxpremacists were gone, and those who stank of soap, and those who spelled 'supremacists' the same way three times in a row, the True Spermaschists would die out from population depression.

It's well established that genetic diversity is a key to evading extinction.
Their lack of diversity as a group all but guarantees their eventual demise... the day a few codons of sickle cells becomes the difference between contracting the New Disease or not...
This is starting to happen to the Jews. A long tradition of only marrying within their own has narrowed their genetic diversity to the point where Jews have a significantly higher risk of getting certain forms of cancer (Brest cancer is huge in their population, for example - way out of normal ranges for all other demographic groups).

I learned about this from a doctor... I asked why he thought Long Island has so much more cancer than the rest of the country. He said "because of the demographics"...
"there is a high concentration of Jews on Long Island".

I'm not criticizing... This is simply a medical fact arising from a lack of genetic diversity.

So the portrayal of southern whites as inbred is projection by inbred Hollywood Jews?

 

[Metaphor]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group? Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group? Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

You seem confused by the thread op. It's "if you believe X, it doesn't mean you're not Y." It's not "if you believe X, it means you're Y."

 

[Metaphor]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group? Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

You seem confused by the thread op. It's "if you believe X, it doesn't mean you're not Y." It's not "if you believe X, it means you're Y."

But I'm not confused. If the OP believes X cannot exist without Y, it puts a different perspective on things, no?

 

[Jarhyn]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group? Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

If a belief is self-serving in the short term but actively "others" people arbitrarily, it is based on faulty evidence, or perhaps a faulty examination of evidence.

I keep pointing it out that an incomplete adoption of the social paradigm is self-defeating.

If someone says "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ than whites, (etc)..." I would say "yeah, they do". The problem is if/when they attempt to draw a conclusion from such a useless piece of trivia in the service of a policy. It first doesn't provide a supported hypothesis as to why, so it cannot be used to improve "whites" or even select for the Asians within that group for whom this is true absent simply testing for intelligence. Further, because it doesn't give you answers about any particular individual, it does not provide useful information about the individuals in question because within-group variability exceeds between-groups variability.

From a policy perspective, the data is a useless fact.

 

[Metaphor]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group? Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

If a belief is self-serving in the short term but actively "others" people arbitrarily, it is based on faulty evidence, or perhaps a faulty examination of evidence.

I keep pointing it out that an incomplete adoption of the social paradigm is self-defeating.

If someone says "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ than whites, (etc)..." I would say "yeah, they do". The problem is if/when they attempt to draw a conclusion from such a useless piece of trivia in the service of a policy. It first doesn't provide a supported hypothesis as to why, so it cannot be used to improve "whites" or even select for the Asians within that group for whom this is true absent simply testing for intelligence. Further, because it doesn't give you answers about any particular individual, it does not provide useful information about the individuals in question because within-group variability exceeds between-groups variability.

From a policy perspective, the data is a useless fact.

But policy is already developed on the basis that it was not true.

Anti-discrimination policy - in practice - is measured by unequal outcomes, not by measuring unequal treatment. That's why Silicon Valley is constantly upgrading cilices over its "over-representation" of Asians and its under-representation of everyone else.

 

[Jarhyn]

If a belief is self-serving in the short term but actively "others" people arbitrarily, it is based on faulty evidence, or perhaps a faulty examination of evidence.

I keep pointing it out that an incomplete adoption of the social paradigm is self-defeating.

If someone says "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ than whites, (etc)..." I would say "yeah, they do". The problem is if/when they attempt to draw a conclusion from such a useless piece of trivia in the service of a policy. It first doesn't provide a supported hypothesis as to why, so it cannot be used to improve "whites" or even select for the Asians within that group for whom this is true absent simply testing for intelligence. Further, because it doesn't give you answers about any particular individual, it does not provide useful information about the individuals in question because within-group variability exceeds between-groups variability.

From a policy perspective, the data is a useless fact.

But policy is already developed on the basis that it was not true.

Anti-discrimination policy - in practice - is measured by unequal outcomes, not by measuring unequal treatment. That's why Silicon Valley is constantly upgrading cilices over its "over-representation" of Asians and its under-representation of everyone else.

Were you somehow not here for that whole color-blindness thread that rocked this very forum for weeks and weeks, wherein I argued my position consistently and coherently?

Further, I work in the tech sector. Show me the person with 5 years experience in all 20 required APIs, languages, and specific systems on the average job listing who is appropriate to an "entry level" position, and I'll show you my huge unicorn collection and my diamond pony named Buttstallion.

Ocerrepresentation in Silicon Valley is often a symptom of an entirely different problem which would generate an entire derail of discussion that isn't appropriate to the thread, namely of outsourcing hiring to Asia because it's cheaper to import a foreign national to write your code than it is to source a domestic worker. LP can go on and on, at length about H1B work visas and how they are used to skirt requirements to seek domestic talent in Silicon Valley. In this scenario, Asia just happens to represent the biggest pool if foreign countries with low standards of living and decent education.

 

[marc]

I think that a lot of racists honestly don't think they are racists. I believe that at an early age many of them were exposed to racist stereotypes and bs propaganda. Those ideas take root and taint their thoughts and beliefs possibly for the rest of their lives, largely because most people don't bother examining these ideas to try and figure out what their beliefs are, and if they are true. Instead the racial stereotype is just something 'everybody knows, but not everyone says'. Repeating the false propaganda is just 'telling the truth' or 'saying it as it is'. They get convinced that racism is actively hating a group, and they don't hate that group, but everyone knows that group is like that (lazy, dirty, violent, etc.).

 

[Jarhyn]

I think that a lot of racists honestly don't think they are racists. I believe that at an early age many of them were exposed to racist stereotypes and bs propaganda. Those ideas take root and taint their thoughts and beliefs possibly for the rest of their lives, largely because most people don't bother examining these ideas to try and figure out what their beliefs are, and if they are true. Instead the racial stereotype is just something 'everybody knows, but not everyone says'. Repeating the false propaganda is just 'telling the truth' or 'saying it as it is'. They get convinced that racism is actively hating a group, and they don't hate that group, but everyone knows that group is like that (lazy, dirty, violent, etc.).

There is also another phenomena to consider: that humans are simply bad at separation of causation and corrolation. We see a world around us where being black corrolates to some extent with being poor, uneducated, and violent. We see a world where being from certain parts of Asia correlate to being educated and having a skillednprofession. Of course there are historical contexts that explain the unfortunately biased state of nature, but people are poorly equipped to understand why that is.

That all in turn leads to biased assumptions which, while driven by real data, are not driven by good understanding. And because feelings are not generally driven by understanding but by ancient mere approximations of it, regardless of whether we accept the basis or conclusions those feelings push us to, they are still going to be there, being invasive.

A less self-aware person might accept their feelings at face value. Sadly, as you pointed out, few people are so self-aware as to question whether their feelings are right.

 

[Metaphor]

Further, I work in the tech sector. Show me the person with 5 years experience in all 20 required APIs, languages, and specific systems on the average job listing who is appropriate to an "entry level" position, and I'll show you my huge unicorn collection and my diamond pony named Buttstallion.

What would that have to do with anything?

Ocerrepresentation in Silicon Valley is often a symptom of an entirely different problem which would generate an entire derail of discussion that isn't appropriate to the thread, namely of outsourcing hiring to Asia because it's cheaper to import a foreign national to write your code than it is to source a domestic worker. LP can go on and on, at length about H1B work visas and how they are used to skirt requirements to seek domestic talent in Silicon Valley. In this scenario, Asia just happens to represent the biggest pool if foreign countries with low standards of living and decent education.

This is irrelevant. Asians are over-represented in Google's American-citizen workforce who work in America , and they are even more over-represented in 'tech' roles.

 

[marc]

I think that a lot of racists honestly don't think they are racists. I believe that at an early age many of them were exposed to racist stereotypes and bs propaganda. Those ideas take root and taint their thoughts and beliefs possibly for the rest of their lives, largely because most people don't bother examining these ideas to try and figure out what their beliefs are, and if they are true. Instead the racial stereotype is just something 'everybody knows, but not everyone says'. Repeating the false propaganda is just 'telling the truth' or 'saying it as it is'. They get convinced that racism is actively hating a group, and they don't hate that group, but everyone knows that group is like that (lazy, dirty, violent, etc.).

There is also another phenomena to consider: that humans are simply bad at separation of causation and corrolation. We see a world around us where being black corrolates to some extent with being poor, uneducated, and violent. We see a world where being from certain parts of Asia correlate to being educated and having a skillednprofession. Of course there are historical contexts that explain the unfortunately biased state of nature, but people are poorly equipped to understand why that is.

That all in turn leads to biased assumptions which, while driven by real data, are not driven by good understanding. And because feelings are not generally driven by understanding but by ancient mere approximations of it, regardless of whether we accept the basis or conclusions those feelings push us to, they are still going to be there, being invasive.

A less self-aware person might accept their feelings at face value. Sadly, as you pointed out, few people are so self-aware as to question whether their feelings are right.

That makes sense. The initial learned stereotypes would help that along with establishing a base point for confirmation bias, but limited experience would also give a very limited view of any group of people.

In that way the idea of representation in media is very important. For example, showing a muslim girl as a superhero is not just important to muslim girls in how they can see themselves, it is important for other people to see something other than the limited tropes they have seen in various movies/tv. In Obama's time some people talked about a 'Huxtable effect', how the Cosby Show presented a positive non-stereotype view of black people may have improved some people's acceptance of the idea of a black president. I think something similar may have happened with positive depictions of gay people on tv leading to greater acceptance of gay marriage. When conservatives complain about 'liberal media', it is usually about the news (which is actually right-leaning or just pro-corporate status quo rather than liberal) but I think the pop-culture has a much bigger impact on people's beliefs. If you won't go out and experience the world, popular shows will bring the world to you and maybe expand your views.

 

[ronburgundy]

My focus is his assertion that white supremacy doesn't apply to him because he thinks Asians are the smartest. I noted that Asians are only 6% of the US population and 15% of the non-white US population, so he's is still viewing about 85% of the non-white population within the US as inferior to his own racial group. I would argue that racial supremacy dogma is largely rooted in an effort to gain advantage ones own group over outgroup members that one is in societal competition with. So, he's still advancing a self-serving racial supremacy dogma, and throwing one small minority group a bone does not meaningfully change that. Also, I suspect that most white supremacist with this concession to Asians likely view Asians as genetically inferior in other ways that make their net value as humans lower.

Do you believe anybody believes that there are racial IQ differences for non self-serving reasons?

Not likely. There is no valid evidence to draw such a conclusion. It is possible to reach unreasonable conclusions by honest error, but such errors would be random. The psuedo-science arguments offered require a high level of systematic bias, lying about facts of history and basic social science, and general intellectual dishonesty always in favor of a particular conclusion. This strongly supports that anyone who advances such ideas are motivated by self-serving bias without any regard for actual reason and fact on the matter.

Also, it is an implausible coincidence that almost every person who believes in racial differences in intelligence belongs to a racial group that fares better than most under their theory.

In addition, a person without such a self serving bias would have no motive to ignore the scientific consensus on this question, which is that there is no valid evidence to support claims of innate differences in intelligence between racial groups, and that the few researchers who push such a claim are analogous to the few that push climate change denial and even evolution denial.

When you say this person threw a minority group 'a bone', why do you think it was that group and not some other group?

Because that group performs better than whites on IQ tests, and they want to promote averages in IQ tests are clear evidence of differences in innate intellectual ability. That is b/c whites perform better on average than all non-white groups other than Asians. So accepting Asians as the smartest is just a way of treating IQ scores as definitive evidence that his own race is smarter than the groups that 85% of non-whites in the US belong to.

Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that East Asian groups have a higher IQ than white groups for the same reason they believe that whites have a higher IQ than other groups (that is, because that's what the evidence shows?)

They are using IQ scores to support their beliefs, but the belief is not about IQ scores but about innate intellectual ability. IQ is not a measure of innate intellectual ability, to treat it as such is to deny the relevant science on a level that is on par with creationists denial of the relevant science on evolution. IQ is a measure of a persons performance on a particular test during a single point in time. The performance is impacted by countless factors. Innate intellectual ability is one possible factor the might influence a person's performance or it might not. Innate ability only becomes a factor in performance if one is putting forth max effort and thus hitting the ceiling of one's innate ability. If I casually jog to catch a bus and miss it, I didn't miss it b/c of lack of innate ability to run. I missed it b/c I didn't put forth max effort on that task at that time. In addition, even if I tried to run my hardest, if I didn't spend my life training in order to develop my full innate potential, then my failure to catch the bus is not a reflection of my innate potential but of the trillions of things I did or didn't do which failed to develop my innate potential ability. This applies to all abilities that are not automatically fully developed regardless of environmental factors, aka almost every ability including intelligence.

So, then the question is, why would a person go to lengths to be dishonest about the actual science and deny such basic obvious facts in order to treat IQ scores as though they are evidence of racial differences in innate intelligence?
For the reasons I gave above, the most plausible answer is that doing so allows them to view their racial ingroup as superior on a highly valued trait to the majority of other groups within their society and the majority of other individuals in their society (note that even if their own IQ was slightly lower than the white average, they could have a higher IQ than most other people in the US. And most people don't know their own IQ and just presume they are above average, and believing that whites are above most non-whites would support their assumption that they are likely above most non-whites.

If a belief is self-serving, does that mean the belief is based on faulty evidence? Surely some beliefs are true and also "self-serving" (though it's a bad reason to believe something solely because it is self-serving).

Sure, you can believe something rationally on good evidence that just happens to be self serving. But that doesn't apply here b/c there is no rational basis or good evidence to support the belief that whites have more innate intelligence than all non-whites other than Asians. There is only evidence to believe that for any one of countless reasons, whites tend to perform better on IQ tests. Inferring one from the other is equivalent to inferring that if I ate a healthier breakfast than you this morning that means that I innately engage in more healthy behaviors than you do. IF there is not rational reason to believe in something, and the belief requires systematic intellectual dishonesty (as this belief does), then self-serving bias is the most likely basis for the belief. The fact that we know such a belief has a clear self serving function for almost everyone who holds the belief only provides evidence for what is theoretically the most probable explanation for the belief.

If somebody said "Asians, as a group, have a higher IQ that whites, but Jews have the highest intelligence of all", what would your reaction be? Would that person be a white supremacist?

Jews are less than 2% of the US population, so that would do nothing to alter the arguments I've made. The same self serving factors behind accepting Asians as more intelligent (the motive being to treat IQ scores as equivalent to innate intelligence) would apply. The fact that Jews are not "non-white" would make that belief even less problematic for someone seeking to believe that whites are superior in intellect to the vast majority of non-whites within the US society (or any society where Asians and Jews represent a minority of non-whites).