Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[ApostateAbe]

Scientific racism, among other things, is the belief that races of people differ in average intelligence largely because of genetic differences. And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept. Not just because of the universal taboo against it in the western world, as though it is the distillation of all that is evil, backward and stupid. But also because of a fear of a persisting global problem that will only get far worse with time. It means races will never be equal. They will always be at odds in economics and politics. Further, when most people finally accept this reality, it seems highly likely that the consequences for society will be little more than awful. For a lover of science, it is easy to get wrapped up in the idyllic belief that: if only everyone would accept the accurate science, we would all better solve problems and live better happier richer lives. With scientific racism, the opposite is plausible: accurate knowledge may be highly disruptive and destructive. It won't happen with a lot of scientific racists arguing endlessly on the Internet, but it will happen when the genes for intelligence variations are identified and found to vary in frequency among races. Rhetoric can no longer dismiss or spin the significance of such a scientific discovery, and most people will finally be convinced.

I won't ask you to fully accept my perspective. I will put aside all the arguments about whether or not it is correct. Accept this idea temporarily only for the purpose of a thought experiment: hypothetically, it will be proved with genetic mapping that races of people have the average intelligence scores they do mostly because of genetic differences. Though brilliance exists in every race, some of the averages are: whites with 100 IQ, American blacks, Arabs, and Latinos with 85, Pacific Islanders with 90, Northeast Asians with 105, Ashkenazi Jews with 110, and African blacks with 70 (each of these numbers represents the peak of each respective bell curve). Further, hypothetically, it will be proved that these genetic intelligence variations mostly cause the differences in wealth among races. So, two questions:

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Would you drastically change your politics? Would you join racist organizations? How would you react?

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along race lines? Would there be greater racial hatred? Xenophobia? Wars? Jim Crow laws? Racial police brutality? Race riots? Lynchings? Genocides? What would be your fears?

 

[Juma]

And I believe it.

Nuff said.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do you predict drastic change? Seems even if what you claim is true, there would still be far more variation within these groupings than between them.

And we already have some people that are smarter than others. Why would a correlation with race make our reactions to that any different?

 

[ApostateAbe]

The discouraging thing about dogmas is: it is not just that you are not allowed to believe it, but you are not even allowed to entertain the thought. That is all I am asking here. I accept whatever condemnation or ridicule or whatever else, in exchange.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Why do you predict drastic change? Seems even if what you claim is true, there would still be far more variation within these groupings than between them.

And we already have some people that are smarter than others. Why would a correlation with race make our reactions to that any different?

One of the troubling consequences I anticipate is the reinforcement of hiring discrimination. An employer would know that a black applicant for a job belongs to the bell curve that is a full standard deviation to the left. Maybe the black man is on the right tail end, but not likely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You pretty much always have more information on an applicant than just race though.

Men are on average physically stronger than women and better at spacial reasoning. But that doesn't make it reasonable to discriminate against women when hiring engineers or firefighters. You give them the same tests and base things on how they perform.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You pretty much always have more information on an applicant than just race though.

Men are on average physically stronger than women and better at spacial reasoning. But that doesn't make it reasonable to discriminate against women when hiring engineers or firefighters. You give them the same tests and base things on how they perform.

Yeah, you always have more information on an applicant than just race, but such information as the membership in the bell curve distribution would be of vital importance! One standard deviation difference in intelligence is the difference between graduating only high school and graduating from a four-year college. Not all mere high school grads are dumber than all college grads, but the mere high school grads have a steep hill to climb before they prove their worth.

 

[Canard DuJour]

You pretty much always have more information on an applicant than just race though.

Men are on average physically stronger than women and better at spacial reasoning. But that doesn't make it reasonable to discriminate against women when hiring engineers or firefighters. You give them the same tests and base things on how they perform.

Yeah, you always have more information on an applicant than just race, but such information as the membership in the bell curve distribution would be of vital importance! One standard deviation difference in intelligence is the difference between graduating only high school and graduating from a four-year college. Not all mere high school grads are dumber than all college grads, but the mere high school grads have a steep hill to climb before they prove their worth.

An employer who thinks an actual qualification doesn't count because its possessor is in a group less likely to graduate is already discriminating and doesn't really care what the science says.

 

[EricK]

I don't believe that my opinion of people should be based on what groups they are members of, so it wouldn't change how I act in any way. I don't hate people simply for being less intelligent than I - firstly, that would involve hating almost everybody, and secondly, I can always find other reasons to hate them if need be. So it would be perverse if I were to decide to hate someone simply because they belonged to a group whose average intelligence was less than the average intelligence of the group I belonged to. Anyway, what sort of idiot does that? It literally makes no sense. I can understand hating people who are more accomplished (I don't advocate it, but I understand it); but hating people who are less accomplished?

Society might not handle it as well as I do though. But that's only to be expected as their average intelligence is very low.

 

[repoman]

More important than raw firepower of intelligence may be temperament. People maving poor variant alleles for processing MAO-A would be on my shit list as an employer. impulsive, violent motherfuckers!

 

[Unbeatable]

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Would you drastically change your politics? Would you join racist organizations? How would you react?

I already suspect it's true, actually. I haven't investigated the issue as much as you, though, since 1) it's just not interesting to me; my hobby horse when it comes to psychology is individual differences in emotion, not group differences in IQ, and 2)Being black, I have pretty much nothing to gain from spreading the word, and I also don't really have the option of drastically changing my politics. So it doesn't make much difference to me whether it's true or not.

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along race lines? Would there be greater racial hatred? Xenophobia? Wars? Jim Crow laws? Racial police brutality? Race riots? Lynchings? Genocides? What would be your fears?

"Hatred" is a dramatic word. What I expect is more callousness. More "Fuck you Jack, I've got mine". More cold, calculated decisions, driven by cost-benefit-analyses, which have the same ultimate consequences as if the intention was to negatively impact minorities.

You've seen the sorts of social policies "HBD" proponents tend to advocate, right? I fear that those ideas will get more traction if the science behind them gains credibility. There's a reason the people talking the most about scientific racism also happen to be proponents of the other kind of racism. It may not be a good reason for hate, but people don't need good reasons if you push the right emotional buttons. They just need good enough rationalizations. And callousness is even easier to rationalize than hate. And the widespread non-acceptance of scientific racism means that people who oppose the other kind of racism have not had as much practice at spinning the science into a compelling rationalization for why egalitarian values should still be upheld, whereas HBD proponents have had plenty of practice spinning it into rationalizations for treating egalitarian values as some sort of embarrassing/dangerous mistake. I fear that their appeals to the self interest of white Americans and Europeans will get more compelling.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society?

It wouldn't. I believe in Enlightenment ideals. Why condemn individuals based of a group report? Why stereotype? Why would I want to deny young Neil Degrasse Tysons to mediocrity because a "in general" his group scores lower? (I assume you ask this question to justify making second-class citizens.) Why condemn individuals based upon the group?

Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence?

Why would I hate a group of people based upon IQ tests? Why would somebody ask such a question?

Would you drastically change your politics?

Why would I? Having come from a family that was ethnically cleansed I know how arbitrary criteria are chosen to do all sorts of horrors to innocent (and intelligent) people.

Would you join racist organizations?

Why the fuck would I do that? Why would anyone?

How would you react?

I'd note that it was interesting, but individuals vary within the group.

And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept.

You believe it not because it is true, but because you want it to be true. Because if it is true, then you can prescribe all sorts of remedies for "the less intelligent races" and it gives you a license to do things to them for "their own good and the good of white society".

What would be your fears?

That people would use such knowledge as a justification for all sorts of horrors.

 

[Toni]

And I believe it.

This is not new information to anyone.

And I believe it. It is not an easy belief to accept.

I have a very difficult time believing that you struggle to accept your belief.

(1) How would this hypothetical science change your general perspective of politics and society? Would this be a good reason in your opinion to HATE those members of races with lower intelligence? Would you drastically change your politics? Would you join racist organizations? How would you react?

Pretty sure this would represent absolutely no change for you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nice Squirrel, I appreciate your answers to the thought experiment. Toni, I accept your condemnations, and in exchange I would like your answers to the thought experiment.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I don't believe that my opinion of people should be based on what groups they are members of, so it wouldn't change how I act in any way. I don't hate people simply for being less intelligent than I - firstly, that would involve hating almost everybody, and secondly, I can always find other reasons to hate them if need be. So it would be perverse if I were to decide to hate someone simply because they belonged to a group whose average intelligence was less than the average intelligence of the group I belonged to. Anyway, what sort of idiot does that? It literally makes no sense. I can understand hating people who are more accomplished (I don't advocate it, but I understand it); but hating people who are less accomplished?

Society might not handle it as well as I do though. But that's only to be expected as their average intelligence is very low.

Thank you, that seems reasonable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Denying unpleasant reality doesn't make it go away. It just makes you choose a sub-optimal response to it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I already suspect it's true, actually. I haven't investigated the issue as much as you, though, since 1) it's just not interesting to me; my hobby horse when it comes to psychology is individual differences in emotion, not group differences in IQ, and 2)Being black, I have pretty much nothing to gain from spreading the word, and I also don't really have the option of drastically changing my politics. So it doesn't make much difference to me whether it's true or not.

(2) Would you expect society in general to become more divided along race lines? Would there be greater racial hatred? Xenophobia? Wars? Jim Crow laws? Racial police brutality? Race riots? Lynchings? Genocides? What would be your fears?

"Hatred" is a dramatic word. What I expect is more callousness. More "Fuck you Jack, I've got mine". More cold, calculated decisions, driven by cost-benefit-analyses, which have the same ultimate consequences as if the intention was to negatively impact minorities.

You've seen the sorts of social policies "HBD" proponents tend to advocate, right? I fear that those ideas will get more traction if the science behind them gains credibility. There's a reason the people talking the most about scientific racism also happen to be proponents of the other kind of racism. It may not be a good reason for hate, but people don't need good reasons if you push the right emotional buttons. They just need good enough rationalizations. And callousness is even easier to rationalize than hate. And the widespread non-acceptance of scientific racism means that people who oppose the other kind of racism have not had as much practice at spinning the science into a compelling rationalization for why egalitarian values should still be upheld, whereas HBD proponents have had plenty of practice spinning it into rationalizations for treating egalitarian values as some sort of embarrassing/dangerous mistake. I fear that their appeals to the self interest of white Americans and Europeans will get more compelling.

Thank you. If you are a black person who suspects that the racial differences in intelligence really are genetic, then that may put you in an awkward social position (even if it is just a suspicion). A white person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as either evil, stupid, or both (that has generally been my experience as a young white man in America), but I expect a black person who airs such suspicions is liable to be seen as stupid and a gullible tool for evil white racist propaganda or whatever. Any interesting experiences related to that?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your initial hypothesis, if accepted, still doesn't impact my view. It only impacts those who see groups first and foremost, and only after that do they see individuals. Progressives are the most prone to this of any group, but liberals and conservatives also fall for it.

So suppose there were group tendencies, and these tendencies can be plotted on a bell curve. That still means nothing about the individual. Even if it means any given individual is more likely to have certain characteristics, it doesn't mean that individual WILL have those characteristics.

Racists are in many ways the opposite side of the same coin as the progressive anti-racists. They are just backing the wrong race horse.

 

[arkirk]

Your initial hypothesis, if accepted, still doesn't impact my view. It only impacts those who see groups first and foremost, and only after that do they see individuals. Progressives are the most prone to this of any group, but liberals and conservatives also fall for it.

So suppose there were group tendencies, and these tendencies can be plotted on a bell curve. That still means nothing about the individual. Even if it means any given individual is more likely to have certain characteristics, it doesn't mean that individual WILL have those characteristics.

Racists are in many ways the opposite side of the same coin as the progressive anti-racists. They are just backing the wrong race horse.

You seem to have your own first and foremost groups you consider.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Your initial hypothesis, if accepted, still doesn't impact my view. It only impacts those who see groups first and foremost, and only after that do they see individuals. Progressives are the most prone to this of any group, but liberals and conservatives also fall for it.

So suppose there were group tendencies, and these tendencies can be plotted on a bell curve. That still means nothing about the individual. Even if it means any given individual is more likely to have certain characteristics, it doesn't mean that individual WILL have those characteristics.

Racists are in many ways the opposite side of the same coin as the progressive anti-racists. They are just backing the wrong race horse.

You say you don't see groups first and the first thing you do after saying that is group people.

Think about that. Take your time. Not taking your time is what likely led to the post above.