Scientific racism

Jordan said in an ev psych derail:

I'm not sure you quite answered my question. You refer to spiritual equality (nice enough), but then you refer to inequalities scientists might find. Do you think those scientific findings are credible?

No. I'm a layman, but Christian conscience tells me a scientific thesis like "black people tend to be less intelligent" would be wrong.

If racism was still the scientific consensus, I can see how secular-minded laymen would be in trouble. What right does a layman have to oppose the magisterial consensus of the scientists in a field? I think such people are lucky to have grown up when scientists believe race is an artificial construct!

but Christian conscience tells me a scientific thesis like "black people tend to be less intelligent" would be wrong.

Okay, I'll bite.

Let me ask you this, Rott: at what point does an honest scientific study into the physiological differences between the races degenerate into the "scientific racism" you're talking about?

Example: They have proven that people of African descent have more "efficient" metabolisms; that is, less heat is produced by their metabolic process, because historically they came from a warmer climate and as such did not need the extra body heat. They also tend to be taller and heavier than most Caucasians (this is less universal but still applicable) Someone ruminated that this is why there are so many black athletes in high-energy sports like basketball and football.

Now, that's a fairly neutral and logical conclusion to draw. It could, however, be twisted into "black people are good at sports" or further into "black people are only good for physical things, like sports and hard labor, and here's the scientific proof".

At what point does racism start to enter into it?

IMO, this is why more studies about genetic differences between the races aren't done.

Medical studies about health issues different by race are done constantly. That's how we know that such and such a group is at higher risk for breast cancer. The studies are done. The results are published all over medical journals.

This doesn't mean the doctors are racist. It's just easier to diagnose someone when you know what they're most likely to be dying from.

At what point does racism start to enter into it?

Scientifically? I'd say when researchers use cultural bias in their categories. The genetic data doesn't justify lumping all Africans together while splitting the descendants of the small northern migration Out Of Africa into "Caucasian", "Asian", and "Native American". Our racial categories have more to do with historical accident than gene pools.

Morally? When you start claiming mental differences.

Racism is saying that one group of people is better than another because of the colour of their skin.

Scientific studies on what different races are good at are abviously going to be controversial, and highly likely to be snapped up by racists. However, as long as they're not done with the sole purpose of proving one group inferior I wouldn't call them racist. And they should look into the causes of the results, obviously, or they're pointless. The results may be related more to culture than genetics, after all. I would never quote one, that would be asking for trouble. And really, I can't see where a situation would arise that required me to say "This race is smarter than that race" that didn't somehow stem from someone in the vicinity being at least somewhat racist.

edited 26th Feb '11 2:07:02 PM by ArlaGrey

What about people like this?

@Post 2- Something interesting about what you posted. I think one factor in that kind of thing is because somewhere along the line, society seems to have accepted a "dumb jock" idea, in which there's an inverse correlation between strength and intelligence.

Thus, statements about the inherent strength/athleticism of blacks kind of carry with it an implication of inferiority (even if not intended), because of the overall societal treatment of strength.

Edit- That's weird. I've more heard Ashkenazi Jews citing claims of "superiority" than I have anti-semites, but I can see why one of them might take interest. I think it's b.s. though. Ashkenazi Jews are definitely an ethnicity, but it's an ethnicity that's not really all that ancient (I'd guess about 900 years old, if that).

edited 26th Feb '11 2:09:27 PM by Jordan

Morally? When you start claiming mental differences.

Okay, but what if there are mental differences?

I for one would not want to be the researcher who tumbled to that kind of data. And if I did, I think I'd just burn it. Which says something about the whole racial divide, IMO.

EDIT

@Jordan: yes, but that's another extrapolation, and one with no scientific basis. Which sort of plays into my argument about how scientific data can be mixed with invective and used to justify all sorts of inane prejudices. Which in turn makes it difficult for scientists to get pure research done.

edited 26th Feb '11 2:09:16 PM by drunkscriblerian

If the scientist is fixated on why one race is bad, then they are racist.

Okay, but what if there are mental differences?

I don't know. I fear that data would end up used to justify genocide.

Drunky, my opinion is that the scientific racism shows up when the connecting factor is ignored or glossed over in favor of the racial aspect. "He plays basketball well because he's black and blacks are better basketball players" is scientific racism. "He plays basketball well because his metabolism wastes less energy as heat, and his muscle mass is distributed in an optimum fashion for the actions needed, and these factors are common in blacks" isn't.

edited 26th Feb '11 2:11:21 PM by Madrugada

Whoops wrong thread.

edited 26th Feb '11 2:10:48 PM by deathjavu

@Madrugada: Pretty much what I was getting at, thanks for making my point better than I did.

@Rott: exactly why, if I were the researcher that figured out which race was mentally superior to another (assuming that's even possible), I'd burn my research. Because people just aren't ready to listen to that stuff with an open mind.

Mad stated it well. Also, I think there's a definite class component. In the past, a lot of athletes were Jews and others of recent immigrant groups who were born into poverty. Seems like when you don't have a lot of other prospects/have time on your hands, you might be more likely to devote that time to athletics (which I know somewhat contradicts my earlier comment on strength and intelligence).

It's sort of the same reason that there weren't any black golfers until recently. Since that is a "wealthy person's game" and clubs were segregated, you wouldn't really have opportunity to play the game unless you were a WASP.

It's sort of the same reason that there weren't any black golfers until recently. Since that is a "wealthy person's game" and clubs were segregated,

Putters have to go in the back of the bus.

Drivers go at the front, of course.

Took me a minute to get that and am now laughing.

Rottweiler, have an interweb, good sir.

Okay, Rott..that one actually made me giggle a bit.

Black people tend to be less intelligent because black people tend to be poor because black people used to be second class citizens.

Why is it that trying to objectively present a fact or statistic must be labeled racist because the subject matter pertains to a specific subset of race that has nothing to do with their actual skin color?

There is a difference between saying "Black people are less intelligent because they're black" and "Black people are less intelligent because they are largely poor"

But people don't seem to care about the latter half of the statement. Only that one says "Black people are less intelligent" ergo, through misleading soundbite, you're racist.

Devils Advocate invoked

I think such people are lucky to have grown up when scientists believe race is an artificial construct!

To invert that, you too are lucky to have grown up when Christian majorities believe a scientific thesis like "black people tend to be less intelligent" would be wrong.

Although science doesn't have a Magisterium. Churches do.

The successors of the Apostles have never collectively taught (this is what magisterium means) the inferiority of any race's minds.

Try again.

I didn't say anything about the magisterium teaching the inferiority of other raises, i spoke of majorities believing specifically in the statement being wrong.

Perhaps you were thrown off by the "although" which was meant to be an "also". Perhaps you were also thrown off by the arrogance I see transmitted in your "try again".

er- did it again.

Oh I can't even be arsed with this, I'll get more meaningful discourse out of a brick. Simple answer is that in a comparison of what happens when a religious majority and when a scientific majority feel a certain way is probably slightly the same. The lay person will agree and the experts probably feel that way not due to anything in their actual field but for external reasons. But how does a secular lay person cope? He or she would have enough brains and education to be able to perceive biases and make some basic examinations, assuming they felt inclined to disagree. If they became a scientist, they could probably make a killing from getting their papers quoted all the time for pointing out the flaws in everyone else's for being factually wrong.

It's not strange, it's not complicated, it's still probably too much for you to handle.

edited 26th Feb '11 3:27:54 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

Commando Dude's view of racial IQ differences is probably correct. The problem is that there are plenty of quasi-racist people out there who really do argue for genetic differences.

Facts are facts. They don't change just because we want them to. If race X is statistically more likely to develop a certain disease than race Y, then that's just the way it is. Now, assigning value to these differences between race, that's the path that leads to racism and really doesn't have anything to do with science unless you subscribe to the ignorance is bliss idea.

edited 26th Feb '11 4:08:34 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Black people tend to be less intelligent because

Just wanted to say that this is the wording that causes the most problems. I'm being pure semantical here, so forgive me, but this is an anvil that needs to be dropped.

There is a big difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge". Black people have a reputation for being misinformed and ignorant because of poorer education, as well as a finely-groomed sense of superiority over handed-down knowledge versus learned knowledge. For example, a family may know that eating vegetables is healthy, but not know the correct means of preparation, thus causing the nutrients to become wasted. Over time, the incorrect perception becomes "common knowledge" and the truth of it becomes exclusive to those whose values lay outside their communal upbringing.

Like I said, I just wanted to clear that up, because the premise is sound, but the wording is heavily inaccurate.