February 25, 2017

Racism and IQ

Many studies going back over 60 years have shown that racism negatively correlates with IQ. In other words, people who score highly on tests of racism tend to score lowly on tests of intelligence.

Some have asserted that this fact should cast doubt on the racist view that African people are less intelligent than White people for partly genetic reasons. This assertion is usually hypocritical because the people making this claim normally also deny that IQ tests can measure intelligence. However, nearly all experts in intelligence research agree that IQ tests are not biased and this is for good reason. Given this, it is worth asking why racists have low IQ.

IQ Test Bias.png

(Reeve and Charles 2008)

Some people have suggested that having a low IQ leads people to be insecure and to fail in various lifelong pursuits. This creates a void in their self-esteem which they make up for by blaming their problems on other groups and by proclaiming that they are inherently superior to said groups. Thus, having a low IQ leads to prejudiced beliefs such as racism.

There are two good reasons to think that this is not true. First, IQ does not correlate with self-esteem. This makes it very unlikely that low IQ people are more likely than average to need to make up for low self-esteem. Secondly, low IQ people are more likely than average to be racist but they are not more likely than average to be prejudiced in general:

Brandt and Jarrett Crawford (The College of New Jersey) analyzed data from 5914 people in the United States that includes a measure of verbal ability and prejudice towards 24 different groups.

Analyzing the results, the researchers found that people with both relatively higher and lower levels of cognitive ability show approximately equal levels of intergroup bias, but towards different sets of groups. People with low cognitive ability tended to express prejudice towards groups perceived as liberal and unconventional (e.g., atheists, gays and lesbians), as well as groups of people perceived as having low choice over group membership (e.g., ethnic minorities). People with high cognitive ability showed the reverse pattern. They tended to express prejudice towards groups perceived as conservative and conventional (e.g., Christians, the military, big business)”

Whereas prior work by others found that people with low cognitive ability express more prejudice, we found that this is limited to only some target groups,” says Brandt. “For other target groups the relationship was in the opposite direction. For these groups, people with high levels of cognitive ability expressed more prejudice. So, cognitive ability also does not seem to make people immune to expressing prejudice.”

Another popular explanation for the negative correlation between racism and IQ is that racism is a stupid belief and, because of this, smart people are less likely to fall for it.

There are several problems with this explanation. Firstly, at a national level racism correlates very weakly (and statistically insignificantly) with IQ. In other words, there is only an extremely weak relationship between how smart a population is and how racist it is.

Secondly, until a few generations ago society was filled with lots of very smart people who we would now consider racist. If racism is so dumb, why is it that almost no one saw through it until 50 years ago? There is no satisfactory answer to this question.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, many scientists hold “racist” beliefs. For instance, most experts in the scientific study of human intelligence think that Africans are less intelligent than Whites for partly genetic reasons.

Source

Source

Similarly, there is a large empirical literature arguing that ethnic diversity has negative effects on social cohesion.

Questions like “Do you think that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites?” and “Would you prefer to not live around Blacks?” are commonplace in standard measures of racism.

Given this, we can see that “racist” beliefs are fairly common among scientific experts within the relevant fields but rare among smart people generally. This has happened because “smart racism” has been censored, derided, and deemed immoral by a select group of academics and political activists. Their efforts, in turn, have transformed many smart people into anti-racist robots who sneer at and condemn any break from anti-racist orthodoxy. In other words, being anti-racist has become essential to fitting-in in contemporary Smart Culture.

Race and IQ

The debate on race and IQ serves as a good illustration of how “academic racism” has been shut down. The modern race and IQ debate started with a now infamous paper by Berkeley psychologist named Arthur Jensen. Years after his 1969 article in which he suggested that Black underperformance on IQ tests might be partly due to genetics, he still had protesters disrupting his academic talks and still had to be escorted around campus by security guards due to attempted violence against him.

In the 1980’s the psychologist Phillipe Rushton came out as a hereditarian in the race and IQ debate. He was banned from teaching for years while the Canadian government pursued a criminal case against him for hate speech. (A case which completely failed).

The 1980’s also saw the publication of Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. This book, which won many awards and which was the subject of much praise, was filled with lies. For example, he made baseless accusations that the 19th century anthropologistsSamuel Morton mismeausred the size of skulls due to his racism. Morton’s own skulls have since been re-measured and it has been shown that Gould, not Morton, got the skull sizes wrong. Gould also denounced Morton for failing to make certain adjustments to data in a table even though he made those exact adjustments in another table in the same book.

In the 1990’s, the book The Bell Curve brought about a renewed public interest in the Race and IQ debate. Countless writers attacked the book on the grounds that it claimed that Blacks scored poorly on IQ tests almost entirely because of genes and that there was nothing we could do to change this. In fact, this was the conclusion the book came to:

“If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate.”

More recently, long-time science writer for the New-York-Times Nicholas Wade published the book A Troublesome Inheritance in which, according to a letter signed by 140 geneticists and published in the New-York-Times:

“Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork.”

In fact, Wade never said that work in genetics substantiated his views on these subjects and explicitly warned readers that, just as the letter says, he is engaging in speculation:

“Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution … The conclusions presented in these chapters fall far short of proof. However plausible (or otherwise) they may seem, many are speculative.” (Page 15)

Moreover, Wade doesn’t even argue that worldwide IQ differences are caused by genes. On page 190, he states that he doesn’t want to deal with this topic in his book:

“The hereditarians say that since the IQ gap is substantially innate, the Head Start early education program has failed, as was predicted by Arthur Jensen in 1969, and so will similar interventions. The environmentalists deny this,saying the gap in educational attainment is closing, and that it is the racist nature of society that impedes African American advancement. That issue needn’t be resolved here.”

On the other hand, on page 192 he seems to come out against hereditarianism:

“There is a 10 to 15 point difference in IQ scores between the richer and poorer countries of Europe, yet these differences disappear when the inhabitants migrate to the United States, so the differences are evidently an environmental effect, not a genetic one. If European IQ scores can vary so widely across different decades and locations, it is hard to be sure that any other ethnic differences are innate rather than environmental.”

Thus, 140 geneticists signed a letter which blatantly lied about Wade’s work.

Even James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, was fired from a lab he helped to start after coming out as a hereditarian on Race and IQ.

The Existence of Race

The debate over the biological existence of race has gone on in much the same way. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the anthropologist Robert Sussman:

“In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists. Since that time similar statements have been published by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and an enormous amount of modern scientific data has been gathered to justify this conclusion. Today the vast majority of those involved in research on human variation would agree that biological races do not exist among humans. Among those who study the subject, who use and accept modern scientific techniques and logic, this scientific fact is as valid and true as the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.”

Several things are worth noting. First, when you look at actual surveys you find that, in the West, about 1 in 3 physical anthropologists believe that human races are real. Endorsement of the reality of race is higher among actual biologists and higher still in Eastern Europe and East Asia where a clear majority of anthropologists believe that human races exist.

Belief in Race among Anthropologists and Biologists

Newer European survey

Use of Race in Journals

All charts from here

Secondly, Sussman is simply lying about the 1950 statement by UNESCO. He claims that this statement asserted that race is “not a biological reality but a myth”. Here is what it actually said:

“A race, from the biological standpoint, may therefore be defined as one of the group of populations constituting the species Homo sapiens. These populations are capable of inter-breeding with one another but, by virtue of the isolating barriers which in the past kept them more or less separated, exhibit certain physical differences as a result of their somewhat different biological histories. These represent variations, as it were, on a common theme. In short, the term “ race ” designates a group or population characterized by some concentrations, relative as to frequency and distribution, of hereditary particles (genes) or physical characters, which appear, fluctuate, and often disappear in the course of time by reason of geographic and or cultural isolation. These are the scientific facts… Human races can be and have been differently classified by different anthropologists, but at the present time most anthropologists agree on classifying the greater part of present-day mankind into three major divisions, as follows: The Mongoloid Division, The Negroid Division, (and) The Caucasoid Division.”

Sussman is telling the truth when he says that American Association of Physical Anthropologists has issued a statement denying the existence of race. This is the same AAPA which, in 1961, famously released a document attacking a book about the biological reality of race which almost no one in the AAPA had actually read. The then president of the AAPA resigned due to how disgraceful he thought his colleague’s actions were.

That being said, statements by the AAPA and similar organizations are extremely important because they have a massive influence on what society thinks that scientists believe.

This gets us back to our original question: why are smart people in the West relatively unlikely to be racist? The answer is that they never hear the smart reasons for being “racist” or, when they due, those reasons are framed as immoral and the people making them as cranks. Instead, they are socialized to hate racists. This is part of Smart Culture.

However, this norm is not nearly as common in “dumb culture”. In “dumb culture” racism is more likely to be accepted because “dumb” people are less likely to have been subjected to the lies about racism that academia and the media peddles and are less likely to be surrounded by anti-racists who shame them for their views.

Given the massive propaganda campaign against racism that has been raged among the upper classes of society, what else would you expect?

Facebook Comments
  • B.B.

    Sussman is telling the truth when he says that the American Anthropological Association has issued a statement deny the existence of race. This is the same AAA which, in 1961, famously released a document attacking a book about the biological reality of race which almost no one in the AAA had actually read. The then president of the AAA resigned due to how disgraceful he thought his colleague’s actions were.

    You are confusing the American Association of Physical Anthropologists with the American Anthropological Association which are two separate and independent organzations. John P. Jackson Jr, an anti-hereditarian writes about the incident regarding Carleton Putnam’s Race and Reason & Carleton S. Coon’s resignation from the AAPA here:

    http://users.clas.ufl.edu/davidson/Jim%20Crow%20America%20Spring%202016/Jim%20Crow%20America%20course%20readings/Week%203%20Race%20and%20Racism/Jackson%202001.pdf

  • ImTellinYa

    A lot of this low-IQ racism idea can be explained by the “Bell Curve.” The concept of IQ stratification means that high-IQ people have been particularly susceptible to Leftist indoctrination at the university level. These deluded people have joined the cognitive elite, and are under a huge amount of pressure to conform to the Leftist globalist, multiculturalist lies, fantasies and false assumptions. In order to belong to the Leftist ruling elite, one must develop a pathological system of torturous rationalizations in order to believe that there are no differences between the races in terms of IQ and temperament.

    Before IQ stratification, high-IQ people were distributed more evenly within the income and educational levels found among White people. It is a rule that proximity of Whites to nonWhites results in the understanding that nonWhites are savages or semi-savages compared to Whites. Also, as you pointed out, the cognitive elite was also aware of White superiority. This includes the fact that Whites are superior to Jews, who are essentially high-IQ, parasitic Gypsies: Clannish, corrupt, immoral compared to Whites in general.

    With IQ stratification we have removed large numbers of high-IQ Whites from the working class White population. This means that the White working class is now the only group of Whites who understand that a Leftist elite is destroying their civilization by romanticizing, bribing, preferring and importing hordes of uncivilized third-world savages; especially from Mexico and other points south.

    So there might be a correlation between low-IQ and racism (racism being a perfectly appropriate stance at this point in our history). When a Leftist calls me a racist, I am deeply flattered.

    In any event, more and more high-IQ Whites are beginning to understand that nonWhites are the enemy when they are defiling our countries from within. Our own president is a horrifying example. Obonzo is the ultimate example of an affirmative-action parasite. Hillary is the ultimate example of a profoundly mentally-ill Leftist. She is a perfect example of the social pathology of Leftism currently destroying White civilization.

    • The term “superior” is not quantifiable.

      https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/15/the-concept-of-more-evolved-reply-to-pumpkin-person/

      How do you quantify this? It makes no biological sense. There are fit and unfit organisms for any given environment but to say one organism is “superior” over the other, “more evolved” makes no biological sense as we evolve based on our environment.

      • You can define “superiority” in a way that is not tied to a teleological account of evolution. All you have to do is pick some standard.

        That being said, using terms like “superior” is probably not good PR.

        • Of course it’s not good PR. However, the term arises when you choose one or a few traits. Organisms evolve for their environment, thus you cannot quantify if one organism is superior to another.

          Are we superior to the trillions of gut microbiota in our body that dictate our metabolism and how we digest food and other variables? Are cows superior to their gut microbiota? Their gut microbiota makes it possible to break down the cell wall of the cud to extract nutrients. This would have taken an extremely long time to evolve in cows, gut microbiota generations are extremely fast.

          Superior is not quantifiable in regards to organisms and human races. It’s subjective, not objective.

          • Sure, normativity is always subjective. That does not make it any less important. We are superior to gut bacteria in terms of most traits that we would care about.

          • Sure. But the gut microbiota makes it possible for us to function at the level we currently do.

            Superior is not quantifiable. We all evolved in different environments and thus evolved different traits. Even some organisms who evolved in the same place have different features due being in slightly different environments on the same landmass.

            Superior in regards to organisms on earth is a nonsense term. It’s meaningless.

            I know you know these basic evolutionary facts. Sure humans are adaptable, but that doesn’t mean superior. Ate sharks superior to us because they can live in water and we can’t? Are we superior to sharks since we can live on land and they can’t?

            No. We too different evolutionary paths and traits got selected for that benefitted that organism in its environment.

            This is why the term superior in regards to organisms is useless. It’s not quantifiable. They only arise on one or a few traits but as a whole it’s meaningless.

  • Liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

    This is shown in birth rates. Conservatives have more kids, liberals have fewer kids.

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/out-of-wedlock-births-liberals-and-conservatives/

    As for my pioneer hypothesis, it appears that, as discovered, improved conservative fertility stems from the fact that conservatives simply get married earlier and more often. Any observed conservative “natalist” effect among unmarried Whites is really an IQ effect (since conservatives have lower IQs on average, than do liberals, as evidence from the relative sample sizes above).

    Satoshi Kanazawa found that liberal beliefs were positively correlated with IQ.

    http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth

    Atheists have higher IQs and religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ. Lefties are more likely to be atheist, more likely pursue education and hold off on having kids.

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-liberalconservative-baby-gap-time-depth/

    I say this as a right-winger myself.

    • Liberalism is correlated with IQ, sure, but how does that contradict this article?

      Also, I think that talking about liberalism in isolation as one of many conceptualizations of ideologue is somewhat misleading. Social liberalism has a positive and linear relationship with IQ. The relationship between economic views and IQ is debated, but it either has a non linear relationship with IQ or a linear relationship such that more pro free market people tend to be smarter. Also, in terms of party ID, republicans are smarter than democrats. All these conceptualizations of ideologue must be looked at at once, in my opinion, in order to get a clear view of things.

      It is also worth noting that republicans and democrats don’t differ significantly in terms of political knowledge, nor do climate change deniers and advocates.

      But, again, I don’t think any of this info contradicts anything I said in this article.

      • Conservatives are more likely to be “racist” (whatever that means) which is correlated with low IQ

        I agree with you that pro-free market people tend to be smarter. Lynn and Vanhanen’s data attests to this.

    • ThomasER916

      Do we count Mestizos and Africans as “Liberal”?

      If not then you’re just lying.

      • Not a response.

        • ThomasER916

          Mestizos and Negroes have the lowest IQs of any biological group and they completely dominate Liberal demographics.

          So, putting this all together you’re selecting a sample size that excludes Negroes and Mestizos.

          • Jeff

            Most blacks and mestizos hold views that would not be considered very “socially liberal” at all. Blacks and mestizos vote for “leftist” universalist parties because it benefits their racial interests.

          • ThomasER916

            Are White Liberals not intelligent enough to figure that out?

          • What a surprise. I’ve linked more then I should have to prove my point. Keep trying to wish it were different though.

          • ThomasER916

            What a surprise!

            Keep trying to wish DNA doesn’t exist and brains are magical and not heritable.

          • Lol what the hell are you talking about!? You really think I believe that? Nice strawman!!!

            You’re an idiot if you think DNA doesn’t exist and that “brains aren’t heritable”. Maybe you meant to say that brain size and IQ are heritable? I’m 6 million percent sure I know more on this matter than you my friend.

            Check out my blog and then make those statements.

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me

            Again, nice job not responding to the multitude of links I’ve posted here to back my claim.

            Please point out where I said what you claimed. You’re strawmanning me. I’ve never claimed that.

        • Theodore Tait

          So are you thus implying that your thesis regarding religiosity being negatively correlated with IQ extends to studies of all forms of theism around the globe, and not just Judaic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Because you would be lying if you said that is the case.

          Secondly, you seem to neglect that liberalism and conservatism are not the only political ideologies. I did read these studies, they revealed that about 7% of scientists are conservative, around 23% are liberal, and the rest of them are something else entirely. And so this could mean they are conservatives who are undercover, which is highly unlikely, or that both your political paradigms are inferior in regards to logic.

          Is pacifism logical? No. Liberal ideology is based on emotion, and the disregard for science when it does not validate a liberal ideal, if you need an example google the concept itself. You attempt to be highly intelligent and yet are attempting to neglect the fact alternative, far superior political ideals suggest, and that highly educated people tend to belong to the alternative, not your left or right.

          Are you also attempting to claim that theoretical physicists are incompetent? Einstein was a theoretical physicist. So was Tesla, Newton, and I could go on forever. Theism is not restricted to your definition thereof. Atheism is critical by nature, and whilst it is true that critics are more intelligent than brain-washed sheep, critics are far less intelligent than those intuitive men that revolutionize and pioneer science, who tend to be theistic, sorry to burst your bubble.

          Let me simplify this argument since the concept might be complex for you to grasp. You see Liberalism is not an improvement, it is a replacement for Christianity. The New Testament is very pacifist, just as liberalism is. You see Liberalism has become existential to your identity, just as Christianity was to your ancestors, because it has been cultivated from a young age within society. Liberalism has become common, you are a commoner. Critics are not something to aspire to be, critics said Galileo was wrong because they lacked the technology to prove it, same with the ancient Greeks regarding their significant contributions to physics and other sciences, and yet today it is common knowledge. Critics said Einstein was wrong regarding relativity, which was later proven. The difference between a commoner such as yourself who is a narrow-minded critic, and a genius in intuition. They can fathom things that are simply too complex for the technology we currently possess to scientifically prove, but which will probably be proven in the future.

          Your attempt to cling to a study which shows that 70 % of scientists are not liberal, in the attempt to prove that you’re intelligent via associating with them due to liberalism has failed. You are an idiot. Keep quoting other people and believing that makes you as intelligent as they are.

    • INFOCAT

      r/K Selection Theory. r-Selected Leftoids simply use more birth control and the more liberal a mother is and the higher her IQ the more likely she is to consider an Abortion as well. r-Selected people have less investment in Children, they value human life less, are more narcissistic and materialistic thats why they try to get resources first and later on if at all get children. But Children are not their main motivation in life! Materialism is! They want to have fun in life, without any responsibilities towards children. Thats why Jaymans data shows that the further left you go the less children intelligent left wingers have.
      http://www.unz.com/jman/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/
      http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/
      I am a genetic leftist and indeed we are more materialistic, nihilistic, atheist ….

  • Ethan Hurt

    Low-IQ whites mostly live within the lower economic echelons of society among parallel societies of low-IQ non-whites.
    You’re average redneck has had more interactions with blacks than an egghead from some 97%-white New England gated community.
    Familiarity breeds contempt.

    • ThomasER916

      1,400 gang rapes of White girls by non-White men in Rotherham

  • J.j. Cintia

    I have an alternate explanation you poindexters have obviously overlooked. Smarter people lie on these surveys because they know what the survey givers want to hear and fear losing their jobs. Less smart people are more honest because they don’t realize that racism is bullshit and that being honest will get them in trouble with Anti-White cretins destroying our society with their bogus egalitarian fantasies.

    • Gilberto Carlos

      Smart people also tend to be wealthier and pay to not live near blacks(AKA, pay to live in “Good neighborhoods with good schools”), so, with less contact they can imagine they are just like them.

  • blackacidlizzard

    “Sussman is telling the truth when he says that American Association of Physical Anthropologists has issued a statement denying the existence of race.”

    Bullet-point #9 of which requires that there is no such thing as recessive traits nor such a thing as polygenic traits. Literally pretending to not know high-school level biology.

  • Culturist John

    This video puts your argument in a larger context. That is the Left is consistently ‘anti-science” the alt-right champions science and race awareness is part of that!