2013 August 12 Monday
What Sociologists Consider Racism
The headline of a UMich Ann Arbor press release: Smart enough to know better: Intelligence is not a remedy for racism.
ANN ARBOR—Smart people are just as racist as their less intelligent peers—they're just better at concealing their prejudice, according to a University of Michigan study.
"High-ability whites are less likely to report prejudiced attitudes and more likely to say they support racial integration in principle," said Geoffrey Wodtke, a doctoral candidate in sociology. "But they are no more likely than lower-ability whites to support open housing laws and are less likely to support school busing and affirmative action programs."
So if you do not support making suburban kids go on bus rides to schools where the classes will be disrupted and they'll get beat up you are racist. Similarly, if you are opposed to racial preferences against white people you are prejudiced. Such are the workings of the typical liberal sociologist mind. Not surprising really. I expect sociologists to spout errant nonsense. Does that make me prejudiced against sociologists?
Research paid for by your tax dollars.
Wodtke presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. The National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health, supported his research.
If we oppose being discriminated against we are trying to protect our privileged social position?
According to Wodtke, the broader implication of this study is that racism and prejudice don't simply come about as a result of low mental capacities or deficiencies in socialization. Rather, they result from the need of dominant groups to legitimize and protect their privileged social position within an intergroup conflict over resources.
This is a view of society as fiefdoms and gangs. No mention of producers. No mention of more and less productive people. Effort? The sociologists paint a picture of the successful as people who are just successful at winning power and taking from others.
Sociology is detached from reality. Psychometrics, by contrast, has connected so well with what is real that the other social sciences mostly ignore it.
By Randall Parker at 2013 August 12 09:56 PM
"Racism" and "prejudice" are words that have become unmoored from any sober definitions. Akin to "communist" (U.S., 1950s), "saboteur" (USSR, 1930s), "witch" (Salem, late 1600s), and "heretic" (much of Christianity and Islam, over many centuries).
In my opinion, Steve Sailer has the best explanation for this fad -- the accusation of racism is used by Good People to club Evil People as a ritual of intra-white status competition.
In this Age of Irony, the elites' blindness to the underlying irony of their own posturing is darkly amusing.
The concept of "racism" in our society has interesting resemblances to the concept of "witchcraft" in some primitive cultures. In some of these latter cultures if anyone dies, becomes sick or suffers some other misfortune it is always attributed to sorcery by some enemy of the afflicted individual. In these cultures there seems to be no notion of a "natural" occurence rather everything that happens is understood as due to some kind of personal agency. I think animistic thinking of this sort is still deeply embedded in human psychology. So if blacks as a group don't do well this animistic tendency in human psychology makes many people think that black failure must be due to malevolent agents who are enemies of blacks. This kind of animistic thinking can be very compelling even in the total absence of any plausible causal mechanism. So the misfortunes of a city like Detroit must be due to the evil sorcery of "racists" even though Detroit has been completely under black rule for many decades.
Racism is just being a white person that doesn't hate non-elite white people. All white people should be racist. Anti-racism is just hatred of non-elite white people. No white person should be anti-racist.
To quote Randall: "This is a view of society as fiefdoms and gangs. No mention of producers. No mention of more and less productive people. Effort? The sociologists paint a picture of the successful as people who are just successful at winning power and taking from others."
This is because while the left is captured by big biz just as much as the right, the left has been captured by industries that are mostly value transfers, therefore they do not produce. The fiefdom, feudal mode of the economy is how the left views things. They do not understand manufacturing (their manufacturing union support has cratered compared to public ee unions) nor production, harvesting or natural resource extraction. The big biz interests that support the left are education, banking, public government ees, telecom, real estate, consumer tech, and big auto which rely on government policy and siphoning of tax dollars or regulated and directed commerce their way. There are some exceptions like consumer tech/telecom. For all its wodner, health care is still a transfer of wealth from the sick to teh healthy, and we can easily question the media-govt nexus of health recommendations that have only contributed to our obesity and mental health epidemics that fuels Big Pharma-Big Health's revenues. This sociologist as a member of academia is nothing without a multidecade policy of ever increasing student aid and loan programs nitro boosted by the Clinton era reform on loan discharge elimination and then the Bush era private student loan discharge removal. Look at the blue/red divide at the state economic level.
AMac opines: "In my opinion, Steve Sailer has the best explanation for this fad -- the accusation of racism is used by Good People to club Evil People as a ritual of intra-white status competition."
That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really explain much. After all, "holier than thou" is an ancient status-seeking tactic.
I think KMac has a more complete explanation in that it also accounts for why 'racism' -- out of the entire universe of criteria for moral condemnation -- was "chosen" for promotion in the 20th century theocracy.
white people are wealthier and enojoy better outcomes then do Black People
if we are all created equal then it standss to reason that whites are acting perfidiously
if you dispute that then you must beleive in white racial superiority otherwise the races would be equal
Once again Randall, you and some others here are mixing your ideas. You started talking about racism and ended up talking about wealth and power.
After we all agree on the definition of racism itself, then we can objectively address the issue and really find out if racism or any other form of discrimination is found more in intelligent or in low IQ people.
This "anti-racist" looks like a troll.
Of course he's a troll. Although in this case he's not far from a point.
If blacks did not enjoy a 1 sigma or so disadvantage in what pretty much everyone calls intelligence, and they had outcomes like we see today, the claim that it's some oppression/witchcraft/etc on the part of white people would be pretty damned credible. As it is, blacks with X IQ have outcomes very similar to whites of X IQ, and the level of X for blacks where you can expect a full ride writing your own ticket is honestly not very high.
If we were a bona-fide racist society, which I think we should be (for the reason that neutrality is effectively impossible, you will be hammer or anvil and I'd rather be who than whom), you'd see blacks being required to meet higher standards than whites for the same level of acceptance/scholarship/et al from our universities and in large corporate hiring. As it is it is much the reverse.
Heh, found his lunacy at Chuch Ross's site. He gets rolling about here in this thread.
Anti-Racist is posing an honest question. "if we are all created equal then... whites are acting perfidiously."
1. Black Americans born in Africa:
Black Americans born in Africa and their children average above the White average in academics.
If racism was responsible for outcomes, it would also affect Black Americans born in Africa.
Asian-Americans from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds than Black Americans (starvation and massacres in Cambodia, etc.) study until they're far above the White average.
Rather than complaining about others' excellence, become excellent ourselves.
"if we are all created equal then..." -- anti-racist
You're basing your argument on "Creationism"? Interesting.
Pretty much all contemporary Cathedral arguments require 'Creationism'---special creation by a god most assuredly NOT the Christian one. You see, the Christian God doesn't give a rats ass about equality. He hands out gifts to various races according to what He wants, not what we might think is fair. He doesn't even do them the courtesy of balancing things like a Champions gamemaster. In fact, He seems to take a great delight in tweaking them by giving even more to those who already have #e.g. things like NFL quality athletes usually having substantially better intelligence than the mean of their racial group and almost everything good in general being correlated#. Neither intellectually consistent Darwinian materialist nor orthodox Christian worldviews will get you to 'created equal' #except insofar as all humans have tremendous value to God being His children#.
Wherever black people go, there they are. Black students in Africa get average scores far below scores of non-black students in Africa. Therefore, non-black students must be acting perfidiously, and must be killed. And so they are. And raped. And beaten. And robbed and so on.
Black students in Europe and America get average scores far below scores of NAM students, unless you separate them into a tiny strata with numbers so miniscule as to lose any meaning for comparison.
Black students in the US from families with income over $100,000 score almost exactly the same on both M & V parts of the SAT as white students from families with income of $10,000. Just a tiny bit higher, but when actual raw numbers are taken into account not necessarily reaching statistical significance. Imagine being a black college student at Harvard coming from a family with income of $500,000 a year, being out-scored on the SAT by a poor white student going to Podunk State (no affirmative action for you, whitey!) coming from a family with an income of under $20,000 a year!
Deciding the winners and loser of tomorrow's society may have more to do with skin color than you think, just not in the way you may have thought.