Wednesday, May 15, 2013

More Fun With Race and IQ: He Ain't No Racist! Jason Richwine is a Misunderstood Victim Because He Just Loves Research and Data

Jason Richwine's being driven out of the public square for his race-science-IQ habit will soon be derailing into the common mud and side road gutter of white victimhood .

For now, let us enjoy the show.

His interview with the Atlantic is an ideal-typical example of colorblind racism in practice. This is comedy gold. One cannot make up such a gem:
Richwine says his passion for outlining the case for racial inferiority is rooted in his love of data not racism.
"I love data" is the new "some of my best friends are black" colorblind racism deflection.

The Atlantic piece continues:
Richwine's argument that he is not a racist because he does not think of himself as a racist is not very persuasive, although it is commonBut even more problematic is that Richwine also admits to York that he's not very good at spotting racism...People like blogger E.D. Kain have dubbed the site "ugly white nationalism." Richwine said he didn't think anything was problematic, telling York, "I thought it would be like a paleo-conservative website. I had seen that [former National Review writer] John Derbyshire had also published something there." Derbyshire was left The National Review because he wrote an essay about how he tells his kids to avoid groups of black people but to have one black friend to inoculate against charges of racism.
Once more, someone should have told Richwine that racism is not an opinion; racism is not a function of intentionality or if you "meant" to be "racist"; racism is not just about hurt feelings, mean words, and outliers like the KKK; racism is both day-to-day and structural; a person can unconsciously (as well as unintentionally) contribute to the maintenance, support, furthering, and legitimacy of systems of white racial domination through their own seemingly "neutral" actions.

In short, if you are participating in a research project that demonstrates that some "racial" groups are "smarter" than others, then yes, you are more likely than not involved in a racist enterprise. If this scientific research then has the most curious and interesting repeated finding that whites are almost always the most "intelligent" group and blacks are almost always the least "intelligent" group, then you sir are most certainly involved in a project which furthers white supremacy. If you look around the room and your fellow researchers who are making this amazing--and self-validating discovery--are almost all white, then you sir are most definitely involved in a white racist project.

If one is cool with that then so be it; do not run away from the implications of that choice.


grumpy rumblings said...

I think it's ok to be involved in research that shows that one group is doing better than another on any spectrum. The trick is to correctly attribute the *why* part. Is it because you're testing the wrong things or the test is biased? Is it because of stereotype threat? Is it because of institutionalized discrimination? Unequal opportunities? Unequal access?

Then there are policy prescriptions to equalize access, opportunities, discrimination, or to make better tests. The goal is to level the playing field and to lift all boats.

Attributing any group difference (implicitly or explicitly) to genetics is a pretty lazy answer, unless you are a geneticist and have some pretty strong proof (which, with the exception of a few diseases that are more prevalent in various populations, nobody has done).

chauncey devega said...

Absolutely. The why, the variables, the context, and the alternate hypotheses need to be thoroughly explained. There is so much path dependency on this race science mess. The IQ test is not neutral. Science is not neutral. Funny, how many of these researchers either slept during their philosophy of science courses or simply didn't pay attention.

Anonymous said...

If you would like to obtain much from this post then you have to
apply these methods to your won web site.

Also visit my web blog; magnetized flashlights

Miles_Ellison said...

We've reached the point where being called a racist is worse than actually being one. The word has been thrown around so much that nobody seems to recognize it in its pure form anymore. This is the essence of racism. America is a 21st century nation being dragged kicking and screaming into 19th.

iamfantastikate said...

Jason Richwine is a perfect example of someone who's satisfied with remaining ignorant to ensure his own personal comfort. I mean, how/why else would a man who says he's "not racist" and that he "loves data" not want to venture any deeper than "dark skin = not smart"? That sounds like a pretty weak love affair right there. It also sounds maybe, just maybe, extraordinarily racist.

Even if the results of (flawed and biased) IQ tests do present differences between races, I don't know how anyone who "loves data" wouldn't want to understand WHY there are differences. It would be like the medical community saying, "There are more men with diabetes than women. Huh, isn't that interesting? Anyway, let's move on. Nothing to see here."

If people like Richwine dug a little deeper they might have to face a reality that didn't paint them so rosily when it comes to equality. Hopefully this will be something Richwine learns from in the future, but I fear it's doubtful. Fox News will probably snatch him up before he has time to learn about racism.

Good riddance to this dude. Now if we could only give the Heritage Foundation the boot, too...

CNu said...

The why is simple, obvious, and heritable

The question is one of whether or not the behavioral tendency conducing to diminished parental invesmtent in offspring is hereditary, or not....,

Elly said...

Admittedly, my experience may be a bit dated, but I spent many years both studying at and employed by the University of California (I left in 1995). My degrees (BS/MS) and positions (post-graduate researcher/staff research associate) were in the sciences... but I was never, at any time, required to take any philosophy of science courses - nor were any of the many grad students I worked with. And if any of the adjunct/tenure-track/tenured faculty I worked under were, they certainly didn't discuss it.

My first exposure to philosophy of science came from reading Phillip Kitcher's "Abusing Science" - about the time when I first entered grad school. But that was basically recreational reading (for lack of a better description). My formal education was entirely focused on the acquisition of technical knowledge and skills.

Obviously, my experience may not be generalizable to other schools, departments and researchers, but at the very least, it hints at another explanation beyond "slept during" or "didn't pay attention." IMHO, "didn't take any philosophy of science courses at all" is a distinct possibility.

chauncey devega said...

That is actually scary given the history of science and its many misuses. Why do you think those courses are not obligatory?

chauncey devega said...

"Even if the results of (flawed and biased) IQ tests do present differences between races, I don't know how anyone who "loves data" wouldn't want to understand WHY there are differences."

Once you are validated that your group is naturally superior to others why do any farther? I honestly do think the answer is that simple.

CNu said...

lol, a perfectly well and properly educated individual. Leave that sentimental, hand-wavy isht for those incapable of acquiring/mastering quantitative knowledge/skills, and let those pathetic jokers hustle hard for a sympathetic audience.

Everything else is merely conversation....,

CNu said...

WW-III is pending. Somebody stands to make a significant fortune in the organization and operation of "comfort stations" for the soldiers....,

chauncey devega said...

God forbid someone actually understands the context for their training, its history, and how it has been applied and misapplied. Sometimes it seems as if you are advocating for a very technical type of training that does rise to the level of proper knowledge or intellect.

You are also very suspicious of most of the knowledge and training in the humanities and social sciences. At least you are consistent.

Do you just want a bunch of plodding sheep that are very good at math?

Funny. And vexing. Your choice ultimately.

chauncey devega said...

real or virtual? how about just stimulating those synapses continually?

CNu said...

rotflmbao...., Like I need somebody half my age, indoctrinated by a bunch of ugly white leftist females who preside over their fate in the academy, and who have cultivated two or three generational crops of ineffectual, pompous, sentimental, infantile and largely imaginal rage indignatoids - providing me with "context" for a dayyum thing?!?!?!

Y'all need to provide yourselves with "context" for gainful employment in the collapsing economies of higher ed, or acquire some marketable vocational skills.

Anonymous said...

This website was... how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something that
helped me. Cheers!

Feel free to surf to my blog post: