Talk:Scientific racism

Untitled This article was nominated for deletion on January 21 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Yerkes, eugenics, and other activities

The statement, "Following the United States Civil Rights Movement, many scientists who previously studied racial differences moved to other fields. For example, Robert Yerkes, who previously worked on the World War I Army intelligence testing, moved to the field of primatology" is incorrect. For one thing, Yerkes Robert Yerkes had been a primatologist before World War I, and died in the mid-1950s. He never abandoned eugenics or scientific racism (though he significantly de-emphasized these in his writings after around 1930), nor did he address the Civil Rights Movement Civil Rights Movement (which wasn't really in progress until after his death). In fact, many well-known eugenicists were always involved in other activities, or became so involved by the 1930s, and after World War II at the latest, generally abandoned any published work or public references to eugenics or scientific racism, in favor of their more "legitimate" pursuits. -ibycusreggio 10:50, 6 February 2011

Some Validity Is Worth Mentioning

Blacks have a disproportionately high representation in the National Baskbetball league, and in prisons of all mixed race countries, and there is a scientific explanation for it, somewhere.

Those are just self-serving prejudices. How about: the United States incarcerates more people than any country, of any 'race', on the planet. The United States also introduced the criminalisation of hemp, which goes a long way to explain their incarceration rates. And of course, the system of opression doesn't change, it just changes names. It changed from Indentured Servitude into Chattel Slavery in 1740, from Chattle Slavery to Jim Crow in 1865, from Jim Crow into the War on Drugs in 1968, when Richard Nixon came to power. Why does China have a much lower incarceration rate than the US, even thouch China is a totalitarian communist state? All African countries have lower incarceration rates than the United States, and they are often all-Black. This is the problem of trying to see the world through the prism of something that doesn't exist - race.MrSativa (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The questions are about everything else, i.e. who is brave and foolish enough to publish theories and risk their careers, enraging a class of people predisposed to violence and contradict political dogma as given to us by the one world government.

Oh yes, those brave bellcurvers, Charles Murray was already working for the Koch Brothers when he published The Bell Curve in 1994. He had been a member of the American Enterprise Institue since 1990. http://www.aei.org/author/charles-murray/ Another problem is that they avoided peer review, in order to prevent actual experts from ripping their data manipulation and deceptions to shreds. You should check out The Bell Curve Flattened, by Nicholas Lemann, in Slate Magazine, from 1997.MrSativa (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And honest Wikipedia articles mentions all the reasons why a fair and balanced article on this topic will never be allowed for a long list of reasons, and the best that a vulnerable-to-the-will-of-the-retarded-and-centrally-indoctrinated-and-controlled-majority will be able to produce is something that looks just like this. Long on condemnation and moralizing, and short on actual scientific data that shows relevant and reliably measurable differences between (primarily) the black and white race, with supporting and corroborating data comparing black to asian races.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such "actual scientific data" I am afraid. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nearly 100 years of IQ testing is not "actual scientific data" for you?

Then why are they still using IQ tests today? Do they have too much money to waste?KevinFrom (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- IQ tests were originally invented by Binet to be used as a rough and approximate diagnostic tool for discovering cases of significant mental abnormality, rather than as a method of slotting people into rigid and narrow categories, or as a basis for advanced numerological exercises.

After 100 years, there's still significant dispute as to what IQ tests are actually measuring, but it's certain that they are not measuring an abstract innate cognitive capacity which is completely independent of all variations of cultural background and life experiences... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, whatever Binet thought about the purpose of IQ tests is irrelevant. Tests can be validly used for any purpose that is supported by evidence. Secondly, the idea that Binet thought that the only use for IQ was as "a rough and approximate diagnostic tool" is a fabrication by Stephen Jay Gould. In reality, Binet hoped that IQ tests would be used for large-scale social engineering in the future:

It now remains to explain the use of our measuring scale which we consider a standard of the child's intelligence. Of what use is a measure of intelligence? Without doubt one could conceive many possible applications of the process, in dreaming of a future where the social sphere would be better organized than ours; where every one would work according to his known aptitudes in such a way that no particle of psychic force should be lost for society. That would be the ideal city. ([[1]])

As to IQ not being "an abstract innate cognitive capacity which is completely independent of all variations of cultural background and life experiences", no one's arguing that it is, so why on earth would attack such a strawman?--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone with respectable professional credentials overtly and explicitly claims that nowadays, but it's pretty much what IQ tests would need to be for most of the conclusions of the race-differentiators to be placed on a solid footing. AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's certainly not what would be needed. IQ is influenced by both heredity and the environment, and the latter includes the influences of cultural background and life experiences. There are research designs that enable the estimation of group differences in the genetic and environmental determinants of IQ.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- you can correlate measured IQ (a complex and problematic entity) against socially-ascribed "race" (a complex and problematic entity), but if you're a race-differentiator, then neither of the things that you're correlating are what you really want and need to be correlating to be able to establish your conclusions on a sound footing. What you really want to correlate is an abstract innate cognitive capacity which is completely independent of all variations of cultural/social background and individual life experiences vs. genetics -- but you can't directly measure abstract innate cognitive capacity, and you can't directly measure genetics in any useful way, so you have to make do with correlating two imperfect proxies. All the advanced numerology in the world won't necessarily help you find a clear and exact correlation between two things when you're not able to measure either of them in any direct or immediate way... AnonMoos (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actual "race-differentiators" such as Arthur Jensen have never felt any need for your pure Platonic categories.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's one reason why their conclusions have not achieved broader acceptance, as I was trying to explain to User:Jonny_Quick and User:KevinFrom. If they were actually directly measuring what they wanted to correlate (instead of correlating two indirect and complicated proxies), then they might be able to present their data in a simple and clear fact-based manner which would likely compel acceptance from many objective and honest researchers, regardless of political correctness. As things actually are, this has not happened... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, they conduct social science research, and their results, no matter how compelling by the standards of social science, are not compelling to everyone. Nevertheless, surveys indicate that Jensen's position on race and IQ is the modal one among experts.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

True, some people will only be convinced by a number regardless of whether they know what is being counted or how.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a pure "social sciences" problem, and if social sciences methods only are used, then professionals from truly scientific fields like brain physiology and genetics are unlikely to be convinced... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Truly scientific"? Anyway, this is becoming WP:FORUM. Please discuss the article itself, not the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

---

P.S. For athletic factors mentioned in User:Jonny_Quick's original message, we have article Race and sports... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor Edits of Dec 10, 2014

I (Mark v1.0) added a link to the German Wikipedia article of Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, that showed up as (de). A minor edit that a reader fluent in German would be happy to have to click on. I don't think it should be reverted.

The second minor edit (that was reverted) was adding the title of doctor to Josef Mengele, which he was. It was doctors who started and carried out the Nazi final solution. I started a Wikipedia article on the subject called Nazi doctors. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Political pressure on hereditarianism

Not one word on the political pressure on the hereditarian viewpoint. Very biased article.NICK BOWMANwiki (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the political pressure in the 1920s in support of hereditarianism, or something else? AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Justifying White European imperialism

Is there any source for the broad claim that "Scientific racism was common during the New Imperialism period (c. 1880s – 1914) where it was used in justifying White European imperialism"? Since both China and Japan also thought they were racially superior to other counties, the claim - if substantiated - should not be limited to "White European imperialism".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hegel

"nevertheless, it justified European imperialism until the First World War (1914–18)"

Reference? If none, then the above needs to be deleted.