How to know if you're a racist

As Steve Sailer points out, Jon Krosnick, a professor at Stanford University, uses the following question to measure racist attitudes:

It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.

I presume that agreeing with this statement makes one racist, which makes me not a racist because I would disagree. The IQ gap between whites and blacks is such that no amount of trying harder will ever enable blacks to be as well off as whites, not in a country in which those with IQs below 100 aren’t qualified for decent career tracks.

Of course denialism of HBD is taken as a given, so the assumption is that agreement with the statement means that the respondent denies the “fact” that massive racism is preventing blacks from being as well off as whites, and such denialism of racism is considered to be racist.

Comments

[anonymous]

Hilarious

If you're actually racist, you're more likely to show up on the survey as not racist.

[M Steinberg]

Interesting, I'll be emailing Krosnick and referring him in particular to some of Michael Levin's work.

[M Steinberg]

Regarding HBD denialism, it's interesting to see Murray Rothbard's comments after the NY Times gave reasonable reviews to Herrnstein & Murray's TBC, Rushton's book and Seymour Itzkoff's book on 'The Decline of Intelligence in America'. Rothbard seemed to think HBD would no longer be suppressed. Rothbard concluded:

"Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

[de Broglie]

Is Sigma joking? I think the opposite means you are not racist. HBD deniers often say it is the environment and culture that lead blacks to underperform.

[Lexus Liberal]

But since the system is "rigged" because of white privilege or institutional racism, even if "African-Americans" did have similar mental and physical capabilities, they would still start at a disadvantage in today's system and hence be stuck in the cycle.

My PC indoctrinated well versed and hence probably well received answer.

On its own, I would also disagree with the statement.

[JHP]

Oddly, Krosnik lives in a lily-white town. Diversity for thee, but not for me...

[M Steinberg]

OT.

"The Des Moines Register has endorsed Mitt Romney. Why is this news. The last time the Register endorsed a Republican for President was in 1972. They endorsed Jimmy Carter twice, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukasis, John Kerry etc. For them not to endorse Barack Obama, is momentous.

The Register is the daily newspaper of the largest city in Iowa, and it is a swing state – only six electoral votes, but not a state Obama will want to lose.Iowa has voted Democrat five of the last six presidential elections."

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/10/the_des_moines_register_endorses_mitt_romney.html

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The IQ gap between whites and blacks is such that no amount of trying harder will ever enable blacks to be as well off as whites,"

Well, even though they can't equal whites, we could probably improve their performance somewhat more. But why should whites even bother to help them?

[James]

Is this the full list of questions?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QORW1i6XDKgC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=It%E2%80%99s+really+a+matter+of+some+people+just+not+trying+hard+enough;+if+Blacks+would+only+try+harder,+they+could+be+just+as+well+off+as+whites.&source=bl&ots=CdEFxa0CUR&sig=o_3giRSuM9CQdyXWsxgO9gGADfc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k96NUI-AGtGXiQfnr4Ag&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%E2%80%99s%20really%20a%20matter%20of%20some%20people%20just%20not%20trying%20hard%20enough%3B%20if%20Blacks%20would%20only%20try%20harder%2C%20they%20could%20be%20just%20as%20well%20off%20as%20whites.&f=false

It would be pretty easy to go through each one and show why the "racist" answer is probably true or semi-true.

[not too late]

"If you're actually racist, you're more likely to show up on the survey as not racist."

Exactly. That is the beauty of it. It is designed so that it will give its author material to spin.

Consider this, tests like MMPI include items that are designed to reveal if someone is lying in order to look better or lying to look worse. Several of the questions on this test have that sort of design. So, yes, in a culture where is well known that you never are allowed to make racial/racist statements, the design of this test means that all responses can be spun as racist.

On the MMPI there are yes or no items like,

"I like tall women"

What are you supposed to say?

or

"I like my mother more than my father"

Basically every question is a gotcha question.

If you weren't crazy before the test, you will at least be annoyed when you are done.

[Paco Mermela]

Why is the word "Blacks" capitalized in the survey question, but the word "whites" is not?

[downwardly-mobile]

I don't think HBD is fundamentally incompatible with discussions of privilege.

Think of it this way:
- Having a high IQ means having certain advantages.
- Having a low IQ means having certain advantages.
- Being white means having certain advantages.
- Being black means having certain advantages.

There are probably disadvantages to being black that go beyond just low IQ. (High IQ black person is more likely to be ostracized, will not know any other very high IQ people, will face identity issues that a white person would not face etc)

The problem is our inability to discuss this stuff honestly and compassionately.

The problem is we have no realy

[Bernie]

"I presume that agreeing with this statement makes one racist, which makes me not a racist because I would disagree."

I thought the same thing.

It might help if these "researchers" and "sociology" professors came up with a sane definition of racism.

[Insider]

Uh huh...
...what's racist is shutting off one's imagination to anything beyond 'low IQ/low future time orientation, therefore state-sanctioned reproductive eugenics.'

While one could argue that 'oh, but it's based around low-IQ/future time' I doubt it. The HBD community focuses its animosity toward blacks.

And with regard to state-sanctioned reproductive eugenics...when you have 'libertarians' clamoring for such a high level of government invasion, animus is a likely motivator. So, even answering the question from a typical HBD'er's perspective can---and oft times will---land one squarely in the racist zone.

[EssEm]

Of course the word "racist" has become meaningless except as a rhetorical club to beat your enemies.

All it ever means is Whites holding a less than favorable-to-worshipful attitude toward non-Whites, especially toward Blacks.

Which is not allowed.

Just because.

[MoreSigmasThanYou]

"And with regard to state-sanctioned reproductive eugenics...when you have 'libertarians' clamoring for such a high level of government invasion, animus is a likely motivator. So, even answering the question from a typical HBD'er's perspective can---and oft times will---land one squarely in the racist zone."

That depends. Do they also break with the ideology on any other big issues where animosity clearly isn't a motivation? e.g. pounding everyone with energy taxes now to prevent a future peek oil crisis, or going to single payer health insurance because imperfect information makes the market too inefficient? If not, then you might be right.

[Just Speculating]

Ashkenazis with high IQs have given America a track record of productivity and progression.

It has not bode well with East Asians in terms of full capacity.

Some Asians blame White racism for their lackluster of achievments in America. So having a high IQ has been a disadvantage for them.

Or is it that high IQness for Asians wouldn't matter much in the 1st place? HBD would say Asians were evolved to be less creative and inventive. These qualities have been mostly given to Whites.