[NYTr] Racism and the American Psyche: Thoughts on Race and Intelligence

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

CounterPunch - Dec 7, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/piety12072007.html


Racism and the American Psyche:

Some Thoughts on Race and Intelligence

By M. G. PIETY

Race is in the news again. First it was the Jena Six, then Nobel
laureate James D. Watson's assertion, that black are less intelligent
than whites, and finally, a series of articles two weeks ago in Slate
arguing that there was scientific evidence to back Watson's claim.

The reaction to these recent developments was predictable. There have
been a number of heated debates on the internet concerning not only
race and intelligence, but also the appropriateness of studying race and
intelligence. Two crucial points have yet to be made, however. The first
concerns the contentious association of intelligence with IQ score and
the second is the equally contentious assumption that we have anything
like a clear scientific conception or race.

Let's take the first one first. What is intelligence anyway? We have no
better grasp of this than we have of the relation of the mind to the
brain. Sure, some people can solve certain sorts of puzzles faster than
other people, but everyone knows people who are great at Scrabble, or
crosswords, or chess, or who can fix almost any mechanical or
electrical gadget, but who seem unable to wrap their minds around even
the most rudimentary of social or political theories. Then there are
the people with great memories who are able to retain all the elements
of even the most arcane theories and who can undertake an explanation
of them if pressed, but whose inability to express them in novel terms
betrays that they have not really grasped them after all. Other
people-I've known quite a few of this type-have keenly analytical minds.

They can break individual claims, or even entire theories, down into
their conceptual components, yet they appear to lack any sort of
synthetic intelligence in that they are unable to see the myriad
implications of these analyses. Still other people are great at
grasping the big picture, so to speak, but have difficulty hanging onto
the details. 

Some people plod slowly and methodically toward whatever insights they
achieve and others receive them almost effortlessly, through flashes of
inspiration. But the insights of the former group are sometimes more
profound than those of the latter group. Then there are people who are
mostly mistaken in their beliefs, sometimes quite obviously so, but
correct in some one belief the implications of which are so staggering
that we tend to forget they are otherwise unreliable.

I'm inclined to put Watson in this last group. Perhaps that's not fair.
After all, I know of only one point on which he is obviously mistaken.
That mistake is so glaring, however, that it leads me to think he is
probably more like an idiot savant than a genuinely intelligent human
being. I.Q. scores represent something. It just isn't all that clear
what. To suggest that they represent intelligence in any significant
sense is thus to betray that one has less than the ideally desirable
quantity of this quality himself.

Sure the mind, and therefore intelligence, is intimately connected with
the brain. Read Oliver Sachs if you want to see just how intimate that
connection is. Sachs is one of my favorite authors not simply because
the substance of his writings is so fascinating, but also because he is
himself so clearly intelligent. Not only does he not go leaping to
conclusions on issues that lie outside his area of professional
expertise (though I have to say I'd be more interested to hear Sachs'
social and political views than Watson's), he doesn't go leaping to
conclusions about the implications of what he has observed in his own
work in neurology. He'd be one of the first people, I think, to defend
the claim that we do not yet have a clear enough idea of what
intelligence is to be reliably able to quantify it. We don't even
understand it well enough yet to be able to say confidently that it is
quantifiable. At this point, all we can say is that it appears so
intimately connected with the brain that it can, in some sense, be
associated with, or represented by, we-know-not-yet-what neurological
activities or tendencies.

OK, so far, so little. But what is a black brain and what is a white
brain? Most blacks in the U.S., as opposed to blacks in Africa, have a
great deal of white blood, or whatever you want to call it. If whites
really were more intelligent than blacks, that would mean
African-Americans would be that much more intelligent than Africans.
(I'm sure my friend, the Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie,
would be interested to hear that one.) There may well be people who
believe this. I am not aware of any empirical evidence, however, that
supports such a conclusion. My own experience does not support it. I
grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and attended
predominantly black schools from fourth grade to college.

Since that time I have also met more than a few Africans. I couldn't
detect any difference in intelligence. I'm unaware of even anecdotal
evidence that would support the conclusion that there was such a
difference. Do you see what I'm saying? We're not looking at a slippery
slope here, but at a meteoric descent down into a pile of deep doo-doo.

>From what I've read, there is no clear scientific definition of race.
"Race" is just a name we give to a collection of physical
characteristics such as eye and hair color and degree of pigmentation
of the skin. There is no race gene.

There are just genes that encode for these individual characteristics.
So how many, and what sort, of characteristics does one have to have to
be either black or white. It is some kind of ineffable sum isn't it?
Blacks sometimes have very pale skin, some whites actually have darker
skin than some blacks. Blacks even occasionally have blue eyes, or
straight hair, just as whites often have brown eyes or kinky hair. In
the past, we just arbitrarily determined what made a person black, and,
by implication, white. Since, presumably, we have gotten beyond the
point where we would say that even one drop of black blood makes a
person black, the only reasonable definition of race (even given its
circularity) would, therefore, appear to be one based on the
statistical representation of the various races in one's family tree.
That would mean people with predominantly white, or perhaps I should
say "white-ish" ancestry would be considered white. Have you ever seen
a photo of Charles Chestnut or Anatole Broyard?

Not only are these guys clearly white, according to this definition,
there are a whole lot of other people walking around this country who
call themselves "black" because of the social environment into which
they were born, but who ought properly to consider themselves white.

Since when have scientific studies been undertaken on ineffable, or
arbitrarily determined, classes of thing? It's like trying to determine
whether people with purportedly good taste are more intelligent than
people with supposedly bad taste, or whether people who live in Chicago
are more intelligent than people who live in L.A.

You might undertake such a thing as a sociological study with some
arbitrarily agreed upon criteria for what would constitute good and bad
taste, or for how far out into the suburbs you want to go before you
decide you have left Chicago, as well with some equally arbitrarily
agreed upon criteria for what constitutes intelligence. You cannot
undertake such a thing though as a scientific study (no matter how
convinced you may be in the genetic superiority of people who live in
Chicago), and to think that you could betrays that you have a very weak
grasp of what constitutes natural science. Given that race, at least
from the standpoint of natural science, is nothing more than a
collection of certain physical characteristics, the view that white
people are more intelligent than black people is not uncomfortably
close to view of the Nazis that blue-eyed blonds were inherently
superior to everyone else-it is essentially the same thing.

As I said earlier, I spent a huge portion of my life in the almost
exclusive company of black people. I've been around black people and
I've been around white people and I haven't found any general
differences in terms of intelligence. My experience has led me to
believe that most of what often passes for intelligence is actually
intellectual self confidence, confidence in one's own reasoning powers,
confidence in the value of one's insights. Teachers, of which I am one,
will tell you that you can just see some people's brains seize up when
they are confronted with tasks that later prove not to have been beyond
them. This fear, however, that certain tasks are beyond one, is a
substantial obstacle to completing them. One stumbles again and again,
fearing that his "guess" is just that, a guess, rather than
understanding. One fails to pursue an insight for fear that it is not
genuine, or from fear that it is so obvious that others have come to it
long ago. I don't mean to suggest that there are not innate differences
in intelligence among human beings. I'm sure there are, but I agree
with what I believe Noam Chomsky said somewhere about how these
differences, measured relative to the difference in intelligence
between human beings and their closes relatives the apes, are simply
vanishingly small.

I construe my job as an educator not to impart knowledge, but to nurture
intellectual confidence. (Of course this could be partly a defensive
mechanism because I am a philosopher, which means I don't have any
knowledge to impart.) I try to teach critical thinking skills, of
course, but even more important to me is somehow to get my students to
believe in their own intellectual potential because even these skills,
I believe, can, at least to a certain extent, be acquired naturally by
people who are confident in their ability to acquire them. I say, teach
people to believe in themselves and then see what they are able to do
with that faith. But be very careful when you start judging the results
because if anything of value has emerged from the recent debates on
race and intelligence, it is that many of us are much closer to the
edge of idiocy than any of us would like to admit. 

What we have here are noted intellectuals who have failed to grasp even
the most basic facts about what constitutes natural scientific research
and failed to understand that to parade this ignorance in the way they
have before a public still marked by social and economic inequities
that cut along racial lines is offensive in the extreme. The whole
thing has been very humbling. It has shown, I believe, that racism is
still very firmly entrenched in the American psyche.


[M.G. Piety teaches philosophy at Drexel University.  She can be
reached at:  mgpiety at drexel.edu ]