Re: Race Realism

Corresponding with the rise of the “alt-right” in recent years has been the rise in popularity of what its proponents call “race realism.”

Race realism is the idea that since differences between races are scientifically quantifiable, it is only rational that these differences should be taken into account when creating policies. If [race] people are known to have [qualities] (the argument goes), then it would be foolish to craft policies that did account for this. Policies should match the people they govern, surely? That’s just being efficient and practical!

This argument isn’t functionally any different from the “scientific racism” of the 20th century eugenicists, or of the Europeans in Darwin’s era who judged that other races were “less evolved.” Like their forebears, race realists believe that it is possible to make deep and accurate judgements about a person from a quick glance at select body parts, and that it is only sensible that society should act upon these judgements.

The only significant point of distinction between race realism and the more overtly sinister varieties of racism is the lack of an explicitly named “master race.” Rather than claim outright that one race is superior and should therefore rule over the others, race realists cite “racial data,” then make vague insinuations about society working better when the rules are tailored to people’s particular needs.

But if “realists” aren’t going to come out and declare a master race–if they’re not going to just be racist–then does their insistence on accounting for racial differences actually make sense? I contend that it does not.

One of the favorite bits of data that “realists” like to cite is a graph of white vs. black IQ distribution. The “white” distribution is higher than the “black,” they say, and this proves… They never actually say what it proves, because they want to keep up the guise of not being racist, but the implication they are trying to make is obvious: white people are smarter than black people, and so it only makes sense that society should regard blacks and whites unequally.

I don’t know how accurate that data is, and I’m not really interested, because it doesn’t matter. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the average black man really is less intelligent than the average white man. What are the practical implications of this? None. There are no practical implications because people are not statistical averages. People are individuals, and so the only rational way to judge them is as individuals. Regardless of what the IQ of an average black man is, an individual black man may be a genius. And regardless of what the IQ of an average white man is, an individual white man may be a moron. Even if you’re an evil tyrant who doesn’t care about liberty or justice, it is still rational to judge people as individuals if you want to find the person best-suited for a given role.

Let’s use height as an examples of what “race realism” might look like if was actually applied in a social context.

The average Indian man is 5 feet, 5 inches tall. The average Dutch man is 6 feet tall. Let us supposed that there is a certain carnival ride that is only safe for riders who are 5’7” or taller.

The carnival owner is a race realist, and so he decides that the rational thing to do is to establish a policy that Dutch may ride, but Indians may not. (This is not racist, he tells himself; it’s utilitarian!)

Obviously, this policy is foolish. Assuming that there are any significant number of both Dutch and Indians at the carnival, the owner will not be operating his ride for long before his “rational” policy will compel him to turn away a 5’8” Indian and admit a 5’6” Dutchman. Indians who are, in fact, tall enough to ride safely will be turned away, while Dutch who are too short will ride at their peril. The policy does not accomplish its goal. It has no utility.

The reason why this policy doesn’t work is because it is based on averages, but it is applied to individuals. A policy based on averages will only work on average. A policy that works on average is a policy that fails frequently. And a policy that fails frequently is a bad policy.

But fortunately for the carnival owner, there is no reason for him to use a race-based policy. Instead of pursuing a policy based on averages that is guaranteed to fail, he can can measure the height of each individual who wants to ride. Treating the riders as individuals with ensure that the 5’7” rule is followed in 100% of cases.

By its very nature, a policy based on averages cannot account for individual deviation, and so any policy based on “race realism” is certain to have a high rate of failure. This will be true regardless of what racial characteristics are being discussed. No matter what the characteristic, and no matter how remarkable the difference, there will be many exceptions to the racial average, and so there will always be greater utility in judging people as individuals.

There is no utility in “race realism,” no rationality, and so the sole factor ostensibly distinguishing it from old-fashioned supremacist racism is invalidated. If data about racial differences is not useful for judging individuals, then it is irrelevant. And if it is irrelevant, then why obsess over it? Why bring it up at all?

The answer is self-evident.