regardless of what biological facts are proven, the egalitarian sentiment remains.
The argument made by self-described “race realists,” most recently by Nathan Cofnas, continues to stir up contention in conservative circles. If you are not already familiar with the controversy, you can read Chau’s short essay and follow some of his links.
UPDATE: Or you can read Bo Winegard. The more I read, the more I like my Rock, Paper, Scissors metaphor for describing the state of the argument.
In thinking about The End of Race Politics, a new book by Coleman Hughes, I came up with a description of the race debate using the metaphor of the game Rock, Paper, Scissors. I assign a stance to each of the three symbols.
Rock is individualism. Treat people as individuals, not as members of a race.
Paper is equalitarianism. Treat differences in average outcomes by race as evidence of unfairness.
Scissors is realism. Explain differences in average outcomes by race by appealing to heredity and culture.
In the game, paper covers rock, scissors cuts paper, and rock breaks scissors. Translating from the metaphor, the most compelling argument against individualism is equalitarianism. The most compelling argument against equalitarianism is realism. And the most compelling argument against realism is individualism.
Individualism is the stance that Hughes takes. He admits that we instinctively categorize people in racial terms. But he says that individual differences are what matter. In your personal life and in organizational settings, try your best to respond to people as individuals, ignoring race as much as possible.
Equalitarianism is the stance that Ibram X. Kendi takes. He, and others who style themselves as anti-racists, argue that in America black people are under-represented in high-status positions and over-represented in prison because of systemic racism. That is, the institutions and norms of our society are rigged to disfavor blacks, and this system has to be relentlessly exposed and dismantled.
Realism is the stance that Cofnas takes. Realists argue that the under-representation of blacks in high-status positions and their over-representation in prison reflects differences in the distribution of behavior by race. A smaller proportion of blacks than whites have inherited the psychological traits and enjoy the cultural reinforcement that enable someone to obtain a high-status position. By the same token, a larger proportion of blacks than whites have the psychological traits and cultural reinforcement that incline them toward outlaw behavior.
The problem with individualism (Rock) is that people intuitively find inequality offensive. If we treat people as individuals, and the resulting outcomes are unequal by race, this will not be acceptable. The unequal outcomes will be viewed as a sign that something is wrong with our society.
The problem with equalitarianism (Paper) is that it requires people to deny, implicitly or explicitly, that average differences by race in inherited or cultural characteristics can be significant. The realists want to confront the equalitarians over this.
The problem with realism (Scissors) is that it uncages the demon of racial stereotyping and prejudice. The individualists will insist that we should pay attention to differences across individuals, not differences across races.
The supposed virtue of realism is that it attacks equalitarianism where it is intellectually vulnerable. But as Chau points out, the emotional appeal of equalitarianism will not give way. In terms of my metaphor, Scissors does not even cut Paper, even though the realists think that it should.
So I’ll go with Hughes and play Rock. And realize that Paper is a formidable emotional foe.
substacks referenced above:
@
@
"The more I read, the more I like my Rock, Paper, Scissors metaphor for describing the state of the argument."
Your Scissors category doesn't accurately describe the position. E.g., Steve Sailer (leading proponent of "race realism"): Treat Americans as individuals, but acknowledge that heredity & culture explain differences in average outcomes by race.
If you don't recognize the underlying causes, you will perpetually look to fix problems in unrealistic ways because most people, as you say, "intuitively find inequality offensive," and believe it requires a solution (and that it necessarily *has* a solution, which we just haven't discovered).
You should host a conversation with Sailer. It sticks out like a sore thumb that you never even mention, let alone engage with, him. (PS: He's a really nice guy, you might enjoy it.)
Arnold wrote "The problem with realism (Scissors) is that it uncages the demon of racial stereotyping and prejudice." There is no good reason why that should be so. To anyone not stupid there is no connection between a group average and any particular individual. For example, there are roughly 40 million blacks in America. Even though they average a standard deviation, or 15 points below the norm, there are still a great many (around 6 million) who are smarter than the average white. I am fortunate to have been acquainted some extremely bright blacks. It's a matter of simple math that they represent a much lower percentage of their group than high IQ persons of groups with higher averages, but they do exist.
We shouldn't deny realism just because some might try to improperly seize on it to support their specious beliefs. The Left's devotion to identity politics blinds them to the fact that the group average says nothing about any individual. They are the ones committed to racial essentialism, not the realists or individualists.