Why “[Group X] are [Y]” statements are categorically, unequivocally, completely wrong

Prejudging a person – assuming that anything is automatically true about them – on the basis of their membership of any involuntary grouping (gender, race, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, age, eye colour, nostril size, pinky-toe length…) is wrong. Here in the simplest possible form are the main reasons why.

First, most such assertions are made on very shaky ground. Pretty much every major study that has claimed to show substantial differences in innate ability between different groups has been challenged extensively. One study that claimed to show that Asians were academically smarter than whites, who were smarter than blacks, was shown to be deeply flawed because it wasn’t comparing apples with apples: the academic environments in which each group was learning were completely different, with the Japanese segment in the study operating in a context where education is valued and schools and teachers are respected – less the case for the white American cohort, and less again for the African-American segment. As a comparison of different education systems, it might have been useful; as a comparison of relative “innate” racial ability, it was a crock.

Nor is it even possible to establish an adequately controlled, fair, “apples-to-apples” group – anybody’s physical, emotional and psychological development takes place in a culture which loads them with preconceptions about who can achieve what. The power of these expectations is attested to by a study which was done in which four groups, two of men and two of women, did a maths test. All four groups did exactly the same test, but two of the groups (one male, one female) were told beforehand that the test had been “specially designed so that women could do it as easily as men”. When the results came in, the two male groups had done about as well as each other, and so had the group of women who had been told that they could. Only the group of women who were still operating under normal cultural expectations about their own performance did significantly differently than the others – and not surprisingly, they did worse. About as much worse as women normally do on those sorts of tests.

Makes you think, doesn’t it? And calls into question the extensive system of rationalisation called “evolutionary psychology”. What happens to all those arguments about “men had to measure distance and count prey animals, so they’re better at maths and maps” when in point of fact men aren’t necessarily better at those things?

But maybe in some cases there are genuine population-level differences in capability. For instance, for generations African-Americans were bred (like livestock!) for strength. (Yes, forced marriages and impregnations. Hooray for white “civilisation”. Not to say that slaves didn’t trick their “owners”, but that the attempt was even made… gross.) So let’s allow hypothetically that perhaps there is some truth to the argument that African-Americans tend to be physically superior to whites. (Anyone who argues in parallel that surviving as a slave selects for lower intelligence, however, is clearly not thinking the thing through. I’m not conceding that one, even hypothetically.) Let’s allow further that this tendency is genetic and not a product of the culture and the physical environment in which people grow up. If the difference is the result of several generations of selective breeding, doesn’t that rather suggest that even genetic differences can and will change over time, as cultures shift and start selecting for different things?

The clincher

Even if we set aside all arguments about whether significant differences in innate ability really exist, and if so what causes them and how fixed they actually are, and accept the assertion that at the population level people of group A will tend to be better at X than people of group B, or less “Y” or whatever… that still means absolutely nothing when it comes to dealing with any given individual.

For instance, if you believe that women are innately better at emotional stuff than men (and I have seen extraordinary emotional skill from men, both good and deeply, manipulatively bad; but I digress), and you encounter a man who bucks the trend… do you pretend he is an emotional klutz, or do you treat him as someone with good emotional skills?

And until you know which he is, aren’t you better off withholding judgment and remaining open to all possibilities until you have adequate information?

And further, and more radically, if you actively want men to have some degree of emotional competence… and you take on board what we’ve learned about the power of negative expectations to limit achievement… aren’t you far better off abstaining from making generalised pronunciations about “men are emotional idiots”?

In other words, a culture which genuinely wants all its members to achieve the most they can will be very careful about accepting generalisations about one group being not as whatever-quality-is-under-discussion as another, even if there is some evidence that it might presently be true, because the only thing making it true might be that self-fulfilling expectation.

While there is always value in analysing the current big picture – and if you’re interested in justice, it is essential to be able to say that group X is not pulling its weight relative to group Y, or is benefiting more, et cetera – such comments need to be phrased in ways that limit the generalisation appropriately and emphasise the possibility of change.

Insistence on blanket assertions that “women just can’t read maps” or “Aboriginal people can’t manage more than a Certificate 1” (made quite seriously by a senior Australian public servant – to an Aboriginal professor!) is therefore not only moronic. It is actively sabotaging the people about whom it is made. And therefore it is wrong in every sense of the word.

More reading (to be updated as I find my old link collection):

Pigeonholed

Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (blog here) has some useful discussions of false snap judgments as well as accurate ones

Multiethnicity is a beautiful thing

There’s a more general post coming later about racism and other negative -isms (“negativisms”?), but I just came back from wandering around the CBD of Melbourne. Every time I do this, I’m struck by how truly diverse the inhabitants of this city are. We had people whose ancestors (if not themselves) have come from pretty much everywhere in the world on the streets. All over Asia, including the Indian sub-continent; shading through the Persian parts of the world, to the Arabic, then to the horn of Africa; central and South African; Europeans of all sorts; some people who could have been from native South American stock, though with less exposure I find it hard to tell; and last but most certainly not least, our own First Australian peoples, both majority-descent and in little touches on the faces of some of the other locals. And, of course, delightful mixtures of all of the above.

Every time I see this I’m reminded of a friend of mine, of Chinese and Scottish-Australian ancestry, who talks about travelling in Europe (even relatively “cosmopolitan” cities) and seeing visible double-takes as people tried to work out “what she was”, and the sense of relief on coming home to a place where that kind of categorisation isn’t instinctively necessary before you can be comfortable just dealing with the person in front of you.

I’m not saying racism isn’t present in Australia – I’m white, my partner’s Asian, and we still get looks in some parts of Melbourne, and definitely in the nearby but smaller city of Geelong. We’ve even had it suggested by those that would know that her surname, also obviously Asian, was a handicap in getting teaching jobs – in a state that supposedly has a shortage of teachers. The recent treatment of Indians, and the ongoing shame of our treatment of the First Australians, also show racism is still tainting the atmosphere here, even if it’s often shameful and covert, and contested, and arguably less prevalent than in some other places which (however rightly) criticise Australia as racist.

But in the Melbourne CBD today I saw humanity in – not all – a substantial part of its glorious variety, sharing the streets, giving way to one another in all the little courteous gestures that we do. And I was struck by how many of the people I saw were beautiful. All ages, all backgrounds, all sexes – there was a lot of beauty around.

I know, eye of the beholder, blah blah. But I wasn’t in that good a mood. If there’s a lot of beauty in my eye, something else must be at work.

I remember reading somewhere that our brains determine our definitions of beauty by kind of “averaging out” all the faces we see, and then determining any individual face’s variation from that norm. My idea is, maybe seeing such a wide variety of people widens our capacity to see beauty. In a mathematical sense that maybe-sort-of works – a larger sample means that an average will be more of an approximation of any one face, leaving more wiggle-room for others to fit into. But I don’t think that’s it, either. I think the habit of seeing such a wide array of possible faces in itself reduces the power that “average” face has over the imagination, so you can see a bit more clearly each face as itself rather than as a variant on an imaginary ideal. You can more quickly see the human flow of expression, and something of the underlying person(qu)ality, not a skin tone or a particular cast of feature, not a common trait that causes “them all” to “look alike” because you can’t see past it.

So one perk (of many) of living in a diverse community is that your eyes have more beauty in them. Works for me.