The official site of bestselling author Michael Shermer The official site of bestselling author Michael Shermer

Kramer’s Conundrum

November 24, 2006

After a paroxysm of racial viciousness at the Laugh Factory Friday night, November 17, 2006, Michael Richards, the 57-year old comedian who played Kramer on Seinfeld, explained to David Letterman and his Late Night audience the following Monday, after a barrage of negative publicity: “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.”

Michael’s shattered demeanor and heartfelt repentance leaves us with what I shall call Kramer’s Conundrum: how can someone who spews racial epithets genuinely believe he is not a racist? The answer is to be found in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes, and our public and private thoughts.

Consciously and publicly, Michael Richards is probably not a racist. Unconsciously and privately, however, he is. So am I. So are you.

Consciously and publicly, most of us are colorblind. And most of us, most of the time, under most conditions, believe and act on that cultural requisite. You’d have to be insane to publicly utter racist remarks in today’s society … or temporarily insane, which both science and the law recognize as being sometimes triggered by anger. And alcohol — recall Mel Gibson’s drunken eruption about Jews, or the college Frat boys slurring alcohol-induced insanities about blacks and slavery in Sacha Baron Cohen’s film Borat.

The insidiousness of racism is due to the fact that it arises out of the deep recesses of our unconscious. We may be utterly unaware of it, yet it lurks there ready to erupt under certain circumstances. How can we know this? Even without anger and alcohol, Harvard scientists have found a method in an instrument called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which asks subjects to pair words and concepts. The more closely associated the words and concepts are, the quicker the response to them will be in the key-pressing sorting task (try it yourself at

The race test firsts asks you to sort black and white faces into one of two categories: European American and African American. Easy. Next you are asked to sort a list of words (Joy, Terrible, Love, Agony, Peace, Horrible, Wonderful, Nasty, Pleasure, Evil, Glorious, Awful, Laughter, Failure, Happy, Hurt) into one of two categories: Good and Bad. No problem.

The next task is a little more complicated. The words and black and white faces appear on the screen one at a time, and you sort them into one of these categories: African American/Good or European American/Bad. Again you match the words with the concepts of good or bad, and faces with national origin. So the word “joy” would go into the first category and a white face would go into the second category. This sorting goes noticeably slower, but you might expect that since the combined categories are more cognitively complex.

Unfortunately, the final sorting task puts the lie to that rationalization: This time you sort the words and faces into the categories European American/Good or African American/Bad. Tellingly (and distressingly) this sort goes much faster than the previous sort. I was much quicker to associate words like “joy,” “love,” and “pleasure” with European American/Good than I did with African American/Good.

I consider myself about as socially liberal as you can get (I’m a libertarian), and yet on a scale that includes “slight,” “moderate,” and “strong,” the program concluded: “Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American.” What? “The interpretation is described as ‘automatic preference for European American’ if you responded faster when European American faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when African American faces and Good words were classified with the same key.”

But I’m not a racist. How can this be? It turns out that this subconscious association of good with European Americans is true for everyone, even African Americans, no matter how color blind we all claim to be. Such is the power of culture.

We are by nature sorters. Evolutionists theorize that we evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers where there was a selection for within-group amity and between-group enmity. With our fellow in-group members, we are cooperative and altruistic. Unfortunately, the down side to this pro-social bonding is that we are also quite tribal and xenophobic to out-group members.

This natural tendency to sort people into Within-Group/Good and Between-Group/Bad is shaped by culture, such that all Americans, including those whose ancestry is African, implicitly inculcate the cultural association, which includes additional prejudices.

The IAT, in fact, also demonstrates that we prefer young to old, thin to fat, straight to gay, and such associations as family-females and career-males, liberal arts-females and science-males. Such associations bubble just below the surface, inhibited by cultural restraints but susceptible to eruption under extreme inebriation or duress.

Michael Richards’ sin was his deed; his thoughts are the sin of all humanity. Only when all people are considered to be members of one global in-group (in principle, if not in practice) can we begin to attenuate these out-group associations. But it won’t be easy. Vigilance is the watchword of both freedom and dignity.

We should accept Mr. Richards’ apology for losing his temper and acting out those hateful thoughts. Perhaps we also ought to thank him for having the courage to confess in public what far too many of us still harbor in private, often in the privacy of our unconscious minds. As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote: “Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but only his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind.”

This article was originally published in the New York Times.

topics: , , , ,

6 Comments to “Kramer’s Conundrum”

  1. RoseAnne Says:

    I did all 5 tests offered to Canadians. Weight – no preference fat vs. thin. Gender/science – no preference. Age – slight automatic preference for old vs. young (?). Race – moderate automatic preference for black vs. white (!!) Countries – strong preference for Canada vs. USA (well duh).

    FYI I am white, female, chubby, middle-aged, married, well-educated. I work with people of all races/ethnicities, although not so much with what you yanks would call “black”.

    And as for that black/white shit that you americans got going on, as we Canucks would say: GET OVER YOURSELVES!

  2. aqk Says:

    Huh. I took the test (I think) a coupla years ago. At least I took most of it. But eventually quit, tired once again of being some rat-runner’s plaything.

    Can’t remember what level of racism I qualified for, but- NO MATTER! It was too much, and, as a “white male”, I began a rigorous self-administered program of flagellation with copious amounts of Pinoqachole poured over the welts.

    Damn! It hurt! How did those old guys from the middle-ages do this crap?

    So I gave this up also.
    I am now comfortable in my racism. Well, at least I’m not an American.

  3. Fussing and Fighting, My Friend « West Coast Grrlie Blather Says:

    […] Michael Shermer: Kramer’s Conundrum […]

  4. aqk Says:

    Strange.. so few replies here.
    Finally. The noise has exceeded mankind’s sensibilities. This is the final death of the universe: The universe as defined by mankind.
    (are there other definitions? let’s hear them.)
    Not heat or entropy, just noise generated by billions of organisms chattering about .. nothing.
    Kramer, are you listening?

  5. Stagyar zil Doggo Says:

    Taking Mr. Richards at his word that he “isn’t a racist”, you are ignoring an additional possibility. That in a slanging match, you often go for the one you think most likely to sting; regardless of its truth value to you. Of course, this need not be mutually exclusive with the Implicit Racism hypothesis.

  6. Janegael Says:

    We are all tribal people and on a base level prefer those of our tribe to outsiders. That’s not racism, that’s evolution. Racism comes with your decision on how you treat those from a different tribe. Do you see “different” as interesting and acceptable, or frightening? Fear is based on ignorance and if you get to know another tribe you have no need to be afraid of them, so you are free to find them interesting and valuable members of society.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data.