Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece
Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

A very sad day for me. Watson was a real hero of mine.
Not only the bigotry, the fact that I don't believe in race, but the shoddy science is really the worst of it for me.
:headshake

The idea that we all deserve equal treatment and opportunity under the law does not equate to an imaginary scientific conclusion that all human beings are, literally, biologically equal. Don't fall prey to Political Correctness. If you define groups of people based on genetic differences, then they are going to gave genetic differences, because you have defined them based on genetic differences. So they will have them. This is no surprise.

Political Correctness kills Free Speech. If we allow it to interfere with Science, we're all doomed. "Feeling Good" does not make facts.

meaningless. as a race, asians are probably smarter than europeans. africans are probably more nimble and athletic than both. individuals vary, obviously. i mean...look at freshness. he's one dumb asian. i'm glad the old guy had the balls to speak his mind. jimmy the greek got fucked.

I agree, PC is mostly BS and harms most things including science, however:
He did not present any data, it is not his field and there is only one race, the human race.

He didn't present any data, or there wasn't any data presented in the article?

Or, the third option, that no data is necessary to support this statement (the product of logical thinking):

“there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

It isn't what we're supposed to say, but, what about it is wrong? What is logically wrong with what he said?

What is logically wrong with what he said?

It's a fluffy assumption... no data. Intelligence cannot be quantified that way.
Again, not his field.

How is it fluffy? What data does it require? Why is genetics "not his field" if he is a geneticist?

Flint wrote:

It isn't what we're supposed to say, but, what about it is wrong? What is logically wrong with what he said?

This part:

He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

That's where he suddenly switches from talking about segregated, African genetic groups to any and all Western, homogenized-by-countless-generations black people.

Genetics is his field, not testing intelligence.
I have yet to see any data that states that he did any exhaustive studies in that area at all, in fact, or that he has any background in that field.

There was no genetic evidence shown and his "reasons" could easily be refuted by a sociologist. Education will play a much bigger role in intelligence than genetics when it comes to large groups.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said today: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.

“I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels.”

If the entire scientific community denies his claims, I would take this as more personal reasoning than anything since he has shown to be prejudice against gays in the past.

piercehawkeye45;396495 wrote:

Education will play a much bigger role in intelligence than genetics when it comes to large groups.

True.

I thought we did this bell curve thing decades ago. This fella has let his profession dictate his logic, trying to find the genetic reason for something that is clearly environmental. While he does make a point that geographic separation could play a part, the only separation that's shown to make a difference in intelligence is education/social class. Likewise, physical strength will be different in a working class versus ruling class, all things equal. It's like a mathematician trying to find equations for emotions, some things can not be covered in your chosen expertise.

sidenote: if you don't want to see a refute of an irrelevant and unnecessary comment that fatass made then don't read, but fatass had to stir up shit with me for no apparent reason AGAIN


I'm only "dumb" because you don't understand me nor feel the need to try to.
I've never been cocky here in this forum about my intelligence but I believe I am 10x smarter than fatass ever will be. So he has more experience in life obviously, but coming from the community that I was raised in, the grades I had, the GPA I earned, the honors societies I belonged to, I can safely say I am almost guaranteeing I have more brains. Naperville, one of the most affluent cities in the state of Illinois. Our school district is chronically in the top five of the whole nation for years in nationally averages, fun fact: it was #1 in the world in Math and Science for grade schoolers; ahead of China. Oh, so it doesn't reflect on me huh? You'd be dumb to think it wouldn't, even if indirectly.

YOO THNK IM STOOPID CUZ U DONT UNNERSAND ME WAAAAAH

oh, and IM NT COKY BUT IM SMRTR THN CHINA LOL

piercehawkeye45;396495 wrote:

There was no genetic evidence shown

He wouldn't be able to do it. There is more genetic variation within a race than there are between them.

Yup, which is why the idea of different "races" has very little evidence to back it up. The percentage isn't even close to 50% as well, I think it is around 85 and 15.

lumberjim;396465 wrote:

as a race, asians are probably smarter than europeans.

Nope -- there's just a lot more of 'em!

...but the Chinese are naturally better at music. I wondered, for many years, why all the music classes in my high school were filled with Chinese that just seemed to pick up music without any effort at all. It turns out not to be genetic, but based in language. Their exposure to a tonal language from birth gives them a serious edge when it comes to identifying musical notes. People who are only exposed to English from birth never gain this ability as sharp as they do.

(discovered on this episode of Radio Lab)

Flint;396468 wrote:

SNIP
Or, the third option, that no data is necessary to support this statement (the product of logical thinking):

QUOTE:
“there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

It isn't what we're supposed to say, but, what about it is wrong? What is logically wrong with what he said?

The quote given here is plausible, BUT contains nothing to suggest that Europeans would be genetically smarter than Africans. It could well turn out that Africans have more "smart genes" that Europeans, but the present disadvantage in education is what is causing their alleged current under-performance.

Intelligence (indeed, most personality traits) is almost certainly due to a combination of genetics and environment. Unless we can control for environment, there is no way an intelligence test can shed light on the distribution of "smart" genes.

As for the alleged under-performance by Africans, if there are any tests which show this, I suspect that the tests test for skills of interest to mainstream Eurocentric standards (the synonyms section in particular). I have seen "ghetto" IQ tests, which are similar to regular IQ tests but which use language and situations relevant to urban America. I'd come out as a moron on those tests. I'd like to see Watson take them.

Ultimately, the question of racial genetic intelligence differences is an empirical issue. Once the research has been done, then we can see. Watson claims (in the main article linked in first post) that "... genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade".
Go find said genes, FIRST, professor. Then see how they are distributed. Then figure out how important they are relative to environment. THEN you can make announcements like this, if it turns out to be true. Until then, don't shoot your mouth off with insulting comments that are likely to be used by evil bastards to justify all sorts of crimes against humanity.

Naperville, one of the most affluent cities in the state of Illinois. Our school district is chronically in the top five of the whole nation for years in nationally averages, fun fact: it was #1 in the world in Math and Science for grade schoolers; ahead of China.

STFU. the fact that you grew/are growing up in naperville certainly doesn't serve as evidence that you are more intelligent anyone else. it only serves to say that your parents liked the community and chose to live there. grade school kids' test scores in math say nothing whatsoever about intelligence. somewhere along the way you have forgotten that intelligence and education aren't the same thing.

Dude, let it go. Fresh overreacted but LJ did pick him out from nowhere, he was defending himself.

beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here ;)

Ok. I'll bite. Not that I'm not tired of the ridiculous compulsion to....

snippy~He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".~snippy

"Hope" has no place in scientific inquiry. And neither does anecdotes about "dealing with black employees".


I'm no scientist, but the last time I looked you need data to support any type of logical thinking.


New equation/New science? x+ arian nation evil scientist= racial predictions of inferiors? There ya go. "Logic." "Science." "Hitler".

Maybe we can find cures for horrible diseases through DNA research instead of trying to figure out whether black people are stupid or not. Seems like it wouldn't be the main priority? But, like I said, I'm no "scientist".

:D

fresh needs to get over his sensitivity to LJ. that is what LJ does, he winds up those that get jumpy about it. if you want to see how he goes after people he really doesn't like, look back at some old threads involving Marich**o.

Old people are peculiar. And people are bigoted. Not news. I'm willing to forgive James Watson for his bigotry because of his contribution to science. Similar to Linus Pauling, who I think had some pretty crazy ideas towards the end of his life.

piercehawkeye45;396704 wrote:

Dude, let it go. Fresh overreacted but LJ did pick him out from nowhere, he was defending himself.

not from nowhere. he's the dumbest asian i know. what?

lookout123;396720 wrote:

fresh needs to get over his sensitivity to LJ. that is what LJ does, he winds up those that get jumpy about it. if you want to see how he goes after people he really doesn't like, look back at some old threads involving Marich**o.

I know Fresh needs to start ignoring LJ, this has been brought up before. I just didn't want it to escalate and wind up with another bitch fest with people arguing about how smart someone is when all you know about that person is what he posts on a damn forum.

fair enough. but if someone posts that they are superwicked smart and as evidence they present... "i'm from naperville!" they deserve to be ridiculed.


[SIZE="1"]i mean, you've been to naperville, right?;) [/SIZE]

Cloud;396732 wrote:

Old people are peculiar. And people are bigoted. Not news. I'm willing to forgive James Watson for his bigotry because of his contribution to science. Similar to Linus Pauling, who I think had some pretty crazy ideas towards the end of his life.

I agree--it's not news. It's more sad than anything. A super-smart guy who's losing it in his old age.

I was thinking about this, and I wonder: Do you think most people become less tolerant as they get older?

I think that old people just lose their inhibitions as they get older. They decide they're tired and they only have a certain amount of time left, and they no longer give a shit what people think. They're more willing to say the things they've been thinking all along.

Plus, each successive generation has been more tolerant than the last, for a long time. They say that my generation is shaping up to be more conservative than our parents (the hippie generation,) but I'm not sure I agree. I think we're more fiscally conservative, but still more socially liberal, which is primarily where issues of tolerance fall.

And ruining the country, ya damn whippersnappers.

Flint;396468 wrote:

“there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

ZenGum;396689 wrote:

The quote given here is plausible, BUT contains nothing to suggest that Europeans would be genetically smarter than Africans. It could well turn out that Africans have more "smart genes" that Europeans...

Good point. The only part of this I took an interest in was the pervasive fallacy that people are somehow "equal" - in a literal sense. People should be regarded as equal so far as concerns their opportunity to live up to whatever potential they have. But, each individual person certainly has vastly different potential.

And it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that evolution would act on geographically distinct groups, endowing them with different abilities specific to the environmental stresses they experience. What he should have said is that different racial groups might be "differently" intelligent.

Of course, he is trying to create hype, to promote his new book. And, hey, it worked!

Orig interview.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece

Maybe he's losing it.

A statement from Watson's publicist says he is mortified over the quotes. Watson said he cannot understand how he could have said what he is quoted as saying, but he understands the public reaction to the comments.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-19-voa4.cfm

that article also says he's "known for his outspoken comments." Guess so, but this one bit him in the ass.

As it should.

Apparently he's been suspended from his research institute. That may explain his sudden bout of contrition.

You think maybe an acute case of "oops, was that out loud?" Syndrome?

I think it may be so, aye. Or at the very least an acute case of "oh that got me fired? Shit better rescind it" syndrome.

Apparently it's not his first time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm

Lab suspends DNA pioneer Watson

His comments led event organisers to cancel his appearances
The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US.
Dr Watson has drawn severe criticism over remarks he made in a British newspaper at the weekend.

In the interview, he was quoted as saying Africans were less intelligent than Europeans.