Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
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.

More fierce criticism of the eminent scientist is expected as he embarks on a number of engagements to promote a new book ‘Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science’. Among his first commitments is a speech to a London audience at the Science Museum on Friday. The event is sold out.

Dr Watson, who runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.

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”.

He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “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”.

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission is studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”.

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.”

Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.

He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
link

Hate the idea of censorship and investigation, agree about heritability of intelligence, some issue with racial disparities; they do exist between large groups but cause is up for grabs, nature vs. nurture.
 
Last edited:
I'll put this in the basket of INDY's "science" that says gay marriage increases the divorce rate of straight marriage, and the "science" that says climate change isn't happening.:|
 
It is a confluence between a bastard (at least he is interesting), an open question (heritability of intelligence / biological basis for it) and society at large (racism, inequality etc.).

Any research into the heritability of intelligence runs into this territory since a genetic basis has evolutionary consequences. Disavowing anything to do with this area leaves it as the weapon of "race realists" (as in racists - who I see as the rabid collectivist bastards), it also does away with some really cool stuff on brain development in all people.
 
I suppose looking at it in a vacuum it's possible...in the sense that it's possible that a comparison between any race/national origin could find that one is "smarter" than the other. And just like any attempt at standardized testing, there would be bias that would render the results essentially meaningless. We kicked this issue around when I was in college, "The Bell Curve" was out (I can't even recall who wrote it) and we had all sorts of discussions...about folks from the tropics being less intelligent because of climate etc. It's really pointless if you think about it.

Let's say you took IQ as a measure, and you found out that (hypothetical remember) Polish people had an average IQ a point higher than Greek people. What does that prove? It doesn't tell you anything...if you put one Pole & 1 Greek in a room there's no guarantee the Greek will be smarter than the Pole, because 1 person is the ultimate small sample.

I just think this kind of "science" (and I question his motives when I see he makes the point, but then says we will be able to find the genes within the decade). Wait for the genes before making the proclamation. Then all credibility goes out the window with the "ask any employer who employs blacks" or however he put it. This from a Nobel Prize winner? I guess my whole "bigotry from ignorance" argument just went down the drain.

I guess he probably just said it to get his name out there, and sell the book...but this is an issue that the wise would avoid. It's like questioning anything about the Holocaust. If you say you've done the research and it's actually 5,900,000 dead, and not the 6,000,000 number that gets tossed about, you might be right, but you risk being labeled a "Holocaust-denier" etc.
 
Bringing race into it is not at all condusive to scientific debate but it does attract attention (which is what he wants).

It should be interesting if the stage is reached where specific alleles that can have effects on different types of intelligence are found (if they exist). Race based studies of intelligence have room for bias (not just within the tests but the environmental factors of those taking them) and generally don't establish anything other than the existence of a difference, not the cause.

Theres also the issue of audience; the instances where biologists front off against social scientists makes for a lot of heat.
 
Last edited:
This kind of crap has been around for centuries. It helped imperialists justify their colonization of "less civilized" countries. It's usually some "respected" scientist at the end of their career who's gone off a bit. I remember stuff like this surfacing when I was in high school 30 years ago.
 
martha said:
It helped imperialists justify their colonization of "less civilized" countries.

The danger is it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy particularly if IQ tests are culturally biased.
 
financeguy said:
The danger is it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy particularly if IQ tests are culturally biased.

I'm not sure how figuring out the pattern of shapes is really a predictor of real-world intelligence anyway.
 
I kind of feel like saying that I don't think this idea should really be explored, because people can draw some very harmful conclusions. Social Darwinism doesn't have that great of a track record for influencing history. I certainly don't agree with censorship of his ideas, but this seems to be largely based on his prejudices, and not an earnest scientific pursuit. He certainly seems to have a variety of prejudices:

Dr Watson is no stranger to controversy. He has been reported in the past saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.

In addition, he has suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, proposing a theory that black people have higher libidos.

He also claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”
 
Irvine511 said:
even if such a hypothesis were theoretically true, what would it matter?

It means all the dumb white people out there can have an ironic sense of superiority. All the ones with intelligence will find this "study" to be crap anyway.
 
melon said:


It means all the dumb white people out there can have an ironic sense of superiority. All the ones with intelligence will find this "study" to be crap anyway.



i hear you, but i guess what i'm wondering is if we can determine that any one group is less intelligent, or more intelligent (like, say, Ashkenazi Jews), does it affect how one might make policy in any way, shape, or form? i'm sure some idiots will take comfort in the fact that their group is supposedly smarter than another (working under this assumption), but as real world applications go, what is the "worth" of this knowledge?
 
I don't know, but Watson's own phrasing seems to suggest he thinks there's a "worth" to it:
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."
So, we're wasting all that aid on people too dumb to be reasonably expected to benefit from it, I guess? :shrug: (And perhaps by extension, domestic programs aimed at socioeconomically disadvantaged children, etc. are wastes of time too?)
 
yolland said:
So, we're wasting all that aid on people too dumb to be reasonably expected to benefit from it, I guess? :shrug: (And perhaps by extension, domestic programs aimed at socioeconomically disadvantaged children, etc. are wastes of time too?)



you'd think, then, that they'd need more aid so they don't start swallowing their tongues and become an even bigger mess for the rest of us to have to clean up. :shrug:

i'm all for asking questions, even ones that are offensive, but i also think it's helpful to understand what motivates the asking of the question.
 
Curiosity?
Future genetic engineering possibilities?

Of course, even those guesses assume that the methods being used reliably reveal whatever it is one assumes they do.
 
CTU2fan said:
I Then all credibility goes out the window with the "ask any employer who employs blacks"

My thoughts exactly. That comment gives the whole game away as far as I'm concerned.


CTU2fan said:

"bigotry from ignorance" argument just went down the drain.


BVS and I had an interesting discussion on this very topic a few weeks back, and, well, I rest my case. . . :wink:
 
A comment to the Times article that I thought was worth emphasizing:

I am a Black woman living in Scotland. I am educated to PhD level and have to deal with the ignorance and stupidity of White people (not all but far too many) every day. I score well above average in IQ tests and also scored on average higher than my White (and Asian) friends at university. It is often glaringly obvious in my day to day life people I meet consider themselves to be more intelligent that I am, until I open my mouth. Then comes the shock and disbelief that I am intelligent, follwed by insecurity as it dawns on them that I might be more intelligent than they are and then outright hatred because they simply can't cope with that realisation. I usually ignore people like Dr. Watson, whose intelligence is exceeded by their prejudices. The problem is that those incapable of critical thinking will accept what he says because of his status. Those kinds of people will always be left scratching their heads after an encounter with someone like me! Race cannot determine intelligence!
 
More fierce criticism of the eminent scientist is expected as he embarks on a number of engagements to promote a new book ‘Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science’. Among his first commitments is a speech to a London audience at the Science Museum on Friday. The event is sold out.

Gee, I wonder if there's a correlation! :happy:

Racism for publicity...awesome :|
 
I thought maybe the title of his book, Avoid Boring People, is his motto. So in order to not be boring he utters this ridiculous garbage.

Well, he together with his colleagues discovered DNA which is great, but obviously it doesn't prove anything.
Hjalmar Schacht was a financial genius, nevertheless he supported Hitler wholeheartedly.
 
Back
Top Bottom