less intelligent.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/18/science.race/index.html

Quote :

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British museum has canceled a lecture by Dr. James Watson, co-founder of the DNA double helix, after he claimed black people are less intelligent than whites in a recent newspaper interview. James Watson won the 1962 Nobel prize for discovering the structure of DNA. Watson, who won the 1962 Nobel prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, provoked a storm of criticism after his comments were published in the Sunday Times. The eminent biologist told the British newspaper 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." Watson, 79, had been due to give a lecture at London's Science Museum on Friday but the museum canceled his appearance, saying his comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate." The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense." "He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University. Watson is credited with discovering the double helix along with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick in 1962. In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". The British government's skills minister, David Lammy, who is black, called the comments "deeply offensive" and said Watson would only succeed in providing oxygen for extremist political groups. "It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices," Lammy told CNN. Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing." "

From a scientific standpoint it should seem that peoples who develop in different areas are going to be different, but I gotta say this is probably a bit of a stretch and probably ignores a lot of sociological issues.

10/18/2007 1:19:22 PM

how are we defining intelligence here?

10/18/2007 1:26:19 PM

oh dear

paging Shockley

10/18/2007 1:26:42 PM

^^

you know

"book learn'n"

10/18/2007 1:27:07 PM

lol

10/18/2007 1:32:47 PM

omg smart people can be racists too!

10/18/2007 1:39:01 PM

how exactly is this news?

10/18/2007 1:49:54 PM

What if he's right?

10/18/2007 2:09:10 PM

i visit to any US inner city school would confirm his opinion. Although I think this is a result of culture not inherent biology b.c race is nothing more than a color of skin.

10/18/2007 2:12:46 PM

^^ Excellent question.

What IF he's right?

Should we round up all the blacks in to camps?

Print special text books for them? Make them go to special schools?

or just judge them based on their merits, and treat them like everyone else?

I don't believe he's right though. I`ve done a good bit of research about this, and I haven't come across any evidence that properly account for sociological differences for various scores, and to me, it suggests it's primarily a cultural/social thing for performance on test scores.

I do believe genetics can affect intelligence though, but the definition of race from the genetic perspective is very nebulous. It would be difficult to claim that skin color and intelligence were inherently linked, with what we know now about genes.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2007 2:13:04 PM

I didn't say that. I just mean that if he's right, he's not a racist.

10/18/2007 2:15:46 PM

Actually, it seems based on other things he's said, he IS a racist.

10/18/2007 2:21:49 PM

I miss salisburyboy at times like this.

10/18/2007 2:48:12 PM

d357r0y3r, it doesn't matter what you meant. You brought up the question that ends these types of debates.

If some all-knowing being came to us and said, "People, there is only one measure of intelligence. And Asians are slightly smarter than whites who are slightly smarter than blacks..." Well, what could we do with that information? How could we apply it? What is that knowledge worth to us?

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ?]

10/18/2007 3:03:07 PM

Quote :

"If some all-knowing being came to us and said, "People, there is only one measure of intelligence. And Asians are slightly smarter than whites who are slightly smarter than blacks..." Well, what could we do with that information? How could we apply it? What is that knowledge worth to us?"

Watson was making a statement about how the foreign aid given to Africa was not helping them because they were not as intelligent as whites and could not use it effectively to solve Africa's problems. Everyone agrees about the aid not being given or used effectively but not everyone agrees it is because Africans are not as smart as westerners. He wanted to change the way it was being given and how it was used to make it more effective.

He was not saying we should go around putting 6 million Africans in concentration camps and then gassing them. He was saying that the west needs to change the way it gives out aid to help Africa more effectively.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2007 3:47:06 PM

chronic societal problems like hunger and overpopulation can not be solved by throwing money and food . This only delays the inevitable and is a bottomless hole. Sadly to say a lot of the 3rd world populations behave like an a wild animal population. If you provide food and the necessities of life an exponential population growth will occur. Thus incoming food or $$$ will have to follow the exponential growth or even more people will be dying of hunger 20 years down the road.

I have no problem with providing relief though to victims of natural disasters or those displaced by war. Acute issues like these require humanitarian aid to help the population recover from an event out of their control.

Chronic issues though is just a waste. Work and money need to be spent to educate; provide birth control; and develop industry within these countries. As well as creating a foundation to build a self-sustaining agriculture base adapted to the local environment of the region. A lot of research is being spent on genetically engineering various agricultural staples to create higher output and better hardiness in different locations.s

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : s]

10/18/2007 3:58:05 PM

Hur, do you support doing away with welfare as we know it? Making it temp or only paying for one child?

10/18/2007 4:27:18 PM

Quote :

"1 visit to any US inner city school would confirm his opinion. Although I think this is a result of culture not inherent biology b.c race is nothing more than a color of skin."

Senator Obama agrees.

Quote :

"Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. "

-2004 Democratic National Convention

10/18/2007 4:38:29 PM

Quote :

"Watson was making a statement about how the foreign aid given to Africa was not helping them because they were not as intelligent as whites and could not use it effectively to solve Africa's problems."

CNN is really showing this as pretty far out of context if thats the case. I'm sick and tired with the "journalism" in this country nowadays.

10/18/2007 4:40:13 PM

^ If that is what he said, then in my opinion Dr. Watson is wrong.

The reason all that money is given to Africa and it doesn't do any good is that most African leaders are corrupt dictators.

Zimbabwe, for example, went into the toilet not because they're stupid, they're among the highest educated and most literate countries in Africa. They went into the toilet because their leader became a dictator, has ran the country poorly for 20 years, says all problems in the country are due to the white man and the British not wanting to see a successful black-run country, gave all the productive farmland to party loyalists and military loyalists that did not know how to farm, and all his opposition was humiliated or threatened, and eventually left the country. They now have 3000% inflation.

10/18/2007 4:47:04 PM

Quote :

"highest educated and most literate countries in Africa."

isn't that like bragging about being the tallest midget?

10/18/2007 4:55:48 PM

Quote :

""Watson was making a statement about how the foreign aid given to Africa was not helping them because they were not as intelligent as whites and could not use it effectively to solve Africa's problems." ----- CNN is really showing this as pretty far out of context if thats the case. I'm sick and tired with the "journalism" in this country nowadays."

in what context is this not a racist thing to say:

Quote :

"In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"."

i made some points on another blog that linked to this quote with some speculations of my own (comments by "Joe" are me). http://rondam.blogspot.com/2007/10/bigotry-masquerading-as-science.html

Quote :

"joe said... W/R/T: "it is possible (though very unlikely) that the genes that affect intelligence are somehow correlated with the genes that control skin color." Now i'm no geneticist, so I'm just talking out of my ass here (kind of like you are, i think), but I don't think this "finding" would link intelligence to skin color per se, but rather link intelligence to the overall evolution of homo sapiens and the human brain. Everyone would agree that humans overall are by far the most intelligent species on the earth, much more intelligent than our primate ancestors. And I think everyone would agree that some evolutionary mutation or natural selection occurred so many years ago which allowed humans to develop intelligence that distanced ourselves from primates and other homo-species. So why would it be a stretch to surmise that brains among different populations of humans would gather/create/grow intelligence at different rates? As far as I know, homo sapiens were gathered in NE Africa 10s of thousands of years ago, and at that point, we probably all looked more or less the same i.e. African, or "black", and probably, umm, more hairy. Then when nomadic tribes formed and humans crossed into the Middle East and spread throughout Europe, Asia, and eventually into the Americas, evolution and adaptations obviously continued to occur, as evidenced by the widely varying and distinct physical attributes of native peoples from throughout the world. Now, given that when humans spread throughout the world evolved/adapted physically to best survive in their surroundings, I don't see why it would be a preposterous notion that the brain might have evolved differently as well. If evolution of the brain occurred because of mutations or traits that made people smarter, I think it is fair to assume that when humans started spreading, their (our) brains evolved and changed just like our bodies did. Now, who came out "ahead" in all this? I don't know. And for Watson? Yeah, sounds like a total douchebag..... 7:16 PM Ron said... If evolution of the brain occurred because of mutations or traits that made people smarter, I think it is fair to assume that when humans started spreading, their (our) brains evolved and changed just like our bodies did. Of course. But there is no reason to believe that the evolutionary pressures that drove brain evolution are in any way related to the evolutionary pressures that drove skin color evolution. In fact, it's pretty clear what drove the evolution of skin color: where there is more sun you need more melanin. There is no reason to think that where there is more sun you need less brains. 10:58 PM joe said... yeah, i know - i'm not attempting to tie brain evolution to skin color. Plus, by only focusing on skin color, you're missing our on a lot of other biological traits that most definitely were driven by evolution, for whatever reason - Africans, in addition to dark skin color, are tall and slender (because of the way they hunted? i dunno). Inuits are short and stocky, presumably to maintain heat. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of how body-traits from people from throughout the world are best suited for their native environments. My point is, when humans started spreading throughout the world and were no longer a single population in a particular place, their evolutionary trees started to branch. I think it's totally reasonable that one secluded population, say, Asians, saw some evolutionary mutations that increased their intelligence, which would obviously be a beneficial trait and would be spread throughout the population. This mutation would have nothing to do with Asian's skin color or physical characteristics. But since by the time this mutation happened, Asians and Africans where fully separate populations, then the mutation was never introduced to the African population. Again, I really have no idea if/when/how this could/would have happened, but it seems perfectly reasonable. now what i'm about to say here might be blasphemy or whatever, but wouldn't it stand to reason that if all the human populations had spread throughout the world, and had remained relatively secluded from each other (Africans stayed in Africa, white Europeans stayed in Europe, Americans stayed in America), that each population would continue to evolve at its own rate based on very different circumstances, and eventually evolve into what would be considered different species? I mean, this has happened millions of times throughout the history of the world, where once-single populations split geographically and became secluded from each other, and eventually evolved into separate species. In fact, this was part of the basis of Darwin's original theories, when he saw the Galapagos Island birds that were obviously all from the same parent species, but each had evolved to meet the needs of each island. Humans are probably unique in the history of the world in that after we split apart from our first population center (northern Africa), each population evolved separately for thousands of years. However, due to increases in communication and technology, humans started to re-spread throughout the earth again and started to mix-and-mingle with populations of humans that had been evolving in isolation. There has been no other animal in world history who has been able to quickly re-enter populations of the same species that it branched away from millenia earlier. It's probably worth pointing out, too (this is where it gets touchy, and would take a geneticist and anthropologist to comment on expertly), that it was Europeans and Asians who first advanced in their technologies so much to allow them to start traveling and exploring the world. Could it not be that these populations were the ones who evolved the intelligence to do so first? 10:12 AM joe said... couple more quick thoughts. i think an aspect of human travel and race-integration that is particularly exciting is that as all of our separate populations (i.e. separately evolved for thousands of years) come back together, we have the chance now to start sharing genes and traits among different races/populations who never had the evolutionary need to develop those genes/traits when they were on their own. I mean, what short, white guy hasn't thought about how nice it would be to a little taller and have a little bit darker skin so he doesn't get sunburnt all the time? As Anglo-Europeans continue to mix with people of African or Native American (north, south and central americans, Hispanics), then these traits will eventually start to even out. I just think it's a bit hypocritical that people will openly acknowledge and discuss physical differences between races/populations which came about because of evolutionary advantages, but as soon as anyone claims that the brain might have evolved differently in those populations as well, he's labeled a racist. (once again, this Watson guy does sound like a grade-A asshole ) 10:25 AM "

10/18/2007 5:11:18 PM

rainman, I understand what you're saying. But you also understand that I don't care what the man says, right? I mean, he's made preposterous, racist assertions. His opinion on Africa and how we can help does not concern me.

Of course, we need to find other ways to help the region. But let's not act like this problem is unique to Africa or indicative of some sort of genetic inferiority. Here in the US, we throw millions of dollars at domestic problems, and when they don't improve, we throw even more millions at them. And then we sit around with our thumbs up our butts confused why more money isn't helping.

10/18/2007 5:31:44 PM

Quote :

"Hur, do you support doing away with welfare as we know it? Making it temp or only paying for one child?"

nahh eventhough I hate the gov't stealing money out of my paycheck; if we just cut off welfare the results would be disastrous. Crime would skyrocket as people have to steal to afford the necessities that were otherwise handed out by the gov't. A new solution needs to be worked through that encourages people to get educated and get a job in order to afford their own necessities. Also, hungry unemployed civilians tend to cause instability within governments. Even if it isn't petty crimes like stealing a car stereo to afford get $$ for food shit like riots would become more common.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 5:36 PM. Reason : s]

10/18/2007 5:34:37 PM

Here's the thing about it. When a reputable scientist makes a claim, you usually look into that claim, and a lot of times you come to the conclusion that what they're saying is either reasonable or unreasonable. Yet, suddenly, when it has something to do with race, the time for critical thinking is over, and it's time to throw "racist" on the table so you don't actually have to debate anything.

Why in the world would people that evolved in two different places, completely separate from each other, have identical intelligence? No one has a problem admitting that black people can run faster and jump higher, it seems.

I'm not racist, but we've come to learn that acknowledging differences between races is automatically racist, so you just shut your brain off when it comes to that.

10/18/2007 5:43:47 PM

^The reason why people aren't interested in debating is:

1. We cannot define intelligence. So we don't even know where to begin.
2. A lot of the people who have started this debate in the past did so because they were racist (not curious) and their "solutions" to the "problem" (that they invented using fake science) are unthinkable in today's terms. Who wants to be associated with those guys?
3. Who cares? How would a conclusion on this topic be worth anything to us?

And...

4. Genetics is hard, dude.

10/18/2007 5:53:08 PM

Quote :

"in what context is this not a racist thing to say:"

its still a racist thing to say I just felt that the context makes it seem slightly less malicsious if though I don't think thats the best word for it

10/18/2007 5:54:32 PM

And, if we're talking about changing our approach to helping Africa...I'm gonna go out on a very short limb and suggest that insulting the intelligence of the people we are trying to help is not a very smart step one.

10/18/2007 5:55:07 PM

ok, #1)

Quote :

"co-founder of the DNA double helix"

it's co-finder or co-discoverer, NOT co-founder. "Founder" would imply that he had something to do with its creation, which he did not.

#2) I think people are putting words in the guy's mouth. The guy isn't saying that blacks are incapable of being as intelligent as whites but that is basically what everyone who is bitching about this is saying he said. Rather, he is stereotyping blacks by saying they just aren't as intelligent as whites. I don't see that as being inherently racist. It's not a smart thing to say, at the very least, but it is a subjective thing that he is saying.

10/18/2007 6:18:03 PM

Quote :

"Here's the thing about it. When a reputable scientist makes a claim, you usually look into that claim, and a lot of times you come to the conclusion that what they're saying is either reasonable or unreasonable. Yet, suddenly, when it has something to do with race, the time for critical thinking is over, and it's time to throw "racist" on the table so you don't actually have to debate anything."

I'll agree that international responses to Dr. Watson's comments are primarily knee-jerk reactions. It's tough to look at a claim objectively when it pertains to such a volatile issue.

Quote :

"Why in the world would people that evolved in two different places, completely separate from each other, have identical intelligence? No one has a problem admitting that black people can run faster and jump higher, it seems."

Genetically speaking, racial differences on an evolutionary level are statistically neglible.

Superiority in sports often correlates tremendously with cultural norms. If you're from a geographic area or community in which success in a particular sport is favored heavily, there's no real surprise is finding that members of that area/community are more likely to experience success in it. Canadiens comprise a huge % of hockey players, Latin Americans are growing rapidly in baseball, rich white guys continue to dominate golf, and everyone outside the US loves mens soccer. That's not genetics. It's primarily a product of environment.

Life is also full of exceptions. Small chinese people have sumo wrestlers. Rich white people have inbred rednecks. Dumb black people have Obama, Oprah, Condy Rice and Colin Powell, etc. Golf has Tiger Woods. Rap has Eminem. Basketball has Yao Ming and Steve Nash. Football has Doug Flutie. Hell, Olympic bobsleding had a Jamaican team.

Finally, universities... the bastions of intellectual achievement and study... have TWW

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 6:26 PM. Reason : asfd]

10/18/2007 6:25:18 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: #2) I think people are putting words in the guy's mouth. The guy isn't saying that blacks are incapable of being as intelligent as whites but that is basically what everyone who is bitching about this is saying he said. Rather, he is stereotyping blacks by saying they just aren't as intelligent as whites. I don't see that as being inherently racist. It's not a smart thing to say, at the very least, but it is a subjective thing that he is saying."

AHAHA

You think you've found some distinction that everyone else doesn't see...

Look up the definition of intelligence, kid.

10/18/2007 6:32:54 PM

Hey, I thought you said

Quote :

"We cannot define intelligence. "

Now I'm confused...

10/18/2007 6:41:01 PM

^AHA, you're not confused. But for those that are:

Defining the word, intelligence, by looking it up in the dictionary is different than really defining intelligence, like this:

Quote :

"3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly 4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of"

Anyway, aaronburro, my point is that you don't understand what folks are saying when they use the word intelligence. When you say that "the guy isn't saying that blacks are incapable of being as intelligent as whites but that is basically what everyone who is bitching about this is saying he said. Rather, he is stereotyping blacks by saying they just aren't as intelligent as whites," you are showing that you definitely don't understand the concept of intelligence:

Quote :

"1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."

If you say blacks aren't as intelligent, you are saying that they are incapable of being as intelligent...well, because intelligence, the idea, is all about what a person is capable of.

10/18/2007 7:06:29 PM

thank you, bridget, for putting words into this guy's mouth and telling me exactly what he thought when he used the word "intelligence." You ability to infallibly read people's minds from half a world away is truly impressive.

10/18/2007 7:13:27 PM

The IQ test is designed to determine one's capacity to learn. Using IQ test results, someone could make a case that there are differences in intelligence between races.

However, there are flaws in that reasoning. It also opens up a can of worms that most people would rather avoid.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Reason : 2]

10/18/2007 7:14:51 PM

I'm familiar with the IQ test.

It is a grossly imperfect measure though.

^^Don't be a fool. Everybody but you knows what he meant. Why you're unwilling to accept it is your problem. Don't try to make it look like I'm the one with a problem.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM. Reason : sss]

10/18/2007 7:24:40 PM

btw, capacity != capability. a 5 gallon jug and a 10 gallon jug have different capacities for containing water, yet both are capable of containing water

Quote :

"Don't be a fool. Everybody but you knows what he meant. Don't question my omniscience! Why you're unwilling to accept it is your problem. Don't try to make it look like I'm the one with a problem."

10/18/2007 7:26:48 PM

^You're such a fool. In most academic circles, "intelligence" relates to capacity or capability. That's why everybody--but you--knows what this guy means by the word.

And, your point about capacity/capability is largely moot:

Quote :

"2. capacity refers to a general ability to comprehend an issue or perform a task; capability implies a reference to one of a set of such abilities"

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/capacity

Stop trolling.

[Edited on October 18, 2007 at 7:42 PM. Reason : Fixed.]

10/18/2007 7:39:27 PM

thanks for providing a link that says they are different.

Quote :

"You're such a fool. In most academic circles, "intelligence" relates to capacity or capability. That's why everybody--but you--knows what this guy means by the word. My omniscience trumps your rational thought every time. Quit question the extent of my power."

10/18/2007 7:42:02 PM

Look, I'm sorry that you spoke without understanding.

It's mildly embarassing, but it's not a big deal, dude.

Get over it.

10/18/2007 7:43:40 PM

Quote :

"Look, I'm sorry that you spoke without understanding. aren't as perfect as I am. It's mildly embarassing, but it's not a big deal, dude. Get over it."

10/18/2007 7:46:42 PM

Reason suggests the black race isn't as intelligent as the white race but individual blacks can do great things in this world. Despite our differences, we are meant to work together to move humanity forward. Raw intelligence is impotent without compassion. The mind needs nurturing and education in a tolerant and free-thinking society: so many lost souls have been born and died desiring only to move themselves forward. Compassion is the mechanism by which the products of raw intelligence propagate and it is compassion that begs equality of the races, not reason.

10/26/2007 5:39:43 PM

10/26/2007 5:44:18 PM

Thank god this thread wasn't made in chit chat.

10/26/2007 5:52:48 PM

what?

10/26/2007 6:01:09 PM

Quote :

"Reason suggests the black race isn't as intelligent as the white race but individual blacks can do great things in this world. Despite our differences, we are meant to work together to move humanity forward. Raw intelligence is impotent without compassion. The mind needs nurturing and education in a tolerant and free-thinking society: so many lost souls have been born and died desiring only to move themselves forward. Compassion is the mechanism by which the products of raw intelligence propagate and it is compassion that begs equality of the races, not reason."

So what you're saying is, you have no concept of reason.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 7:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 7:00:15 PM

Quote :

"Reason suggests the black race isn't as intelligent as the white race but individual blacks can do great things in this world."

Whoa there. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet. At best, the evidence is inconclusive.

10/27/2007 1:31:55 AM

Watson should just stick to little twisty things.

10/27/2007 10:43:43 AM

Quote :

"What IF he's right? Should we round up all the blacks in to camps? Print special text books for them? Make them go to special schools?"

Damn, next they'll be making less intelligent music specifically targeted towards blacks!

10/27/2007 8:06:18 PM

SET 'EM UP

10/27/2007 8:23:54 PM