Slashdot Mirror
James Watson's Nobel Prize Goes On Auction This Week
HughPickens.com writes: Nicholas St. Fleur reports at The Atlantic that James Watson, the famed molecular biologist and co-discoverer of DNA, is putting his Nobel Prize up for auction on Thursday. He's the first Nobel laureate in history to do so. In 2007, Watson, best known for his work deciphering the DNA double helix alongside Francis Crick in 1953, made an incendiary remark regarding the intelligence of black people that lost him the admiration of the scientific community. It made him, in his own words, an "unperson." That year, The Sunday Times quoted Watson as saying that he felt "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 has a history of making racist and sexist declarations, according to Time. At a science conference in 2012, Watson said of women in science, "I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they're probably less effective." To many scientists his gravest offense was not crediting Rosalind Franklin with helping him deduce the structure of DNA.
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Do you ever notice how enamored with American football the Chicago population is? How much money they dump into the Chicago Bears? Oh, how I wish that I would be wrong but often science is meant to be inflammatory. The testing simply shows that the people of Chicago are slovenly drunks who cannot help but repose in sloth upon their reclining chairs in their own pitiful squalor. How can we help the people of Chicago when all of our policies revolve around thinking of them as good decent hardworking people?
About a third of the Chicago population is German. Genetically, therefore they have instilled in them a 'Crazy Fourth Reich Fever' that millennia of conditioning by the BLACK Forest of Germany and they simply only want to fight and invade other peaceful peoples that are doing nothing but contributing to the advancement of the human race. Alas, my mind is tortured that nature could be so cruel as to instill a fine specimen like the German with such brutal and total warring instinct. But we simply cannot be able to even begin to help Chicago out of shit-hole status unless we come to terms with their genetically corrupted DNA structure. I know this may seem shocking to you lay people but I have suffered as Galileo has suffered. Science requires I tell you the truth that I seem to have no scientific basis for yet I know deep down in the pit of my Swedish-American stomach to be true.
Another third of the Chicago population is Irish. Genetically the Irish have evolved in an inherently beautiful land that has caused them to drink heavily whenever outside of this land. This is to deal with the squalid landscapes of Chicago. Blame them not, they are only following the unavoidable bonds of nature that tie into their DNA and make them wholesale worthless drunks. There is no hope for them and, verily, we cannot hope to even get them into rehab until we understand that there simply is no rehabilitation for them. Their origin country has a short pitiful record that I can't seem to find records on regarding any suppressors or instigators prior to being a poor island nation hell bent on alcoholism. Oh, if only my scientific inklings were wrong! How I wish I wasn't the one that has to break the news to you. Woe is all that I can feel for having to inform you that genetically the Irish are inferior.
The final third of the Chicago population is Polish. The Poles of Chicago are a daft and rotund people but it is not their fault. The DNA has been shaped by thousands of years of unhealthy food. The cold winters of Poland and Chicago force them indoors where they cannot possibly be industrious but have to sit at microscopes and furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand these things that I have discovered. Even my high minded Libertarian business attitude can't provide enough jobs for these idle drones. Genetically they suffer from 'Polack Slack' and our policy towards helping them past working on the dock and losing weight will forever fail until we come to accept this. It pains me so to break this news to you but down in my genetically superior innards this idea has been borne and I know it to be true. I know it.
The tests indicate that our great nation would probably be more effective if Chicago and its descendents didn't exist at all. Genetically they will forever be poor and stupid, attached to the glass teat clamoring for more concussions while wallowing about in their fetid sties. Drunk and unable to form simple sentences, our once prosperous country will be held back from truly succeeding.
Ball's in your court, James.
My work here is dung.
It's obvious that what he said about blacks is racist just as it's obvious that what he said about women is sexist. But what the article doesn't say is whether or not it's true. Do blacks test lower on intelligence tests and, if so, has anyone tried to figure out why? Or was Watson just blowing smoke up everyone's collective ass?
Who was the 3rd worker again, that got 'stonewalled' out of credit again?
What kind of person buys medals? The point of a Nobel Prize (or a military decoration, or whatever) is not the shiny thing, it's the reminder of an achievement.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
I'd be hoping people DON'T actually know what you are...
Science is racist and sexist? Wrongthinker!
Watson was "brash but charming" for his entire career, until he became and old man and his inability to observe social mores wasn't so charming anymore, in fact in became a little creepy (I remember a TV interview in which the female interviewer was clearly highly uncomfortable even talking to him, as if he'd hit on her off camera). His book "The Double Helix", the account of his discovery of the structure of DNA along with Francis Crick, in sometimes-competition sometimes-collaboration with Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, and outright competition with Linus Pauling, made him and Crick famous. Watson and Crick both came across in the book as being brash as hell, bulls in the China shop of old school English academia. But hey... they discovered the structure and won the Nobel Prize!
So when Torvalds goes off calling highly proficient engineers morons on public mailing lists, he's defended as doing what's necessary to run a large project. But as he gets older he might find that at some point that behavior isn't going to be tolerated, and all of these earlier incidents are going to be recalled.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact, and the ostracization of Watson is just political correctness. Scientists should be free to speak their minds, and he was actually making a valid point. Differences in nutrition and environment make a difference, but do not come close to explaining the full gap. East Asians have, on average, higher IQs than Caucasians, and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest of any ethnic group. Higher IQs are correlated with a long history of urbanization and economic specialization, where higher IQs provide a selective advantage.
Citations:
Heritability of IQ
Race and Intelligence
i don't know about women & their intelligence
On average, women tend to have higher IQs, but lower variance. So they tend to be under represented at both the high and low end "tails" of the bell curve.
Your comment is extremely racist.
You're goddamn straight it is. The point is that any population -- no matter how high and lofty it is can be the target of stupid shit attributed to their genetic structure with "just so" fallacies. He makes inflammatory statements, doesn't even offer correlation as evidence for them and completely ignores socioeconomic conditions of even the past two hundred years.
... oh, I don't know, the slave trade ... and then just "painfully" wish you were wrong. Notice how I apologized for having to be the one to first acknowledge something I'm not proving.
How hard is it to turn James Watson's high minded lofty DNA superiority complex against his home city? Not hard at all, it turns out. Simply cherry pick from painfully recent history the horrible stereotypes and wars that their ancestors have and totally ignore any outside forces like
What blows my mind is that Africa was for tens of thousands of years in the same state that the rest of the world was in -- hell it's the birthplace of homo sapiens. And the time scale we need to talk about for DNA to change is at the very least tens of thousands of years. 25 million years of human evolution and James Watson measures 'genetic skin-color-intelligence correlation' from his apparently very short knowledge of history. Let's be generous and say he actually considered the past two thousand years which would be odd that he chose not to acknowledge that Europe's age of colonialism had something to do with Africa's current state.
Just like my post listed zero gene expressions, I'm not aware of any he's presented backing his statements. Furthermore, how would one divorce the nature versus nurture in such a test? The long history of racial discrimination the world over would need to be carefully controlled out of the experiment and the fact of the matter is that you can't. I'm not a Nobel prize winning geneticist and even I recognize this.
My work here is dung.
E. O. Wilson called Watson that when Watson took over the Biology department at Harvard. Wilson called him the most unpleasant man he ever met.
But Wilson admits that Watson did motivate him to move beyond the stamp-collecting stage into more disruptive work in evolution.
This man is a victem of the politically moderated speech problem. He stated his beliefs and was then considered anti-female and anti black. In reference to black, native people I do not find it outlandish to suppose that there is little demand for esoteric reasoning as they are busy enough trying to eek out a living. I further do not think it is offensive to state that peoples' minds and social customs adapt to what is needful to survive. Therefore I would expect it to be very rare for native people, not exposed heavily to western life, may not have activated abilities in the mind that are more common in urban cultures. That is not looking down on anyone. People simply adapt their minds to their needs. As far as the remarks about female scientists in the workplace he is on target. The men probably enjoyed the company and therefore the men may not be as concentrated on their work. It does not attack the ability of women at all. It points to the difficulty in mixing sexes in some jobs. The notion of non-offensive speech is killing free speech.
GO ahead, you stick your head in the sand and pretend the obvious isn't smacking against your version of reality.
See my comment "interesting timing" on the Slashdot article about the day in the life at CERN (ATLAS) of a SOUTH AFRICAN WOMAN who is a SCIENTIST.
Also, Mr. Watson should donate anything made over $5 in honor of the woman he neglected to credit in his research.
This.
Generally the reason for this is Africans never went through the same pressures that those that left Africa suffered.
People that went North and out towards Europe and Asia had to suffer cruel ice ages, they almost became extinct, they were literally endangered.
This led to HUGE changes in our DNA, partly due to these pressures, and partly due to smaller breeding partners, but regardless, it happened.
Africa, generally, never had to suffer this problem.
Africa only just in the past few thousand years has had really bad problems with desertification basically screaming its way through the continent, having destroyed massive chunks of land due to overfarming in hot areas.
If we were to just take everywhere else out of the equation and Africa was left for a few more thousand years, things will change massively there as well. Massive numbers of people will die. Of course, this is the real world, and such death "in the modern age" is a bad thing, so it would be stopped and in turn will lead to evolution forking its way in so many areas that won't be as useful.
Another point a lot of people make is the whole "blacks are violent" crap. This isn't true at all, that is one sub-group of Negroids, mainly those that were taken from Africa during the slave days and it ended up becoming an unintended selective breeding issue where brutish, physically tough blacks were passing on their genes to future generations.
Testosterone being the way it is totally screws the brain over in regards to intelligence. Those that have more of it are usually nowhere near as intelligent as their peers. This has been a well known fact.
Those with large bulbous muscles generally do not have the same average intelligence as their peers, whereas those that have a more uniform frame have evolved a good compromise between testosterone and intelligence.
Evolution is about balance. There is a max energy quota that the genome doesn't go over, that has been hard-coded over millions of years based on the history of our surroundings. One thing changes and it snowballs all the way through the genome. It is a very delicate balancing act.
So, to say all blacks are equal is pretty insulting itself, since the Negroid race itself is the 2nd largest diverse group there is next to Mongoloid.
But overall, Africa never suffered the pressures the rest of the human race went through, which led to them developing more socially, within the respective tribal structures humans evolved in over the past million odd years. (just in the same way that Dolphins did, or Squids, or Whales, they were in the restrictive ocean environment and so could only really evolve internally, which led to huge social and emotional skills, tribalism and such)
And that is not a bad thing at all.
A common mistake is a lot of people think Intelligence is an end-goal, a holy grail, the best. It isn't. Not even slightly.
Intelligence is only a good thing with respect to US, but that won't stop a crocodile ripping your arm off. That won't stop a bear ripping your face to shreds.
Intelligence is just one facet of evolution. Strength is another, social skills, and so on.
Africans more than most are generally more sociable.
But naw, can't say any of this, racism!
Even the term Negroid and Mongoloid are falling out of use because stupid political correctness nonsense.
Fuck the science community. Fuck all of them.
Whether he is a racist or not — indeed, whether he was right or not — he was, undoubtedly, a brilliant scientist. To turn him away from scientific pursuits was not only unfair to him, but simply foolish of the rest of us — plain and simple. Worse, for organizations receiving government research grants (that's nearly all higher education institutions) to have done that, was unconstitutional too.
At least, Mel Gibson — a similarly brilliant actor and director — kept doing, what he does best, even after his (alleged) racism became well-publicized... His probable antisemitism hurts me for one, but I still consider "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of Christ" to be master-pieces... It is too bad, Mr. Watson had not been able to create his due to his thoughtcrime.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The article says "He said he is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. It also says that he will use the money to re-enter public life.
How odd. He still has an office at Cold Spring Harbor and he comes in to work fairly often. He still attends functions, fundraisers, and lectures there. He also has a very nice house on the lab's grounds that overlooks the Long Island sound. I can't imagine the laboratory is ungrateful with his retirement package. So he's still in public life and he's living a very nice life. I don't understand the article.
soylentnews.org
OK, let's look a this guy, (Chiwetelu Umeadi "Chiwetel" Ejiofor, the Operative from Serenity). If you look at his bio, it's pretty amazing for a recent actor. Acting isn't easy and requires quite a bit of intelligence, amongst other traits. Although the Wikipedia article doesn't reference his DNA sequence, physiologically he is quite 'black'.
But nobody is of a 'pure' race these days, human propensity to screw with anything that looks human being what it is. We're all mutts.
I think you all of the eugenics persuasion really don't understand how pervasive a poor social and cultural environment is and how fragile the underpinnings of our civilization (which hasn't actually been a going concern for all that long of a time) really is.
Besides, you are all conveniently forgetting the other part of the Watson World View - that women are decorative but not useful.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Some people have even reported average scores for sub-Saharan countries that would qualify as mentally retarded in the Western world. This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
No it's isn't political correctness. The point is that IQ tests are skewed by schooling and so aren't a good underlying indicator of intelligence per se. e.g. IQ has been rising since the 30s. It can't be because we're getting smarter, so something is wrong. Watson is assuming that IQ==intelligence and therefore Africans are stupid. That's a problem. You also appear to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that we have selected (i.e. evolutionarily) for higher IQs in west and other urbansised areas. I don't think there is any evidence of this.
soylentnews.org
"Fuck the science community. Fuck all of them."
Weren't you purporting to quote scientific evidence just now?
News for merdes. Shit that matters.
Ask me about my sig.
Dr, James Watson is an arrogant (reasonably intelligent) prick who managed to be at the right place at the right time. Both of the other co discoverers of the helix (Francis Crick and Rosealind Franklin) both went on to storied careers in research, in Franklin's case despite dying of cancer at age 37). Watson went on to be a gadfly and generic asshole.
I've met both Watson and Crick. Francis Crick, aside from his drive and intelligence was incredibly polite, well mannered and fun to be with. Watson was an arrogant ass.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
To buy the medal and give it to Rosalind's heirs
Higher IQs are correlated with a long history of urbanization and economic specialization, where higher IQs provide a selective advantage.
There's no arguing this. But, from what I've read about James Watson, he never said anything close to this. Instead, I can even find on his wikipedia page this quote from one of his books:
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"
So it's related to a long history of urbanization and economic specialization? And also Watson's unequal powers of reason? What is he implying if not to say that genetically some people are born without the equal "powers of reason"? He didn't quite say that due to "a long history of urbanization and economic specialization" instead he said due to geographic separation followed by their evolution. Watson's position as a genetic researcher commenting on something that is almost certainly attributed to socioeconomic status is strange, wouldn't you think? Was he commenting on this as an economist or perhaps historian?
I also like how you link to wikipedia pages but not their internal discrepancies on your open and close case that IQ is inherited. Including this quote from your first link:
Eric Turkheimer and colleagues (2003) found that for children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero.
From this source.
You present a perfectly acceptable and fairly logical argument about the advancement of some cultures outpacing others. One need only read "Guns, Germs & Steel" where this sort of thing is discussed in a very sound and well researched way. Do we raise our pitchforks and chase after Jared Diamond with fervor? Not at all. Then again, his arguments didn't rest entirely upon some imaginary gene expression he just hadn't found yet.
Your "political correctness" claim is largely rubbish. While it may appear a knee-jerk reaction, this is the case of people objecting to a statement with no underlying scientific basis while Watson makes claims that we should be able to isolate the "Intelligence Gene." Have we had success in isolating such a gene from the Ashkanazi? Furthermore Watson implies (though never directly says) that lack of similar genes is what keeps Africa repressed -- while making zero reference to the reverberating effects of hundreds of years of European colonizations and their leeching of wealth & resources.
My work here is dung.
Citations: Heritability of IQ Race and Intelligence
The "Race and Intelligence" article has the following cautions at the top:
This article's factual accuracy is disputed.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.
Not exactly a convincing support for your argument
Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice http://m.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
Study: More Education Increases IQ Score http://m.voanews.com/a/study-more-education-increases-iq-score-136593433/169492.html
Staying in school really can make you smarter. A new study from Norway finds that students who remain in school longer than their counterparts have higher IQ scores.
Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific'. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html
are behind many traits. I wouldn't be surprised if they are behind intelligence. In fact, I would expect it.
Look, east Africans are much better long distance runners. Why? Genetics.
West Africans tend to be much more muscular. Why? Genetics.
Danes are happier than most of the people on the planet. Why? Genetics.
Ashkenazi Jews are prone to higher intelligence (5 pts) and greater anxiety and neuroticism. Why? Genetics.
American Indians look surprisingly like Nepalese. Yep. Genetics. They are closely related.
Watson's statement is probably pretty racist. That doesn't make it false.
In that vain, isn't a statement like "Oh, you San Bushmen, you people are all so happy", also racist? Or "you Danes, you are all so happy"? It is a generalization of a race, after all.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact, and the ostracization of Watson is just political correctness
is complete bullshit and why Watson was rightfully ostracized for making the claims that lower IQs were inherent to the race without conclusive data.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I lived in what is now the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" for three years, so I have at least personal anecdotal knowledge.
1) Relatively recent colonial history means that there was no native bureaucracy able to run the countries when the colonial powers left.
2) Dictators took over, and most dictators don't really want to make the country better, instead they just want power and money.
3) History of tribal politics means that when someone takes power they give rewards to their tribe at the cost of the other tribes.
4) Lack of national-level control means that it's difficult to exploit the natural resources.
5) Lack of government responsibility means that when countries do exploit the national resources very little of the money ends up in the hands of the workers (or the country).
6) Lack of government funding for educational facilities means that there is a continuing shortage of qualified local skilled labour. (It was quite common for teachers to charge students a fee to write finals, since the teachers got very little salary.)
And Watson wasn't smart enough to avoid bankruptcy ...
Dr, James Watson is an arrogant (reasonably intelligent) prick who managed to be at the right place at the right time. Both of the other co discoverers of the helix (Francis Crick and Rosealind Franklin) both went on to storied careers in research, in Franklin's case despite dying of cancer at age 37). Watson went on to be a gadfly and generic asshole.
I've met both Watson and Crick. Francis Crick, aside from his drive and intelligence was incredibly polite, well mannered and fun to be with. Watson was an arrogant ass.
Great... but my comment was: "Mister James Watson is a great example of how the self-righteous left-wing people fail miserably in the presence of facts - in one of his visits in a Greek university our (yes, i am Greek) left-wing foolish pricks (most of them not even students) did what (Greek - and not only) left-wing people usually do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DouJCVaokXg"
So, as an answer to me you should make a comment about either the left-wing pricks or... Dr, James Watson AND the left-wing pricks!
I'm not liking this renewed interest in race. In this society, intelligence is paramount. It determines how well you do on tests in school, which determines if you continue your education, which determines where you go in life and how successful you are. It determines how violent you are, how trustworthy you are, if you're lazy or if you're a hard worker, if you're impulsive or if you have self-control, so on and so on...
The more intelligent you are, the more human you are.
And I'm not even criticizing that, but rather, setting the stage for why it hurts when I hear people say that blacks are mostly unintelligent. It's dehumanizing, which in turn justifies the unjustifiable. It's shameful, which lowers self-esteem and the will to even try.
This society, which is built upon the concept that a man can pursue his own destiny and happiness, has been known to enslave blacks and separate the races. This society has a history of controlling people, limiting their destiny, and forcing them into servitude based entirely on the color of their skin even after abolishing slavery.
We had laws on miscegenation, ostensibly to protect the white race of course... Can you justify that now? You don't want to pollute your family bloodline with inferior genes right? Maybe you think that ought to be a law again?
We had laws forbidding blacks from owning firearms. Look at the state of the nation today. Which group is using those guns to kill other people more than most? Maybe we should go back to banning them right? It would be the technocrat's answer wouldn't it?
There were laws keeping blacks separate from whites in both schools and neighborhoods. You want your pure, intelligent kids to be safe right? They are after all, the future of the country. You wouldn't want them to come under the wrong influence right?
Blacks are also bad for property values. I don't like this either. But you know, there's probably a scientific reason for it. Insurance probably goes up too. After all, you're living in a dangerous place. You wouldn't want little Timmy to get hurt by the black people...
For a reason you can guess, I want to find some explanation for Africa and black people in general... but I haven't found anything yet. There's no way I know to explain away this racial shame. All I can do is impotently complain, and watch as my country slowly slips back into the past, both online and on the streets.
It could, if natural selection were biased toward intelligence.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you know what does predict lower IQ more meaningfully?
believing racist shit
So here is a guy who is pawning his medals after a lifetime in academia having about as successful a career as is possible in science; and at the same time some douche with a 2 year old MBA is trying to figure out "Ferrari, or Lamborghini?"
One career will change the lives of pretty much everybody, and the other will involve being rewarded for raping pension plans.
One career will bring a lifetime of intellectual satisfaction and the other will bulk up an inner psychopath.
Yes our civilization is fairly broken.
You are correct, but you will be modded as flamebait/troll because is a taboo subject and the humans are too much more likely to think in a social/politics way than logically.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
the problem isn't he was stating things that weren't facts. The problem was he was taking facts ludicrously out of context.
First, Africa is a very diverse continent, but let's focus on sub saharan africa. The difference in IQ between western countries and Sub-saharan africa is about 18 points. To put this in perspective, this means sub-saharan africans are AS INTELLIGENT as Europeans/Americans were roughly 70 years ago. So the same intelligence that allows for the first harnessing of nuclear power, advanced flight and rocket technology, along with the entire host of discoveries we had at that time are in range of Africa (see the Flynn effect and comparisons of IQ over time, the US gain in a 70 year period was about 20 points).
So people call BS on him because if the intelligence levels Africans have given their limited access to stable nutrition and education is still roughly equal to your grand parents, it definitely isn't a large enough gap to matter. And of course, we are limiting ourselves to one part of Africa.
The thing is that these are limits of the tests and we actually do not know whether black African people are less smart, equally smart or smarter than the global average. The best assumption we have is equal intelligence on average (disregarding illnesses that decrease intelligence and that could be more prevalent in areas with poor medical infrastructure). It is a reasonable assumption, but it is just an assumption.
The two main problems with intelligence tests are that they have a bias for education (people with higher education get better scores without being more intelligent) and a target culture (people in the test target culture get higher scores). There are no test that can eliminate the education bias or the cultural dependency.
On the other hand, cultural factors can be a serious problem and many African cultures are vastly different with regards to things that make western culture tick, such as punctuality, correctness, etc. and some people cannot deal with that. These are not factors connected to intelligence though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I've seen it myself. Now from personal experience I know many African Americans that are brilliant people. The tests Watson refers to are culturally biased and so yes will show certain groups as inferior to others. But it's well known at this point that this is true - the test are culturally biased. So give a test given to white U.S. kids to kids in the various countries of Africa and sure - the kids in the latter will likely test lower.
Has nothing to do with brain capacity and everything to do with culture.
He's too not far off on the decorative part ;-)...
Someone please hand me the world's tiniest violin.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
you should check out the documentary Idiocracy.
This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Not true. There is a 15 to 18 point gap in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites. That is about one standard deviation. Similar gaps exist in other mixed race countries.
It could, if natural selection were biased toward intelligence.
Yes, because natural selection works on the sort of timescale between the invention of IQ tests and the present day (i.e. about 100 years).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It can't be because we're getting smarter
Why not? Just a single known factor, the reduction of environmental lead, has likely increased average IQs by 3 to 5 points. Other factors, such as folic acid enrichment of basic foods, has likely made a significant difference as well.
Except that IQs aren't scientific facts. They are just the quotient of two numbers that mean absolutely nothing. Yea, people with low IQs generally have mental disabilities, but that doesn't make Africa retarded.
Blacks are inferior to Asians.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Some people have even reported average scores for sub-Saharan countries that would qualify as mentally retarded in the Western world. This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Sorry, how do you come to the conclusion that IQ tests do not measure intelligence?
Measuring intelligence differences tells you nothing about why those differences occur.
Now, if by "intelligence" you mean "fixed inherited cognitive abilities that never change" maybe--but that's a strawman and not what is generally meant by intelligence.
Furthermore, no measure works well in every situation. I.e., my infrared thermometer has a range, and doesn't work well if hot gases are passing in front of the object. The same is true of intelligence tests--you'd be stupid to try to make inferences about the intelligence of sub-Saharan countries based on tests that aren't validated in that setting.
Racist ideas are bad enough--you don't have to put fuel on the fire by giving adherents flawed criticisms.
....he's not, actually, because IQ is a number based on other numbers, which actually has no bearing on intelligence.
Assuming people who say "racist shit" are unintelligent is even more unintelligent than saying racist shit yourself.
You also appear to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong)
You are wrong.
that we have selected (i.e. evolutionarily) for higher IQs in west and other urbansised areas.
I didn't say that. I said that higher IQ scores are correlated with a history of urbanization. Selective pressure is an obvious explanation for that, but there could be other reasons. For instance, smarter people could just gravitate to cities (but that wouldn't really explain why the average IQ of the whole population increases).
Why did anyone mod ShanghailBill up?
They can phrase it how they like, but there is a large extremely conservative element on slashdot who are racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic elitists. With beards.
Just because someone is good with computers doesn't make them someone you'd want as a friend..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country" -- that. Intellegence is not just a DNA lottery you win or loose at birth. Have Enstein grow up with monkeys and all he can do is say "ook" and bang rocks together. Same with many countries in Africa, what exactly do you expect from states where half the population is illiterate? If you cant even read and write it doesn't really matter if its because of lacking education or brain damage, functional end result is same - in modern western world you qualify as mentally retarded.
There is a world of difference between populations of developed countries and populations of poorest countries. It all comes down to culture, education and civilisation. Biology doesn't even play into it, white, black, yellow or early caveman, its all the same. Compared to effects of grooming - minor, superficial differences in biology are meaningless.
Its a tragedy and a waste of human lives like no other. Lack of education is what all the subsaharan troubles boil down to.
Please read the Bell Curve. Its mostly not about race, its about IQ, or 'g'. And how modern society segregates by IQ.
There are racial differences. Populations have statistics. And individuals are individuals --there are tall asians even if the pop ave is shorter than other races. Brains are just another organ.
Correlation does not equal causation.
There are similar gaps in IQ if you consider poverty or hunger rather than race. As a matter of fact, dietary deficiency in infants can result in permanent IQ deficit for life.
One reason why programs like SNAP (Food Stamps) are so important to help the poor.
IQ doesn't "rise" for an entire population. If all the scores are rising, it means the test is out of date and needs to be restandardized.
By definition, IQ is measured as a standard distribution curve with an IQ of 100 being the average. If everyone on the planet suddenly got twice as smart, we'd still have the same IQ because again, IQ measures you in relation to the rest of the population.
If you develop a new IQ test, then you have to standardize the scoring on it so that average == 100 or you're not actually testing for IQ.
From Wiki: When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less
> But nobody is of a 'pure' race these days
Nobody was ever part of a 'pure' race, because pure race is a myth. What we have are populations, and 'race' is an attempt to group populations into one category based on a handful of common genetic characteristics, ignoring thousands of others.
Sorry, how do you come to the conclusion that IQ tests do not measure intelligence?
Simple: IQ test scores are hard data. Any reasonable interpretation of those data raises inconvenient political issues. So therefore, they are invalid. Problem solved. So despite the fact that IQ is strongly correlated with school performance, job performance, lifetime income, criminality, etc., and despite the fact that we can actually address it in measurable ways with abatement of environmental pollutants (lead, mercury, PCBs, etc.) and better nutrition (folic acid enrichment, DHA supplements, etc.), it is much better if everyone sticks their fingers in their ears, denies the issue exists, and demonizes anyone who attempts to quantify it.
Scientific evidence has nothing to do with the science community. The former are facts that were documented by scientists. The latter is a ragtag group of pseudo-intellectuals who hold face and political correctness above fact.
I'd make the case that much of that if not all can be explained by cultural differences. Besides, IQ tests don't measure everything. Many with high IQ's flounder while those with marginal ones manage to excel. There are many different types of smart.
Perhaps it's because the fuck/non-fuck ratio in his posts is lower than yours.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There may be a significant racial difference in average intelligence, but that doesn't change the fact that the IQ test is a load of horse shit.
Any test which purports to measure and _intrinsic_ quality which is clearly affected by environmental factors is hilariously stupid.
Things that can chance a _particular individuals_ IQs score, in successive tests:
* time of day
* the type of music they have listened to recently
* when they last ate
* if they had read or watched TV recently
* years of education
* etc.
The only thing an IQ test is good for is getting a rough idea of how good the person is at taking an IQ test.
Well, totally not a racist here, but I have to say, you talk a lot of crap yourself i kan read. So, great you're not a racist, but it doesn't stop you being a different kind of asshole.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
Ah, this is so cool, it certainly deserves the high "Insightful" moderation. So, when a test comes up with results, that go against your existing dogma, you reject the test — not the dogma? "Hide the decline" much?
I do not know whether or not Africans — or any other race — have a higher (or lower) IQ (or intelligence, if that's what you prefer). But if you are going to argue, that nobody is smarter, then you better have your evidence lined-up — something better than a dogmatic belief.
Penalizing scientists for thoughtcrimes does not advance humanity's progress...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
... IQ has been rising since the 30s. It can't be because we're getting smarter...
That's quite an assertion to make without citing evidence. If a study found that people on average run faster now than a few decades ago, would you have trouble believing that? Why can't intelligence too be a muscle that can be improved by things like nutrition and simply exercising it? Would you have the intelligence you have now if you had been raised in a sensory deprivation tank and just saw daylight for the first time five minutes ago?
Even if we were to think intelligence as something we are born with, things like the mother's nutrition matters. And the human brain is born half-baked(*); what input you get during your first months and years will affect your brain's wiring. Why can't that be improved over time?
(*) Not like that.
Oh, intelligence is skewed by schooling? You don't say... In your opinion what exactly is the point of schooling if not to gain intelligence? If you take identical twins, give one best education he is capable of achieving and leave other to grow up in the woods do you seriously think they will end up being equally intelligent? IQ is certainly not intelligence, at best it's a measure of how fast you can solve abstract problems. IQ does however correlate strongly with intelligence, because thinking faster makes it a lot easier to gain intelligence. And correspondingly solving lots of abstract problems on daily basis does make you a lot better and faster at it thus causing you to score higher on IQ tests. But you need to start out with basic education, you have no hope of becoming intelligent if you can't even read and write. So no, we don't get intelligence along with human DNA package, we need to obtain it through decades of hard work, not everyone makes it. And the tragedy is, not everyone in the world gets a chance. Africa doesn't have a huge illiteracy problem because they are stupid to start with. It's the other way around, they are stupid because they never get a chance to learn.
This suggests, some sort of absolute IQ measurement should be developed — so that differences between generations in a population, or contemporary populations of different locales can be meaningfully measured. One obvious application would be to track the efficiency of public education, but there can, of course, be others...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you have ideas, whether they are right or not, there are some people are going to disagree with you.
If others have ideas, whether they are wrong or not, there are some people who are going to agree with them.
I do not believe that there will ever be an impartial and scientific study conducted to definitively prove anything and one sure as hell sure that none could be conducted in my life time. Humanity has believed many things about race in its history, humanity believes many things about it today and humanity will continue to believe various things about it in years to come. Perhaps in your country, or your community or just in your circle of friends, there is a consensus that you are right, but in the wider world, this is still very much an open topic. This applies whether or not arguments to the contrary offend you.
One of the best ways to promote one's ideas as being rational is through civil discourse and tolerance. Your profanities and ad hominem demonstrate neither.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
And this, is how Illiberals react, when a thoughtcriminal challenges their — unsubstantiated — beliefs... This perfect example of Illiberal approach to arguing makes a good conversational piece and is now available printed on archive-quality paper.
Wild-caught. Order it with an attractive (organic) wood frame for only $9.99 more and receive free shipping within continental US. Call now, operators are standing by.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
100% true about Africa.
You can make many of the same correlations with a person's height and with their time to run 100 yards. Are you going to suggest that a yardstick measures the same thing as an IQ test?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Indeed, it does not. But the GPP wasn't denying the causation. He was denying the correlation.
There are similar gaps in IQ if you consider poverty or hunger rather than race.
Indeed there is. But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race. Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions. Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood? Why are poor black kids deficient in folic acid, iodine, and other critical micro-nutrients, when poor white kids are not? Why are black women so reluctant to breastfeed their babies? Nobody really knows, and we won't find answers by denying there is a problem, and demonizing those asking the questions.
rather just some sort of justification for your irrational bigotry and hatred.
Resorting to name calling is essentially admitting that he's got a point you can't refute but don't like. I certainly didn't detect hatred. You mad bro?
Hence why they'd pay so much. Not because it is worth that much, you could have a gold medal made much cheaper, but because it has historical significance and they wish to have that.
There is also the part where it has been exploited by just about all the above mentioned more developed areas. Much of the billions of Aid given, while good intentions have had some negative affects, like dumped subsidized US grain effectively making local commercial farming non-profitable (The US farmer still gets paid though).
There are probably some cultural reasons as well, perhaps to do with tribal factions but I'm not really educated on it enough to really comment more than it probably exists as a contributing factor.
Mod this up please. For those not reading carefully, it is SATIRE lampooning Watson's linking genetics with human beahvior.
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
Sure, but that runs against the racists' "blacks are genetically stupid" claim.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
The bitch is just 5 seconds of thought logically would show why this would make sense from a biological point of view. Brains take a LOT of energy to run and the harder the brain works the more energy its gonna use so there would be zero point in developing a more powerful one if it simply wasn't needed from a biological standpoint.
All those groups you named with high IQs? Lived in what has been historically seriously rough climates where getting enough to survive would take serious planning and strategy to survive, much less get enough to reproduce and thrive. Compare this to Africa where the climate over time has been some of the mildest, food plants of all types from fruits to roots has been abundant, tons of wild game....just not a real point in having a high IQ to plan ahead when you could just step out your hut into a paradise of abundance.
But sadly political correctness has made science into Lysenkoism where only science that backs up the party beliefs are allowed. According to PC we are all nothing but Barbie and Ken dolls and the only difference is some dye added to the plastic where anybody with 2 eyes can see that isn't so. We have different builds, different skull shapes,, different diseases target different races, this isn't "racist" its simple measurable observation but sadly because some idiots at the turn of the 20th century tried to make everything racial with eugenics now we can't even point out reality without getting attacked.
Who knows, maybe in another century we'll be allowed to get out of the PC dark ages and have real science that is allowed to question everything without regard for how it affects the party but until then all one can do is practice Lysenkoism and only look at things which back up the dogma.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Oh god I hate weighing in on the wrong side of this argument but I can't let this one lie. (For the record, I'm assuming based on what you are responding to that you're being sarcastic, if you're not... well, so it goes). Yes, natural selection can work in about 100 years. Natural selection can work in about 100s if the environment changed the right way. Do note, natural selection is only a single part of evolution, and for lasting, long term changes to occur requires, among other things, mutations. Those kinds of changes take dozens of generations. Simply changing the rate of expression of a gene in the gene pool is as simple as removing the genes you don't like, which can happen very, very rapidly.
There is a 15 to 18 point gap [wikipedia.org] in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites.
There's an obvious difference between such a gap and being mentally retarded.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
It does when you wipe out 100 million in just 6 years. Your brutish "I'm a tough baddazz" types found out Mr Bullet don't care while the smart ones knew to duck. If you look at history the western powers were sending their poor off to the killing fields about once a generation...yeah that kind of pressure on the gene pool would do it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Hard data to who?
Nobody on this site ever argues that Psycology and related fields are a "hard science".
If you can provide some genetic evidence that can determine IQ with any substantial significance, then you can easily get a Nature Genetics paper published. Hell, the genetic determination of height still isn't even close to being figured out.
I think the problem is that he did not do anything of real interest after the DNA structure. Crick went on and worked on translation and then on some at least rather interesting ideas about the brain. Watson mainly became a trophy for whatever institution he worked at. Some Nobel laureates continue to do good to great work - Sanger is one, Pauling another for the great category, and others turn out to be one hit wonders. But Watson seems to be uniquely unproductive and arrogant, and selling his medal seems like a very pathetic cry for attention
Funny how often people fall back on IQ tests despite their having been thoroughly discredited ages ago... The US was a world leader in the "science" of Eugenics in the early 1900s, and the first World Eugenics conference was held in the US.
If it weren't disputed, it wouldn't be an argument?
(*Note: don't support that side of things. Just an observation)
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
No it doesn't. It tells you that there's a confounding factor (like, say, education).
"the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country."
LOL! Do you mean a WHITE country? So what 'magic' makes Africa the third world hellhole that it is? The land mass? The weather?
Test after test shows that Africans are the stupidest people on the planet. Okay, not the stupidest, the Australian aborigines are even stupider than Africans. And more ape like... HATE CRIME!
To many scientists his gravest offense was not crediting Rosalind Franklin with helping him deduce the structure of DNA.
That seems to be a silly accusation. In his 1968 book "The Double Helix", the following is said on page 4:
Chiefly it was a matter of five people: Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, Linus Pauling, Francis Crick, and me.
Heck, he writes about Rosie a bit. She was supposedly a hot chick, if she only knew how to dress. Yeah, that's a stereotypical male view of women, but hey, at least we learn that much about her.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
As a fan of molecular biology I would buy it if rich.
"lost him the admiration of the scientific community"
I'm a member of the scientific community and I agree with Watson 100% regarding these supposedly "incendiary" comments. How can the truth be incendiary? You won't find many scientists making these statements publicly since, of course, they'll lose their jobs. But scientists aren't stupid: they can see the data and are more and more coming to realize that genetics leads to significant differences in intelligence.
But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race.
Some studies claim that. Other adoption studies have shown that black kids basically do the same as white kids when both are raised by white families. You can argue about which studies are better, but there's not a clear answer, unlike your (pardon the pun) "black-and-white" argument.
Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions.
Okay, let's talk about these in turn.
Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood?
Because even if they live in the same neighborhoods, blacks disproportionately end up in worse housing conditions. From that link, which compares randomly sampled groups of Whites and Blacks living in an urban environment in the same city: "Racial disparity in urban children's blood lead levels appears to be due to differences in housing conditions and environmental exposures. While [various factors] contribute to blood lead for both Black and White children, Black children, who in this study were largely impoverished and lived in pooly maintained rental housing, are also exposed to higher levels of lead-contaminated house dust and to painted surfaces and floor that are in poorer condition. Thus, housing condition and exposure to lead-contaminated house dust appear to be major contributors to the racial disparity in children's blood levels.
Next?
Why are poor black kids deficient in folic acid,
Well, we know that black moms are more likely to be deficient in folic acid. Part of it is dietary; from the link: "certain groups, including women of childbearing age and non-Hispanic black women, are at risk of insufficient folate intakes. Even when intake of folic acid from dietary supplements is included, 19% of female adolescents aged 14 to 18 years and 17% of women aged 19 to 30 years do not meet the EAR. Similarly, 23% of non-Hispanic black women have inadequate total intakes, compared with 13% of non-Hispanic white women."
So, diet is a big reason, and if black moms are deficient and feed a similar diet to their kids, well, you might guess that the kids could end up deficient. Other studies have noted that black women are less likely to have access to supplements or pre-natal vitamins that might provide adequate folic acid content.
iodine, and other critical micro-nutrients, when poor white kids are not?
Probably because blacks tend to consume a lot less dairy, which is often known to correlate with iodine deficiencies. From this study, "The NHANES and NCS UI [iodine level] data suggest that non-Hispanic black women have lower UI concentration than other women. Additionally, non-Hispanic black women had lower dairy consumption.... Non-Hispanic black women reporting rates of dairy consumption is consistent with recent data on U.S. population reports of lactose intolerance... among females, 50% were non-Hispanic black, 30% non-Hispanic white, and 20% Hispanic. Self-diagnosed lactose intolerance and consequent avoidance of dairy products may be on the contributing factors in the racial/ethnic differences we have shown in UI concentration."
Tha
FTA: "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
We do. A bigot.
It is symptomatic of where civilization is headed that the respondents most highly rated here at "News for Nerds" -- presumably a technically and scientifically literate sampling of civilization -- exhibit almost scientific literacy regarding Watson's statements.
This reinforces my perception of civilization as more of a eusocial organism than anything resembling an enlightened society. Eusocial organisms, like bee or ant colonies, do exchange information between its members but the information is relatively low bandwidth taking the form of pheromones. Most of the words used to describe Watson, such as "racist" and "sexist" are so loaded with connotation that they are virtually worthless as high bandwidth tokens -- serving more the function of pheromone signaling in eusocial insects: "Not of the hive! Attack!"
Seastead this.
^^seriously needs to be modded up, even with only 1 still left to go.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Again, there are a shit ton of demographics that trend the same way as blacks vs whites... especially income.
I believe James Watson's views are quite correct on race... To add a little MORE supporting evidence...
Major universities in America did IQ tests among the races, they were:
115 Northern European Jew
110 Asians
100 White
90 Hispanic
80 Blacks
--- You can still find references to these online; They also showed that when an Interracial couple had kids, the children tended to be split right between the two groups. Also factor in that the majority of "African Americans" are not full blooded Africans, this would make African Americans statistically smarter than Africans... Also it has been stated the creators of the tests were bias, given they were Caucasian universities(at the time), why not would they make Caucasians 115?
More evidence is available on wikipedia and government pages, Generally speaking violent crime in the US, UK, Canada, Australia are all very similar per-capita once you factor in the Black community, The USA has a much larger population of Blacks than the rest, Canada more than Uk and so on... These factor into the crime discrepancy between the nations NOT any cultural difference per-say. ie: A black person is 6 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a white person, and this is shown in stats and prison time/population. A Black person in America is only slightly less likely( statistically) to commit a violent crime as a black person in Bahamas, Haiti, or Most(if not all) African countries that provide stats...
This doesn't mean a Black person can't be the smartest, most well rounded person in the world,.but we are speaking generalities here, statistics and while noone refutes the stats, they do the cause.. Socio-economic, etc etc... DNA/Nature provides more evidence than nurture.
I submit, humans are animals. Take our K9 companions; It is well established that some breeds excel at different tasks/intelligences; Our races are simply different "breeds";
Differences in nutrition and environment make a difference, but do not come close to explaining the full gap.
Except they do, if you look at child nutrition specifically (i.e. while the brain still develops).
who would better know the genetic difference between different kinds of people than him?
He means under the same socio economic conditions. Obviously. That deviation comes from poor blacks in the south and big city ghettos. Who is more intelligent black swamp dwellers or white trailer trash? What about any blacks in an affluent community like tiburon, near SF. All the people there are pretty intelligent all the blacks, Hispanics, whites, Chinese because they're all rich as fuck by my standards.
Whereas the educational authorities are very aware of the educational achievement gap between races around here, and are working to give blacks a better chance to excel. Nobody's denying anything here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How do you want to express it, other than IQ rising? If you administer standard tests from other decades, modern people score higher according to the norms of the time of the test. I understand what you're saying, but there is a real effect here that indicates that, when measured by the same tests, modern people have a higher IQ than people of the 1930s.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well that had to be a lot of work.
Bravo for putting in the effort to explain how these things have socio-economic explanations. Usually I can't be bothered to put in the time and simply respond with "there have been studies". Which is admittedly lazy.
ShainhiBill was right. There is an IQ gap. But without pointing out the probable cause for the gap, it can come off as a little bit racist.
The part where he has all these leading questions is.... actually it just seems like a non-sequitur. I'm not even sure if he's trying to imply that it's genetic in nature.
Are you claiming that there are no food shortages in Africa, and there never have been? That's what this "paradise of abundance" crap means. In fact, human populations (with modern exceptions) tend to increase to the natural limits, meaning that, if there was a paradise of abundance, it would be sufficiently crowded so that people would have to work and plan for their food. Alternately, there are other limits on population growth, which would require working and planning to deal with.
You can also point out reality, should you ever encounter it. The political aspects mean that your motives will be suspect, so it would be well to have your facts and arguments straight. Saying something based on speculation about your mistaken ideas about Africa will cause people to doubt your motives and your intelligence.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Social Justice Warriors, deciding the truth via progressive stack, Social Justice Warriors, if you don't believe like us we are on the attack!
Do you understand what "historically" means? apparently not because if you did you'd know that with the exception of the last 200 hundreds years (thanks to modern farming and lack of crop rotation causing deserts) that Africa has been ONE OF THE MOST FERTILE PLACES ON THE PLANET! Meanwhile the rest of the world had this little thing called an "ice age" maybe you heard of it? So yes Virginia for most of human history the food in Africa was plentiful while the food in Europe and Asia was most decidedly NOT, this is what happens when you live on the equator surrounded by ocean on a landmass teeming with game and food plants.
I noticed you waited until the thread was off the front page before you spewed your SJW crap, afraid of being modbombed because people are tired of PC bullshit?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
How come everybody is willing to accept that black people have "on average" a larger willie, and the same people refuse to even consider the possibility that they have "on average" a lower IQ?
You're doing a great job of answering some of those questions, but you're also demonising the guy asking those questions, helping to illustrate his very point.
You're also contradicting yourself a little. From your two last paragraphs:
"...you've identified some interesting correlations with race..."
"...[it's] insidious to go around [...] implying that there are significant differences in intelligence related to race".
Basically you're saying "it's not a correlation, it's just a correlation, and it's wrong to wonder why it is".
It's obvious that you know what you're talking about, but it's also kind of apparent that you don't quite get what the other guys are talking about. You've mistaken skeptical curiosity for a racist agenda, almost as if your own agenda was to polarise a grey area into more distinct shades of... um... y'know...
nice strawman
This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Not true. There is a 15 to 18 point gap in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites. That is about one standard deviation. Similar gaps exist in other mixed race countries.
I don't have time to read the entire thing. But my first thought was this: "I bet the studies didn't control for economic or social issues..."
Sure enough, I found this in the paper:
The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in
average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are
also involved.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
The average black person has lower income, less opportunities, trapped in poverty cycles, etc... Of course if you don't control for those factors you'll see testing differences.
Is there a study that strictly controlled for factors like family wealth and educational opportunities?
But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families
Was that Rushton and Jensen's work in 2005 or are you referring to another researcher? I can't seem to find anyone else claiming a significant IQ difference when all factors are controlled for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Unfavorable - Sure seems like a lot of people people are highly critical of his science.