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.
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.
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.
Look at Africa. Over 50 nations. Over a billion people, the majority of them black. Lots of land. Lots of natural resources. A liveable climate. The recipient of billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid over the course of decades. Yet despite all of this, we've seen almost no development. The only development that is present is the remnants of European efforts a century ago, or more recently, Chinese efforts. The standard of living is absolutely atrocious. And there's nothing to suggest it will get better any time soon.
Then look at every other populated continent. Europe, North America and Australia offer a very high level of development, with very high standards of living. Asia is rapidly catching up. South America is getting there. Even Antarctica has a higher standard of living than Africa, and that's with almost no usable resources, and one of the most hostile environments around.
Why is it that Africa is so continually backward, despite massive amounts of help, while everyone else is so much further ahead, even when they have nowhere near the natural resources or other benefits that Africa offers? It can't be blamed on "colonization" or "guns, germs and steel". If that were the case, then North America, Australia, South America and Asia would be as bad off as Africa is today. Yet obviously that isn't the case; they're all significantly better off.
I'm not going to pretend to have all of the answers, but when I look at the facts, something sure is off when it comes to Africa, especially when it's compared to the rest of the world.
Scoring high on intelligence tests only proves you know how to answer intelligence tests. Everybody knows IQ scores are no indication of intelligence.
Also, IQ tests often favors those who have received a good education: for instance, if you ask a math question to someone who doesn't know math, they're bound to score low. Does that mean that person is stupid? No, it just means they don't have the means to answer the test.
And of course, conveniently, which section of the population chronically receives the worst levels education? People of color of course. It's a self-perpetuating myth...
But I'll grant you this: whites and blacks *are* different: the former produce less melanin than the latter. That's as much as you can say with 100% certainty about the two.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
Sounds like someone failed the IQ test.
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Nonsense. The scientific results show the exact opposite. People of African ethnicity score 15 to 18 points lower on IQ tests. Both Caucasians and blacks have improved over time (the Flynn effect) but the gap has remained. Twin studies have shown that home environment explains no more than a quarter of the variance, and most studies have found that it makes a negligible difference. It can make a transitory difference during early childhood, but the gap fades away toward adulthood.
Of course, genetics is not destiny, and there are bright people in every ethnic group. In the early 20th century, measured IQ gaps between protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland was as large as that between whites and blacks in America today. Yet that gap has now completely disappeared. There are a lot of unanswered questions, but political correctness and fear of being ostracized inhibit research in the area. That is a real shame, since progress on increasing intelligence could have a dramatic positive effect on the world.
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.
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
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
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!
Your "facts" aren't really facts.
First, all those other continents you mention have also received billions of dollars in aid, and *do* have natural resources that rival Africa's. So acting like we've only helped Africa and not South America or Asia is ... dumb.
Second, our "massive" amounts of help really aren't that massive on a per capita basis.
Third, Asia isn't "significantly" better off if you exclude Japan and Russia - China is 89th in GDP per capita, below Algeria, Botswana, and Libya; India is 126th, behind Egypt, Namibia, The Republic of Congo and Nigeria; Afghanistan is way down there at 162, tied with Sierra Leone.
And, fourth, along the sames lines, while yes, there are failed states in Africa, there are successes, too, so if you can't see anything to suggest it will get better off soon, you simply aren't looking.
Anyway, check your biases and look at the stats.
Fourth
That's as much as you can say with 100% certainty about the two.
Really? That's it? That's all you can say? Nothing at all about sickle-cell anemia, heart disease risks, athletic ability. None of that? Huh. Learn something new every day.
Well, thanks professor. I'm just assuming you're a Ph.D. geneticist as you're clearly so knowledgeable on the subject.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
To buy the medal and give it to Rosalind's heirs
There are "facts" and there are "beliefs". The difference is important. If you take the position that all "facts" are just "beliefs" or matters of opinion, then science and engineering and technology don't work very well.
This study shouldn't differentiate between races. This is a study on poverty and development. "measured IQ gaps between protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland was as large as that between whites and blacks in America today" , I bet you can correlate that with the improved living standards in Northern Ireland. Why not say " this underdeveloped area doesn't measure up on the test my developed area created".
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.)
Why is it that Africa is so continually backward, despite massive amounts of help, while everyone else is so much further ahead, even when they have nowhere near the natural resources or other benefits that Africa offers? It can't be blamed on "colonization" or "guns, germs and steel". If that were the case, then North America, Australia, South America and Asia would be as bad off as Africa is today. Yet obviously that isn't the case; they're all significantly better off.
Australia and North and South America were colonized, the successful subsets of their populations are European immigrants and the natives are doing horribly.
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
Africa is really the only place that experienced significant colonial rule without colonization, the destruction of their old political institutions and national boundaries without any new power structures put in place, it's not surprising that they're lagging behind.
I'm not going to pretend to have all of the answers, but when I look at the facts, something sure is off when it comes to Africa, especially when it's compared to the rest of the world.
I don't have the answers either, but a genetic IQ difference doesn't really fit the evidence.
Africa was doing better than Asia in the 50s prior to decolonization, so did their genes change in the last 60 years?
What about Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mongolia? Are their genes so different that they missed out on the Chinese/Japanese smarts?
I'm not saying a genetic IQ difference is impossible, but all the evidence of a genetic difference is better explained by other factors.
I stole this Sig
The answers to those questions revolve around societal issues, and have a lot to do with cultural inertia, which is not an easy thing to explain in ways that are quantifiable, which is where scientific study tends to look for answers. In actuality, if you took an infant born in one of those underdeveloped countries and raised him or her in a more developed nation, it is highly unlikely you would not notice any difference.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
So who moderated his speech? No one. He was allowed to speak his mind, and then other people were allowed to decide whether they wanted to continue associating with him in light of what he revealed of himself.
Now, if you want to argue that being shunned for your opinions is censorship, fine, but do understand that there are implications for other people's freedom of association.
And yet no one silenced Watson. They simply stopped listening to him.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great.
What about Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mongolia? Are their genes so different that they missed out on the Chinese/Japanese smarts?
Mongolia was never a colony. It was still lead by the Borjid Dynasty, who were treated by the Manchu Asin Gioro as a particularly honored Vassal. Many empresses dowagers of this period were Borjit princesses, including Xiaozhuang Empress who acted as regent for the young Kangxi. They also ruled over China for a century and made a giant mess of it, which is the key reason Chinese have historically often considered them to be somewhat mentally inferior (though they probably aren't, just their territory doesn't lend itself to intensive farming or city building).
Philippines and Vietnam are better compared to other South East Asian nations, rather than North East Asian nations. Thailand was never a colony, but it's not doing so great. Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei however all were and tower over all Asian nations but Japan in standard of living. Hong Kong was a colony too and if treated as a country is possibly on average the most prosperous on earth.
In fact, if you look Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, all former colonies, you will find that the Chinese ethnic group does extremely well economically whether they go. Particularly when you see how well the Chinese do compared to the native Malays in economic pursuits, you will see that cultural values make a lot of difference
So hence the north-south theory, the same as Europe. Northern societies tend to be more industrious since they have to endure the scarcity of food and heat every winter. Japan, China and Korea are all freezing f---ing cold in December-March and the trees are bare and fruitless, a human society if they want to survive here must spend its time preparing clothing, and stores of grain for the winter so they lend themselves to tens of thousands of years of economic focus. Vietnamese, Thais, Malays, etc. are not stupid, they're just not economically minded. You cannot starve or freeze in these countries, coconuts litter the ground and fish teem in the rivers and the sun shines warm every day, a bit of shelter from the monsoon and you can live indefinitely.
Colonialism is a red herring. Everything is more interesting if you actually learn about Asian history rather than trying to mold it to prove a point.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
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
And yet no one silenced Watson.
Except all those venues that cancelled his sold-out lectures, his forced retirement, and the fact he's being forced into giving up his Nobel (according to the first link in the summary)...
People deciding not to pay to listen to you is far from the same thing as people silencing you.
Free speech means that you cannot be prevented from speaking your mind (within some limits, which Watson did not cross), but it in no way obligates people to listen to you, much less to pay you for the privilege of listening to you.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.