If blacks are so dumb how come whites keep falling for their email scams?

__________________
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief." - Alan Greenspan

This was my OP, and it covers most of what you said. Two issues:

1. the fear that it would be abused
2. the question whether this is realistic. Regardless the question whether Watson's statements are based on opinion or hard facts, CAN we just wipe away the hypothesis that 'intelligence', together with several other traits, can be a parameter distinguishing different ethnic groups.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Ainoow, okay, I think we’re going in circles here.

So on the first issue; we seem to agree that Watson’s reported pronouncements could have negative consequences. There are prior examples from recent history of the outcome of this kind of thinking, such as the apartheid policy in South Africa; the eugenics experiments and gas ovens of the Nazis; and the practices of the Australian government towards Aboriginal people. The common thread in all these examples (and there are other examples) can be traced to the ideas of racial differences that evolved in 18th and 19th Century scientific and social theories.

As to the second issue; I understood the question in your OP. I answered you with my own question, “Ask yourself, Ainoow, how can this be established one way or the other?” As a general rule, there would be a difference between a hypothesis based on hard facts, and one based on an opinion. However, when it comes to ascertaining differences of intelligence among different ethnic groups, what kind of evidence would constitute a “hard fact”? It seems that you are asking if Watson’s hypothesis should be dismissed, even if it is purely an opinion. The question that needs to be asked is, what possible good would come from giving it any credibility?

You ask: “Can anyone guarantee that it is bs?”…. That line of question is an entrapment. If I say “yes”, I’d have to argue with facts to counter the hypothesis. If I say “no”, I’d be giving credence to the hypothesis. The onus to prove a hypothesis is on the one who pronounces it.

But let’s turn to what James Watson has said in response to the reaction his words provoked:

Newsvine - Scientist Apologizes for Hurtful Remarks

So, Watson himself says there is no scientific basis for the belief he is reported to have expressed.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Based on your specific wording here, yes we can. We can't say "Your IQ is 85, you must be black; your IQ is 110, you must be Asian; etc." which would indicate a distinguishing characteristic. That doesn't mean there cannot be general correlations, however.


Actually, he repudiated the inference that many people took umbrage with. Look at all his recent quotes on the matter, and none of them conflict with "The black race's IQs follow a bell curve distribution with a mean of 95; Whites' IQs follow a similar normal distribution with a mean of 105." (Quote and specific numbers made up by me.) Some people took this to mean all whites are smarter than all blacks, or "Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior," which is not only not what he said but obviously false to any reasonable person.

Yes, even I agree with that, despite seeming to be the only one on Watson's side.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Evil_inKarlate, could you please indicate whose post you are quoting when you reply? You quote comments from Ainoow’s post and my post without tagging the quotes. That kind of makes it hard for any other people to follow the thread.

I don’t follow your argument here, EI.

Actually, I thought his apology did not exactly address the comments or inferences that people took umbrage with. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was still contrite over his comments, even though he was incorrectly paraphrasing his comments and the objections they had provoked. Reading your post, though, it appears that my first instincts that he merely evaded the controversy by resorting to a straw man line of defence , were right.

Do you have a link for any comments he has made on the bell curve IQ distribution of different racial groups?

What do you agree or disagree with about Watson's views?

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Well, lets dig into what he meant rather than what the press thought he meant.

Watson later apologized "unreservedly" and was quoted as being "mortified"[23] for the comments attributed to him, stating "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said. "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief".[24][25]

After the apology he added: "[26]

"Right now, at my institute in the US we are working on gene-caused failures in brain development that frequently lead to autism and schizophrenia. We may also find that differences in these respective brain development genes also lead to differences in our abilities to carry out different mental tasks."

On October 19th, In an attempt to clarify his position Watson is featured in an article in The Independent

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity."

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

James D. Watson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, in my opinion (no fact), genes can only go so far to make you the person you are. Environment and human will being vastly more important factors when it comes to intelligence. I mean is a prodigy child a prodigy because his parents have pushed him to be so, because his brother before him trailblazed, or simply because he is without a doubt a prodigy? I mean what happens when you put any human baby from a third-rate country with intelligent people who are also capable parents (As sometimes intelligent people don't always make capable parents).

Without a doubt genes do play some role, but just as you can't easily escape your genes (though technically you can rewrite them, though only in the beginning for the the beginning of things), you can't easily escape the environment you were raised in nor the weight of free will.

My apologies - I try to limit the size of my quotes and number of replies, and using the 'tagged quote' feature doesn't facilitate that.

The way the preceding comment was written, it referred to IQ as a distinguishing characteristic of race, such as 0-90 is black, 90-110 is caucasion, 110-200 is asian, (example and numbers by me), which is obviously not applicable. That doesn't mean one couldn't say the average black IQ was 95, the average white 100, and the average asian 105, assuming there was data to support it, but there is enough individual variation (and racial intermixing) that IQ could never be a used as a significant, or distinguishing, indicator of race for a given individual.

A straw man line of defense is completely appropriate for a straw man attack, which is what he was suffering.

No, as I said, the actual bell-curve comment and numbers were made up by me. I took his initial comments to mean something vaguely along those lines, and nothing he has publicly said since contradict that. I took his comments as a statement of fact, or potentially a misstatement that could be proven wrong by any that disagreed. Others chose to take it as some sort of insult, react on an emotional level, and attack the messenger based on their own inferrences.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is my impression that the mean black IQ is less than the mean white IQ. (I don't know by how much - I only applied specific numbers earlier for illustration.) I freely admit this is my Opinion based on personal and indirect observations rather than some sort of proven fact; I'm open to being proven wrong by appropriate data, in which case I have no problem changing my opinion.

(Edit: Or pretty much anything quoted in Speedyer's post #21 above.)

As for application of that opinion to real life, there isn't any. There is too much individual variance for me to just assume that any given black individual is stupid or any non-black is intelligent. Further, because there is so much individual variance, I would oppose basing any public policy on race-as-a-proxy-for-intelligence. Jumping back to Watson's commentary, I don't consider any discussion of racial IQ to be a valid basis for changing humanitarian efforts in Africa; the failure of most efforts to date to bring about improvements in line with monies expended does.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian