Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech

I'd hate the idea, and even more the consequences that will be drawn from it, but can anyone guarantee that it is bs?

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Why ? Whats wrong with that theory ?
I'd rather see the actual proofs myself, not just read it somewhere, but hey, blacks are more physically able, and thats a fact. Are you saying that black race is equal mentally to other races, while being superior physically ? Are blacks super-people ?
Gosh.

Ask yourself, Ainoow ; how can this be established one way or the other?

Even if genes responsible for human intelligence could be identified, and even if genetic differences were able to be established between different “races”, on what criteria would superiority or inferiority be categorised? Would any difference among the intelligence genes of “Africans” relative to those of “Westerners” be indicative that Africans have inferior “power of reasoning”?

In order to establish any scale of intelligence, one would have to first establish that intelligence gene x is the master superior intelligence gene, against wich any variant genes are relatively inferior.

How would we do this?

Paradoxically, Watson’s claim that there is a difference in the power of reasoning between different groups, in effect provides one of the arguments why a conclusive test of relative intelligence cannot be developed. Unless you start from the premise that “Western” concepts of intelligence are superior, data indicating differences in intelligence genes among Africans would not indicate anything else than the fact that there is a difference. Any interpretation or value judgement of any differences would be purely subjective.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I've often thought blacks as a group were less intelligent, but figured it was a matter of selective breeding rather than inherent stupidity. For a couple hundred years, blacks were bred more for physical prowess than mental ability. Then after a hundred-ish years of mostly laissez-faire, we've had forty years of selection primarily based on gullibilty and fertility. That's sure to lower the IQ of any population group.

The same things might apply in Africa, but to a much lesser extent - The primary factor there seems to be 'hardiness', given the seemingly unending stream of famines, epidemics, and wars over there.

Not in the least. Even if one Were to find the 'best IQ gene', differences in upbringing can easily create dumber 'smart' people or smarter 'dumb' people. Ranking on any scale would be based not on genetics, but on obervable outcomes.

Again, no. Your comment is based on the assumption that blacks Cannot be less intelligent, therefore it must be the test that is wrong. That is just as racist as assuming blacks Must be less intelligent based purely on bias rather than any type of objective data.


Races may or may not be less intelligent, but we all deal with individuals. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are black, some are white, some are short, some are tall, some are fat, some are thin. There may be correlations between the attributes, but they may or may not apply to any given individual, so they should all be treated as... Individuals!

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

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

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I know some really intelligent black people, and I know some really stupid white people...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Even though the average black person would be slightly less intelligent than the average white person (just for the sake of argument), what difference would that make? There are absolutely no reason for anyone to grant neither black nor white people less rights than the other group based on such an average intelligence.

People are to be seen as individuals, not as parts of a race or any other such collective.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

EI, you plucked out a couple of (untagged) quotes from my post, and it appears that you missed my point altogether.

My entire post was written in the conditional mode, in essence rebutting Watson’s argument. I was replying to the OP question.

Yes, I dispute the objectivity of genetic testing. But precisely how did you conclude that I question the test based on the assumption that blacks Cannot be less intelligent?

As for the impact of social factors on physical and mental prowess, I would agree with you (and never said anything that would suggest I excluded those factors).

I also agree that ultimately we are individuals, and the full gamut of differences is observable as much within a group as between groups (Note that I put all classifying labels into inverted commas to denote that I did not view them as real delineators.)

I believe there is a distinction in making observations of differences, be it through genetic testing or social indicators, and drawing value inferences from those observations.

What “observable outcomes” , in essence, could we uphold as “objective data”?

My point was that Watson’s contention that “Westerners” and “Africans” reason differently, paradoxically adds force to the view that the interpretation of any testing would be subjective.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I think that Dr. Watson's own remarks about black employees are proof that one can be both remarkably intelligent and surprisingly stupid at the same time. It's a perfect illustration of the futility of trying to give a numerical value to a person's intelligence (let alone that of an entire population).

Well said, Adrien.

And it's time for me to get some sleep now and rest my brain...

Good night all. Bonne nuit Adrien.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I think the only role genetics play in a persons intelligence is simply the ability, or enhanced ability, to absorb and retain information.
If one is going to suggest that a race was bred for physical brawn rather than intelligence, what criteria was used to assess intelligence? How is it that a person with greater physical features is somehow less intelligent than a person with lesser physical features? Does this also mean that another race was bred for intelligence?

Intelligence is gained by a broad collection of retained information and to a finer point, the ability to [i]recall[i] said information at any given time.

I don't believe Watson was making reference to someone being superior or inferior (although I'm afraid some groups will lose no time spinning it in that direction). He was indeed referring to differences, and that Africans didn't match the standards of 'Western intelligence' too well, to indicate that western policies in Africa, based on these standards, may not have been the brightest idea.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that different environments and/or living conditions were selective for different genetic traits in the human population. One environment could have been selective for speed, the other for creativity, the other for skin color or the ability to produce vitamin D at suboptimal levels of solar radiation, or for the ability to live and function in a certain social structure.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Watson is an example of compartmentalized intelligence, he's very clever at some things and a moron at others.
He does have a racist streak that shows through here, and he's trying to justify it, but while different populations may have different average intelligence, that tells you nothing about an individual, because no one is average.

Heck, just because the average Democrat is more intelligent than the average Republican, doesn't mean that every Democrat is smarter than every Republican, does it?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I don't think he's suggesting anything else than that.

As I said in OP, I don't like his findings, but then, science was never invented to make us feel good, was it?

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Well, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what Watson is suggesting, but you did not answer the question I raised earlier in reply to your OP.

How can his hypothesis be scientifically tested? .

You say that science is not meant to make us feel good. True enough. But where is the science in Watson’s views here?

Just because he is a renown scienttist, it does not mean that evry pronouncement he makes is based on science. He has a reputation for making controversial statements that have no scientific basis whatsoever.

I think I understand where you are coming from, in the sense that some truths are unpalatable, but need to be accepted for making objective decisions.

But how would Watson’s claim be verified, and what adjustments in policy would need to be made if he can be proven right?

Also, both science and religion have been invoked to serve political agendas throughout human history. I don’t mean that Watson had a hidden agenda here, but that his views could be used for negative ends. To me, his comments come close to the kind of thinking that resulted in apartheid in South Africa. I’m not saying he would advocate “whites only” areas, but the idea of different social policies for different racial groups in the context of one group being less intelligent than another could easily be applied to justify discrimination.

I think it’s possible that Watson’s views might have been spun a little here, and it seems he has been rather harshly treated. He has now been suspended by the lab for which he has worked for the past 35 years. Watson is 79, and I think his views are more a sign of his age than any form of hateful thinking.

Scientist James Watson flies home after employers suspend him - Times Online


Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman