How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential diffs?
 

edit- (the "we" in the title means society, not 2+2)

I'm one to quickly jump on people for posting blanket statements about particular groups (ethnic, sexual or otherwise), but it seems that there should be some way to intelligently debate things such as this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ace/index.html

without automatically rejecting the claims being made:

[ QUOTE ]
A British museum has canceled a lecture by Dr. James Watson, co-founder of the DNA double helix, after he claimed black people are less intelligent than whites in a recent newspaper interview.


James Watson won the 1962 Nobel prize for discovering the structure of DNA.

Watson, who won the 1962 Nobel prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, provoked a storm of criticism after his comments were published in the Sunday Times.

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson, 79, had been due to give a lecture at London's Science Museum on Friday but the museum canceled his appearance, saying his comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would want to hear the basis FOR these claims of his, so they can be disproven or not. Maybe they already have and I'm not aware of them.

Are people rejecting the premise out of hand, or is there a solid evidentiary reason for claims that one group is less "intelligent" (whatever that means) in comparison to others?

I personally don't believe that one group is more or less intelligent based solely on genetics, but if there is a large body of scientific evidence to consider one way or the other, then statements such as this one:
[ QUOTE ]
In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

[/ QUOTE ]

... could be squashed or confirmed. That last sentence seems unscientific and racist, but maybe he's extrapolating (badly) from harder evidence?

Comments?

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential dif
 

Already a thread on this (easy to miss, considering the title)

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential diffs?
 

It actually is unfortunate. The problem is that most people like to think about meaningless questions like "Are whites smarter than blacks?" And that many people (like Crick) who pursue such things have a questionable agenda. And finally, that a better understanding of these issues would have little practical value at this point in time.

It's unfortunate, though, that people like Larry Summers, who propose a narrowly-defined hypothesis about distributions of intelligence in populations as a factor to consider in assessing a specific problem (fewer females in certain departments) are vilified as much as racists like Crick.

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential dif
 

[ QUOTE ]
And that many people (like Crick) who pursue such things have a questionable agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Leave Crick out of this! Watson made these statements.

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential dif
 

The thing is that the various races were not even remotely isolated from one another. Even the boundaries of race are quite arbitrary.

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential dif
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And that many people (like Crick) who pursue such things have a questionable agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Leave Crick out of this! Watson made these statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty by association, IMO.

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential dif
 

[ QUOTE ]
Already a thread on this (easy to miss, considering the title)

[/ QUOTE ]

damn... and I thought MY title was bad....

thanks, AT. I see from the discussion that this professor may have a bigoted background, affecting his conclusions

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential diffs?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I personally don't believe that one group is more or less intelligent based solely on genetics,

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe humans are more intelligent than fish based on their genetics?

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential diffs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I personally don't believe that one group is more or less intelligent based solely on genetics,

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe humans are more intelligent than fish based on their genetics?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think fish are sub-human... but they can learn to play better, so they aren't necessarily genetically-deprived.

Now, if you're talking about Nemo instead... that's one smart fish.

Re: How can we set up a histronics-free discussion about potential diffs?
 

The sad reality is very few people care about the truth, they have an idea of how they want the world to work and how the world should work and they only care about things that reinforce those views and reject or twist anything that doesn't.