[foal]

James Watson has always been somewhat of a douche. It was clear to me when I read The Double Helix, but I didn't think he was this bad.

[ QUOTE ]

This raises two questions in my mind,
1) Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]
Studies show higher average IQ scores among Asians than whites and higher average IQ scores among whites than blacks.

The first relevant question is how much of IQ is determined by genetics and how much is environmental. It's clear that both are contributing factors, but twin studies tend to put more weight on the genetic side. Under particularly adverse circumstances such as significant malnutrition or growing up in a nasty environment like an orphanage, however, I believe environmental factors weigh more strongly than genetic ones. Overall though, the current evidence does tend to suggest a genetic difference in IQ ability between blacks, whites and Asians.

The second question is how important is IQ? It does seem fallacious to equate IQ with intelligence. Certainly it means something. Especially for those with significantly below average IQs (identifying these individuals in their childhood was the initial purpose of the test, not serving as an overall intelligence metric). But how much it means I can't really say, since it's not something I've looked into. I know schools and employers have never asked me for my IQ.

The third question is what can you do with this information if we decide that IQ is mostly genetic and that it is in fact equatable with intelligence? Almost nothing IMO. Even if there is an average difference between races, there is still too much variation between individuals to make intelligence assumptions about anyone based on their race. I.E. there are plenty of highly intelligent black people and plenty of white/asian morons. No scientists have denied that. There are many factors that will tell you more about a person than their race.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Should I believe it is true because this guy obviously knows more about genetics than %99.99999 of the population?
(Similar to some of the arguements thrown around about Global Warming (this isnt a hit on global warming just making a comparision))

[/ QUOTE ]
No, obviously not. Watson is (loosely) basing his view on the work of people like Hernstein, which has almost nothing to do with the type of genetic biology he has engaged in. The type of science in "The Bell Curve" is about making environmental inferences about genetics. Watson's worked on a far lower (i.e. more microscopic) level. That is, he was a biologist, not a social scientist. It's not as if he was studying the human genome one day and said "Wow, black people are terrible employees!" And his statement about blacks being bad employees had nothing to do with science, it was entirely based on douchebaggery (and he does have some credentials in that field). I think he has the right to say what he wants, but academic institutions also have the right to berate him for it or distance themselves from him. Maybe he's getting senile in his old age?