Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.

Exsubmariner · #1 10-16-2007, 11:51 PM

Nobel prize winner says that all races are not equal.

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to think. This man is a scientist with a Nobel Prize. He helped discover DNA. I am making the leap that he is a qualified expert on genetics and makes his assertions based on the preponderance of evidence and the scientific method. Perhaps that makes me a racist. I would hope it does not.

Utah · #2 10-16-2007, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
don't know what to think. This man is a scientist with a Nobel Prize. He helped discover DNA. I am making the leap that he is a qualified expert on genetics and makes his assertions based on the preponderance of evidence and the scientific method. Perhaps that makes me a racist. I would hope it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]I thought it was interesting and the underlying principle that there can be difference among groups seems sound. However, he made the comment, "He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true" seems to be born out of pure racism.

highlife · #3 10-16-2007, 11:58 PM

Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

Exsubmariner · #4 10-17-2007, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

highlife · #5 10-17-2007, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof. The fact that blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests does not go anywhere near far enough.

Borodog · #6 10-17-2007, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

vhawk01 · #7 10-17-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is certainly some evidence that different groups of people have slightly different types of intelligence and capacities. Its a little sad that this has to be met with such hysteria, but thats the way it is I guess. It is important to mention that the methods for testing intelligence and the ways we categorize different intelligences are so atrocious that it drowns out the actual data in noise, IMO. And that doesn't even begin to get into the CONCLUSIONS we draw from that. There is still far more variability WITHIN groups than BETWEEN groups, a concept which people seem to have a very hard time grasping. The average white guy is more like the average black guy than I am like the average white guy (phrased a little weird, hopefully that is clear).

AngusThermopyle · #8 10-17-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. IQ tests are perfect at measuring "intelligence".

[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, in "Science" in the service of Racism C. Loring Brace writes that The Bell Curve makes six basic assumptions at the beginning of the book:

1. Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
2. Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
3. IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
4. IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
5. IQ tests can measure this accurately.
6. IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status.

Brace proceeds to argue that there are faults in every one of these assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk01 · #9 10-17-2007, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is also primarily molecule-based too. I always think its funny when people misuse arguments like that about the "biological nature" or the "genetic nature" of certain traits.

Exsubmariner · #10 10-17-2007, 12:28 AM

What you said.

I agree that the studies of intelligence are woefully crude and lacking. I tend to fall in the camp of the theory of multiple intelligences and think that the IQ test is about as useful as horse dung. But, that's because I have a high enough IQ to recognize that. Still there is also the question of nature and nurture and culture. All of which are too convoluted to contemplate, at the moment.

I am compelled by the idea that there are certain genetic dispositions based on ancestry. Although, the degree to which these theoretical dispositions are muted by environment is a very convoluted question.