Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[Jamougha]

Phil,

the specific study showed a large improvement in black students and no improvement in white students; it was performed on both. It's a recent result and I agree it needs to be repeated. (more details: http://psych.colorado.edu/~gcohen/achievement-gap.html)

If we run the Flynn effect back to the 18th century in Europe and the Us then we get scores on modern IQ tests of 70-75 - roughly what we see in sub-Saharan Africa. Given that they're effectively living in the 14th century that's not surprising.

So, between those factors and a known culture among black Americans that discourages achievement as 'acting white', we would expect to see the black/white differences that you refer to, whether or not there's actually a genetic difference. Therefore I don't see a need to invoke a genetic explanation.

Also, there are pretty significant mean IQ differences between nations that should be relatively similar in genetic makeup. Take Germany and France; some reported scores are 107 vs 98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations), 109 vs 96 (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx) and 107 vs 94 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle697134.ece). Average difference just under 12 points.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

the specific study showed a large improvement in black students and no improvement in white students; it was performed on both. It's a recent result and I agree it needs to be repeated. (more details: http://psych.colorado.edu/~gcohen/achievement-gap.html)

If we run the Flynn effect back to the 18th century in Europe and the Us then we get scores on modern IQ tests of 70-75 - roughly what we see in sub-Saharan Africa. Given that they're effectively living in the 14th century that's not surprising.

So, between those factors and a known culture among black Americans that discourages achievement as 'acting white', we would expect to see the black/white differences that you refer to, whether or not there's actually a genetic difference. Therefore I don't see a need to invoke a genetic explanation.

Also, there are pretty significant mean IQ differences between nations that should be relatively similar in genetic makeup. Take Germany and France; some reported scores are 107 vs 98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...lth_of_Nations), 109 vs 96 (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx) and 107 vs 94 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle697134.ece). Average difference just under 12 points.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about asians? There seems to be a lot of effort being put in to come up with explanations for the worse scores of blacks. It seems like occam's razor is being ignored given that there are large, significant test score gaps between 4 different racial groups, not just a gap between one race and the other three.

[tame_deuces]

1.) Bilingual or complexity of language is correlated positively with intelligence tests, this leads credibility to the belief that intelligence test scores are partially a result of environment.
2.) Stereotyping can move scores upwards or downwards.
3.) People scoring low on intelligence tests are often able to solve the same puzzle in a different context very well.
4.) There is dispute if the thing intelligence tests measure is intelligence. This dispute comes mainly from the artificial intelligence community which thinks the measure is a bad measure of intelligence.
5.) There is views that social skills, creativity and memory should be included for a complete measure of intelligence.
6.) Intelligence measures correlates with education, giving some creedence that education trains logical tests on paper skills.
7.) Advanced software can theoretically solve intelligence tests better than humans, but do not have any form of mental capacity we would call intelligence.
8.) You can't use a intelligence test on a very different culture without changing it, this detracts from its credibility as a general measure unbiased from culture.
9.) You can train yourself in becoming better at intelligence tests simply by doing intelligence tests, does this make you more intelligent?

Face it, if this was science the only possible conclusion at this point would be:

'It is doubtful that intelligence tests measure a complete image of intelligence and it is doubtful that we can rule out cultural influence on the scores, the data is therefore as of yet not usable to test our hypothesis on ethnic differences to due to genetics.'

You don't need occam's razor for this.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"Maybe his comment is based upon the very real phenomenon that a lot of minorities wouldn't be where they are at without affirmative action."

This is a real phenomenon? Do you think Watson knows the science, i.e, the statistics, behind how real it is or is not? He was talking about employees, not people attending graduate school at the University of Michigan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some also claim that, in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatching" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/

I have a few friends who are senior partners in midwest law firms that have experienced similar problems. I even know a few people that lost New York clients because they didn't have any gays/blacks as senior partners. I have no problem admitting I know several black people that are more talented than I am. But to me it seems pretty obvious that affirmative action is not limited to schools. If it was then I wouldn't have to click the Caucasian tab every time I apply for a job.

[ QUOTE ]
"But that was not the point of his statement. His statement was that people could abort either homosexual or heterosexual fetuses. Only half of his statement typically gets reported."

Why does he even mention homosexuals? Here is what was quoted in the press: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he mention homosexuals? Probably to piss people like you off. That would be my best guess. From a purely Darwinian or even an "abortion-is-not-murder" point of view there's nothing wrong with his comment. But from the politically left point of view view his comment is heresy. It is a bit hypocritical for most pro-choice lefties to take offense to his comment. And I suppose pointing out that hypocrisy would bring many people pleasure.

I used to use similar tactics to gain attention to certain political issues. Many people are bored with science, but if you throw something politically incorrect into the situation all of the sudden people are hotly debating it. Getting called crazy is not as insulting as being totally ignored when something important is at stake. In fact, many scientists don't care about their image at all. I can relate to this as I used to find it particularly delightful when pushing this PC envelope for a wide variety of reasons. Political correctness often gets in the way (rightfully or wrongfully) of the pursuit of knowledge. Everything from polio vaccines in Africa & among the chiropractic industry in America (52% of chiropractors don't believe in vaccines) to stem cell research has been under intense fire because of peoples ideology.


In every public lecture of Watson's that I've been to he's done something incredibly out of place (like alternating slides between scientific material and a woman he's shagged). Some of his stuff has no point (slides of shagged females). But both Crick and Watson have a penchant for using dramatics to reinforce political issues. Cricks request for a whorehouse at Churchill college is one such instance. Behavior like that isn't to solve an immediate problem but to bring media/public attention to something they find offensive. It is an extreme way of pointing out their hypocrisy in a supposed secular stance. That tactic works as it's been 50 years and that stunt still gets discussed. I wonder if there is anything else that Crick could have done to make such a long lasting impression on society with such little effort. It's a cheap but somewhat effective tactic for the famous. If accurate science turned heads then NASA's James Hansen (and not Al Gore) would have a Nobel prize.


[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that his age is playing into his desire for attention. He's made callous, insensitive, racist, sexist remarks all his life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I may be wrong about his age playing a role. I first met him in 2004 and I was a bit surprised he wasn't using a cane. I remember being shocked when he remained standing and talking to people for at least four hours. So if I'm wrong about age playing a role please forgive me.

[mrick]

In statistics, when field research is undertaken, it is imperative that the categories of subjects are clearly defined. So, can someone direct me to studies showing how we can biologically identify someone as black and someone else as white, please?

By "biologically", I don't mean of course color of skin which is weak and fuzzy, but something alolng the lines of "Whites have this XYZ trait which shows up in 95% of their DNA" as opposed to "XYZ showing up in 15% of Blacks". I'm looking for traits that would identify a person as being black or white with statistical significance (p<0.05), without us looking at him, hearing him speak, knowing his background, or putting him through intelligence tests. Just by examining the stats and charts of his biological configuration.

If no such differentiating biological criteria exist to begin with, then the professor is talking out of his Swedish Academy award-winning behind.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is about how people are dismissing the possibility of a substantial genetic component, sweeping honest research under the rug, and vilifying people who even touch the subject. It's far from concluded that the difference is entirely cultural or nutrition based.

[/ QUOTE ]

But many people are just as resistant to cultural value judgments. Recently I listened to a Nigerian exchange student go on a 15 minute diatribe about how insulting it is to hear about the alleged superiority of Western civilization. When, you know, the Arabic alphabet actually originated somewhere in Africa.

WTF? Shouldn't it be clear that however soulless and consume-aholic the postmodern West is, it's vastly preferable to the African offering of rampant HIV and periodic genocides?

[tame_deuces]

Africa is a lot more than that. There are much poverty in the world yes, but there are alot of myth and prejudice going along. Check out some Hans Rosling lectures on the net, its good stuff.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

What about asians? There seems to be a lot of effort being put in to come up with explanations for the worse scores of blacks. It seems like occam's razor is being ignored given that there are large, significant test score gaps between 4 different racial groups, not just a gap between one race and the other three.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scores Japan, South Korea etc. are about the same as for Germany and several other European nations. Also, ST works both ways; if you tell people that their ethnic group is expected to perform better, then they will. Asians have a stereotype of being 'smart' in the US.

The UK education experience is interesting here. India is reported to have IQ scores in the low 80's. However, Indian children outperform white children at school in the UK. Meanwhile, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children - who are ethnically the same as many Indians - perform much worse than white children. And white Irish children outperform white British children, even though Ireland scores as low as 93 according to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. (link on UK education)

There seem to be many factors affecting the performance of ethnic sub-groups. Genetics may be one but I don't think that's clear.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) Bilingual or complexity of language is correlated positively with intelligence tests, this leads credibility to the belief that intelligence test scores are partially a result of environment.
2.) Stereotyping can move scores upwards or downwards.
3.) People scoring low on intelligence tests are often able to solve the same puzzle in a different context very well.
4.) There is dispute if the thing intelligence tests measure is intelligence. This dispute comes mainly from the artificial intelligence community which thinks the measure is a bad measure of intelligence.
5.) There is views that social skills, creativity and memory should be included for a complete measure of intelligence.
6.) Intelligence measures correlates with education, giving some creedence that education trains logical tests on paper skills.
7.) Advanced software can theoretically solve intelligence tests better than humans, but do not have any form of mental capacity we would call intelligence.
8.) You can't use a intelligence test on a very different culture without changing it, this detracts from its credibility as a general measure unbiased from culture.
9.) You can train yourself in becoming better at intelligence tests simply by doing intelligence tests, does this make you more intelligent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for making this list because it helps elucidate a larger point. When we have a huge body of evidence that all of these things can drastically affect "intelligence", why is anybody confident that the underlying issue is actually the genetics? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

We have loads of evidence that cultural/environmental factors manipulate our perceptions and performance on a variety of tasks. We have very little evidence that the genes for skin color should be linked to mental ability. Why assume this is the case? Why is this the default explanation in some of your minds? It seems like a classic case of the fundamental attribution error where you overemphasize the "kind" of person someone is and underestimate the situational effects when looking at an individual's behavior/performance.

[andyfox]

"why is anybody confident that the underlying issue is actually the genetics?"

Why is anybody confident that a man who says anyone who has "had to" work with black people knows they're stupid has analyzed the evidence objectively?