Nobel Prize scientist - Black people are dumb

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What about breeds of dogs? If someone said one breed is smarter than another breed, would he immediately be dismissed as a dog racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing analogous to dog breed in humans. Even if there were, it would be silly to make classifications based on a single phenotype. Are dogs with white fur smarter than dogs with black fur? Are dogs with yellow fur the smartest of all? These questions are meaningless. Comparing a black lab and a golden retriever might be valid, but comparing all dogs based on fur color is not.

[GoRedBirds]

I wasn't commenting on the OP. I was commenting on ChrisV's post where he said whites make better swimmers. I compared swimming to other "traditionally white" sports (hockey, golf) and said I think there are reasons other than genetics that they were traditionally white. Thanks for correcting me on Vijay though. I highjacked the thread to talk about swimming ability. My bad.

[jogsxyz]

But is there any possibility the scientist is right?
Political correctness has such that this statement
can't even be discussed or evaluated in polite
company.

[hitch1978]

I can't help but think that the type of objections displayed in this thread are a major roadblock in the discussion of several issues of this nature. To find this work offensive is to take yourself outside of the science.

No-one said black=dumb. No-one.

The only people that would take this article and get to that conclusion are 1) people that were allready there anyway, and 2) people that are poorly educated/braiwashed by their enviorenment into a state in which no intelligent person would take their opinion to mean anything anyway when this type of subject is discussed.

[Subfallen]

Jews are much, much better at physics than are Gentiles.

[Lestat]

First, can't this easily be verified or proven wrong through testing?

Secondly, does it even matter if it's true? Can or should something like that ever be said? And we think religion is a touchy topic?...

I've often wondered whether certain races were either slightly ahead or behind other races on an evolutionary scale. I'm white, and it wouldn't surprise me (or offend me), to learn that Asians are more intelligent than people of my race.

I mean, the guy makes a point... There's no reason to think that all races evolved equally at the same pace over time.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But is there any possibility the scientist is right?
Political correctness has such that this statement
can't even be discussed or evaluated in polite
company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he right? That depends on what he means. Is his criticism of social policy valid? I think so. Are his conclusions justified based on the evidence? No. Do dark-skinned ethnicities have lower IQ scores across the board than light-skinned ethnicities? Of course it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely - even if there is a general trend or correlation, given the number of different geographical areas and natural environments we're considering, it's likely that there are major exceptions.

I'm not suggesting that the question shouldn't be discussed, I think this PC stuff is [censored].

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
First, can't this easily be verified or proven wrong through testing?

Secondly, does it even matter if it's true? Can or should something like that ever be said? And we think religion is a touchy topic?...

I've often wondered whether certain races were either slightly ahead or behind other races on an evolutionary scale. I'm white, and it wouldn't surprise me (or offend me), to learn that Asians are more intelligent than people of my race.

I mean, the guy makes a point... There's no reason to think that all races evolved equally at the same pace over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're missing is that there are no "races." Groups like "white" and "asian" comprise a large number of ethnicities. The "white/yellow/red/brown/black" divisions have little scientific basis, they take a single trait (skin color) and categorize a huge number of ethnicities on that basis alone.

[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?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
it was entirely based on douchebaggery (and he does have some credentials in that field)

[/ QUOTE ]

*coughrosalindfranklin*