James Watson's Nobel Prize Goes On Auction This Week 355
HughPickens.com writes: Nicholas St. Fleur reports at The Atlantic that James Watson, the famed molecular biologist and co-discoverer of DNA, is putting his Nobel Prize up for auction on Thursday. He's the first Nobel laureate in history to do so. In 2007, Watson, best known for his work deciphering the DNA double helix alongside Francis Crick in 1953, made an incendiary remark regarding the intelligence of black people that lost him the admiration of the scientific community. It made him, in his own words, an "unperson." That year, The Sunday Times quoted Watson as saying that he felt "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 has a history of making racist and sexist declarations, according to Time. At a science conference in 2012, Watson said of women in science, "I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they're probably less effective." To many scientists his gravest offense was not crediting Rosalind Franklin with helping him deduce the structure of DNA.
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Chicago, Illinois: The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
About a third of the Chicago population is German. Genetically, therefore they have instilled in them a 'Crazy Fourth Reich Fever' that millennia of conditioning by the BLACK Forest of Germany and they simply only want to fight and invade other peaceful peoples that are doing nothing but contributing to the advancement of the human race. Alas, my mind is tortured that nature could be so cruel as to instill a fine specimen like the German with such brutal and total warring instinct. But we simply cannot be able to even begin to help Chicago out of shit-hole status unless we come to terms with their genetically corrupted DNA structure. I know this may seem shocking to you lay people but I have suffered as Galileo has suffered. Science requires I tell you the truth that I seem to have no scientific basis for yet I know deep down in the pit of my Swedish-American stomach to be true.
Another third of the Chicago population is Irish. Genetically the Irish have evolved in an inherently beautiful land that has caused them to drink heavily whenever outside of this land. This is to deal with the squalid landscapes of Chicago. Blame them not, they are only following the unavoidable bonds of nature that tie into their DNA and make them wholesale worthless drunks. There is no hope for them and, verily, we cannot hope to even get them into rehab until we understand that there simply is no rehabilitation for them. Their origin country has a short pitiful record that I can't seem to find records on regarding any suppressors or instigators prior to being a poor island nation hell bent on alcoholism. Oh, if only my scientific inklings were wrong! How I wish I wasn't the one that has to break the news to you. Woe is all that I can feel for having to inform you that genetically the Irish are inferior.
The final third of the Chicago population is Polish. The Poles of Chicago are a daft and rotund people but it is not their fault. The DNA has been shaped by thousands of years of unhealthy food. The cold winters of Poland and Chicago force them indoors where they cannot possibly be industrious but have to sit at microscopes and furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand these things that I have discovered. Even my high minded Libertarian business attitude can't provide enough jobs for these idle drones. Genetically they suffer from 'Polack Slack' and our policy towards helping them past working on the dock and losing weight will forever fail until we come to accept this. It pains me so to break this news to you but down in my genetically superior innards this idea has been borne and I know it to be true. I know it.
The tests indicate that our great nation would probably be more effective if Chicago and its descendents didn't exist at all. Genetically they will forever be poor and stupid, attached to the glass teat clamoring for more concussions while wallowing about in their fetid sties. Drunk and unable to form simple sentences, our once prosperous country will be held back from truly succeeding.
Ball's in your court, James.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone know what the word "satire" means?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shaking my head here, wondering why this is downmodded to troll.
Is this a geek thing - the tenedency to read everything too literally - or do they simply not teach satire in schools anymore? Did the powers that be replace that curriculum with cultural sensitivity lessons?
People are different: but that's not something to be ashamed of: that's something to be celebrated and from time to time - why not?- laughed at. I submit that one sign of a healthy society is when all its people can be made the butt of
Of Course It Was (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is extremely racist.
You're goddamn straight it is. The point is that any population -- no matter how high and lofty it is can be the target of stupid shit attributed to their genetic structure with "just so" fallacies. He makes inflammatory statements, doesn't even offer correlation as evidence for them and completely ignores socioeconomic conditions of even the past two hundred years.
How hard is it to turn James Watson's high minded lofty DNA superiority complex against his home city? Not hard at all, it turns out. S
Re:Of Course It Was (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the entire subject taboo, then? What if there are genetic differences in intelligence between the homo sapiens who stayed in Africa and those who left? I heard one speculation that the most curious and resourceful leave where they're at and go explore. Those who are less curious, and thereby perhaps less intelligent, stay where they are. The genes for curiosity and intelligence are therefore more likely to be passed on the farther they are from the place of origin.
I don't know if this is true or not, but are you not allowed to ask this question and investigate?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not so much "Taboo" as it is frequently brought up by idiots who have no substantial evidence and a strong history of using made up bullshit to push injustice.
There's very little evidential reason to consider anything said by "racial realists" as anything other than the babbling of childish nincompoops. There is [google.co.uk] scientific evidence that genetic variation within "races" is greater than the variation between the median genetic profiles of "races".
Suffice it to say, given how much debunked "science" ther
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is an angry, hatefull person in this discussion, resorting to ad hominem, flaunting smugness intolerable in any other context, assaulting everyone he disagrees with with whatever offensive words he is capable of thinking of.
A bully, exalted by his status of protector of truth and justice. A crussader against everything society has deemed unworthy of equality.
Can you spot him?
Re: Of Course It Was (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You could not genuinely investigate the correlation between IQ and ethnic/racial groups because you are unqualified to do so. I know this because you are unaware that qualified people have been looking at the issue for decades, and in that sense, the subject isn't the slightest bit taboo.
Since you asked, pretty much every systematic review of the evidence [virginia.edu] finds that any differences can be explained by sociocultural factors, environmental factors, stereotype threat, and so on.
Incidentally, one of the reasons
Re:Of Course It Was (Score:4, Interesting)
Pulling 'I'm a Nobel prize winner and I think Africans are genetically and mentally inferior to everyone else' out of your ass will certainly not win you any friends. To follow that up with 'oh, and women are inferior too' can certainly make you an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
In today's political climate I'd say it's absolutely impossible to have an honest and open discussion about such a subject. There is just too much bad history and bad blood involved and the flame war will immediately erupt.
Re: (Score:2)
You can say or question anything you like. The problem is that if what you ask or say is unpopular or perceived to be evil then other people feel free to say anything they like in response. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. If the majority doesn't like what you have to say then either buck up and stand your ground or cut and run. Don't say it isn't fair. Nobody likes a whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is extremely racist.
I think, without a doubt, you win the "whoosh of the year" award here on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Egypt is predominantly Arab, not Black.
Who buys this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The same people that buy Olympic medals, Superbowl rings, or any other award that the buyer didn't earn/contribute too. It's memorabilia and history.
Re: (Score:2)
People who like to own a part of history (Score:2)
Hence why they'd pay so much. Not because it is worth that much, you could have a gold medal made much cheaper, but because it has historical significance and they wish to have that.
Might be a lesson here for Linus Torvalds (Score:4, Insightful)
Watson was "brash but charming" for his entire career, until he became and old man and his inability to observe social mores wasn't so charming anymore, in fact in became a little creepy (I remember a TV interview in which the female interviewer was clearly highly uncomfortable even talking to him, as if he'd hit on her off camera). His book "The Double Helix", the account of his discovery of the structure of DNA along with Francis Crick, in sometimes-competition sometimes-collaboration with Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, and outright competition with Linus Pauling, made him and Crick famous. Watson and Crick both came across in the book as being brash as hell, bulls in the China shop of old school English academia. But hey... they discovered the structure and won the Nobel Prize!
So when Torvalds goes off calling highly proficient engineers morons on public mailing lists, he's defended as doing what's necessary to run a large project. But as he gets older he might find that at some point that behavior isn't going to be tolerated, and all of these earlier incidents are going to be recalled.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll give you a bias against software engineers. A lot of engineers consider themselves "hot shit" because they worked on a few small projects and have been told they were "hot shit" on all of those. A lot of them thus have an unjust sense of entitlement and think that they know best in any and all things.
And this bias is why I have no issue with Torvalds putting some of these jokers in their place from time to time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever become famous, this sentence will most certainly get remembered and misinterpreted.
"The Caligula of the Department" (Score:3, Interesting)
E. O. Wilson called Watson that when Watson took over the Biology department at Harvard. Wilson called him the most unpleasant man he ever met.
But Wilson admits that Watson did motivate him to move beyond the stamp-collecting stage into more disruptive work in evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
But Wilson admits that Watson did motivate him to move beyond the stamp-collecting stage into more disruptive work in evolution.
Sometimes your greatest accomplishment in life is to inspire others to greatness. Watson seems to have other talents but inspiring others to not be like him seems to be his greatest.
This odd. (Score:4, Informative)
The article says "He said he is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. It also says that he will use the money to re-enter public life.
How odd. He still has an office at Cold Spring Harbor and he comes in to work fairly often. He still attends functions, fundraisers, and lectures there. He also has a very nice house on the lab's grounds that overlooks the Long Island sound. I can't imagine the laboratory is ungrateful with his retirement package. So he's still in public life and he's living a very nice life. I don't understand the article.
I smell a Kickstarter (Score:5, Interesting)
To buy the medal and give it to Rosalind's heirs
Science vs an MBA (Score:2)
One career will change the lives of pretty much everybody, and the other will involve being rewarded for raping pension plans.
One career will bring a lifetime of intellectual satisfaction and the other will bulk up an inner psychopath.
Yes our civilization is fairly
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again. He's not starving on the street. He's selling his medal because he wants to buy some expensive art with the money. I don't really feel sorry for him.
He is right about the testing (Score:3)
The thing is that these are limits of the tests and we actually do not know whether black African people are less smart, equally smart or smarter than the global average. The best assumption we have is equal intelligence on average (disregarding illnesses that decrease intelligence and that could be more prevalent in areas with poor medical infrastructure). It is a reasonable assumption, but it is just an assumption.
The two main problems with intelligence tests are that they have a bias for education (people with higher education get better scores without being more intelligent) and a target culture (people in the test target culture get higher scores). There are no test that can eliminate the education bias or the cultural dependency.
On the other hand, cultural factors can be a serious problem and many African cultures are vastly different with regards to things that make western culture tick, such as punctuality, correctness, etc. and some people cannot deal with that. These are not factors connected to intelligence though.
Bigotry is common in the older generation (Score:2)
Has nothing to do with brain capacity and everything to do with cult
Boo fucking hoo (Score:3)
Someone please hand me the world's tiniest violin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at Africa. Over 50 nations. Over a billion people, the majority of them black. Lots of land. Lots of natural resources. A liveable climate. The recipient of billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid over the course of decades. Yet despite all of this, we've seen almost no development. The only development that is present is the remnants of European efforts a century ago, or more recently, Chinese efforts. The standard of living is absolutely atrocious. And there's nothing to suggest it will get
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your "facts" aren't really facts.
First, all those other continents you mention have also received billions of dollars in aid, and *do* have natural resources that rival Africa's. So acting like we've only helped Africa and not South America or Asia is ... dumb.
Second, our "massive" amounts of help really aren't that massive on a per capita basis.
Third, Asia isn't "significantly" better off if you exclude Japan and Russia - China is 89th in GDP per capita, below Algeria, Botswana, and Libya; India is 126th,
there are lots of cultural reasons (Score:5, Informative)
I lived in what is now the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" for three years, so I have at least personal anecdotal knowledge.
1) Relatively recent colonial history means that there was no native bureaucracy able to run the countries when the colonial powers left.
2) Dictators took over, and most dictators don't really want to make the country better, instead they just want power and money.
3) History of tribal politics means that when someone takes power they give rewards to their tribe at the cost of the other tribes.
4) Lack of national-level control means that it's difficult to exploit the natural resources.
5) Lack of government responsibility means that when countries do exploit the national resources very little of the money ends up in the hands of the workers (or the country).
6) Lack of government funding for educational facilities means that there is a continuing shortage of qualified local skilled labour. (It was quite common for teachers to charge students a fee to write finals, since the teachers got very little salary.)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that Africa is so continually backward, despite massive amounts of help, while everyone else is so much further ahead, even when they have nowhere near the natural resources or other benefits that Africa offers? It can't be blamed on "colonization" or "guns, germs and steel". If that were the case, then North America, Australia, South America and Asia would be as bad off as Africa is today. Yet obviously that isn't the case; they're all significantly better off.
Australia and North and South America were colonized, the successful subsets of their populations are European immigrants and the natives are doing horribly.
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
Africa is really the only place that experienced significant colonial rule without colonization, the des
Re: (Score:3)
Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great.
Re: (Score:2)
> Japan, China, and South Korea were never colonized nor significantly ruled by foreign powers and they're doing great. It's hard not to cherry pick but there does seem to be a correlation between development and Asia countries who remained independent.
I'm sorry, but what? The Korean peninsula was the site of a major American/Soviet proxy war in the 50s, and the US still has troops stationed there to this day.
True but the Koreans never really lost self rule. Remember I'm talking about colonization and the resulting breakdown of the society and political tradition, not war.
China was practically owned by the British Empire after the Second Opium War, and it was only Japanese expansionism (which was brutal itself) that saved them from being swallowed by the West.
The resulting treaties had very favourable terms for the British (and the British got Hong Kong, which is an interesting counterexample to my general argument) but otherwise Chinese self-rule remained intact.
Japan was firebombed and nuked by the US, and it constitutionally has no military now - the US military is its military, for all intents and purposes.
And again Japan never really lost self-rule or got colonized.
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were also subject to a proxy wars, but the other side won. Mongolia was alternately part of the Soviet Union and China at various times.
And very little colonialism (though more than other parts of East Asia).
Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty much just the remnants of British imperialism. Indonesia is a product of Dutch colonialism. The Phillipines were a Spanish colony and then an American colony (formally!). Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, and Brunei were all British colonies.
Excep
Re: (Score:2)
With a few substitutions, your puzzlement could be applied to native Americans.
Why are they just about extinct?
It isn't because they had a low IQ.
It's because they were stone-age people overtaken by much more advanced peoples.
Africa and its indigenous people have all they need to survive and prosper, just as did the native Americans.
Africa, like native Americans, simply don't want to, and don't need to, advance like a bat out of hell and get iPhones.
Left alone, both would have been much better off.
Meanwhile
Re: (Score:2)
Exploitation (Score:2)
There is also the part where it has been exploited by just about all the above mentioned more developed areas. Much of the billions of Aid given, while good intentions have had some negative affects, like dumped subsidized US grain effectively making local commercial farming non-profitable (The US farmer still gets paid though).
There are probably some cultural reasons as well, perhaps to do with tribal factions but I'm not really educated on it enough to really comment more than it probably exists as a cont
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of development that has occurred in Africa over the last 50 years is staggering. Ignoring it to make a point is dishonest and smacks of prejudice at the very least.
Re:Is it true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
rather just some sort of justification for your irrational bigotry and hatred.
Resorting to name calling is essentially admitting that he's got a point you can't refute but don't like. I certainly didn't detect hatred. You mad bro?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question of the AC is valid, period. As always the devil lives in the details, and usually the texts on the subject forget that this question of intelligence (and perhaps racial differences) is only part of the problem alone does not
Re: (Score:2)
Brazil, my country, also also had several problems with dictators, overthrown governments and empires trying to make my country in their backyard. But despite that we are in a much better situation than Africa. Why? Notice, we also have corruption in generous quantities.
The question of the AC is valid, period. As always the devil lives in the details, and usually the texts on the subject forget that this question of intelligence (and perhaps racial differences) is only part of the problem alone does not answer the greater question.
A little over 10 years ago, Brazil wasn't doing much better than most of Africa. But Brazil has control over it's own oil reserves and put in place an extremely unique (and controversial) economic policy called Plano Real [wikipedia.org]
In fact, if you proposed such a thing to me today, I'd still tell you it was a horrible idea. I'm not entirely convinced it wasn't seer luck that it worked. lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The best predictor of cultural and geographical IQ is probably to determine the answer to one question:
"Who has the most advanced weapons?"
Re: (Score:2)
So Africa has a low IQ because America has not invaded it yet ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Watson might have been technically correct, but he blurred the lines between correlation and causation, which is a really disappointing thing on its own.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
Sounds like someone failed the IQ test.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Nonsense. The scientific results show the exact opposite. People of African ethnicity score 15 to 18 points lower [wikipedia.org] on IQ tests. Both Caucasians and blacks have improved over time (the Flynn effect [wikipedia.org]) but the gap has remained. Twin studies have shown [wikipedia.org] that home environment explains no more than a quarter of the variance, and most studies have found that it makes a negligible difference. It can make a transitory difference during early childhood, but the gap fades away toward adulthood.
Of course, genetics is
Re:Is it true... (Score:4, Insightful)
This study shouldn't differentiate between races. This is a study on poverty and development. "measured IQ gaps between protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland was as large as that between whites and blacks in America today" , I bet you can correlate that with the improved living standards in Northern Ireland. Why not say " this underdeveloped area doesn't measure up on the test my developed area created".
Re: (Score:2)
As some already mentioned, that isn't quite true...but even if it was: anyone publishing results showing racial or gender differences at this point will get crucified on the spot.
This is the new "the earth is not flat". Except we're not sure about which way the truth swings yet.
Re:Is it true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scoring high on intelligence tests only proves you know how to answer intelligence tests. Everybody knows IQ scores are no indication of intelligence.
Also, IQ tests often favors those who have received a good education: for instance, if you ask a math question to someone who doesn't know math, they're bound to score low. Does that mean that person is stupid? No, it just means they don't have the means to answer the test.
And of course, conveniently, which section of the population chronically receives the worst levels education? People of color of course. It's a self-perpetuating myth...
But I'll grant you this: whites and blacks *are* different: the former produce less melanin than the latter. That's as much as you can say with 100% certainty about the two.
Re:Is it true... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's as much as you can say with 100% certainty about the two.
Really? That's it? That's all you can say? Nothing at all about sickle-cell anemia, heart disease risks, athletic ability. None of that? Huh. Learn something new every day.
Well, thanks professor. I'm just assuming you're a Ph.D. geneticist as you're clearly so knowledgeable on the subject.
Re:Is it true... (Score:4, Insightful)
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
The politically correct answer is to give everyone the same score.
Re: (Score:2)
There must be a way of telling smart people from dumb people... .
Re: (Score:2)
About a year after I came to the US, at the age of 14, I underwent an IQ test and was asked how many pounds are in a ton.
(This was a bit of a problem for me as having grown up in a metric country I could have easily told you how many kilograms were in a ton, of course, but pounds? I ended up torn between the long ton definition (2240 lbs) and the short ton definition (2000 lbs)
Re: (Score:2)
IQ tests have a strong bias from educational and cultural factors. I would not at all be surprised if African blacks (or even underclass US blacks) test lower. That does not mean they are less intelligent though, it just demonstrates that they are culturally and educationally different. If you test underclass white people, you probably get a similar effect. It is important to remember that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, but the IQ and the two can be significantly different.
Re: (Score:2)
"Facts" are usually just assertions based on someone's interpretation of raw data, the collection of which may have been influenced by subjective biases.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It means that your "facts" ought to be peer reviewed, and even then sometimes they don't represent the truth after all, and need to be revised later.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact, and the ostracization of Watson is just political correctness. Scientists should be free to speak their minds, and he was actually making a valid point. Differences in nutrition and environment make a difference, but do not come close to explaining the full gap. East Asians have, on average, higher IQs than Caucasians, and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest of any ethnic group. Higher IQs are correlated with a long history of urbanization and
Re:we ARE different (Score:4, Insightful)
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Some people have even reported average scores for sub-Saharan countries that would qualify as mentally retarded in the Western world. This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Re:we ARE different (Score:4, Insightful)
This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Not true. There is a 15 to 18 point gap [wikipedia.org] in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites. That is about one standard deviation. Similar gaps exist in other mixed race countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd make the case that much of that if not all can be explained by cultural differences. Besides, IQ tests don't measure everything. Many with high IQ's flounder while those with marginal ones manage to excel. There are many different types of smart.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a 15 to 18 point gap [wikipedia.org] in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites.
There's an obvious difference between such a gap and being mentally retarded.
Re:we ARE different (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation does not equal causation.
Indeed, it does not. But the GPP wasn't denying the causation. He was denying the correlation.
There are similar gaps in IQ if you consider poverty or hunger rather than race.
Indeed there is. But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race. Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions. Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood? Why are poor black kids deficient in folic acid, iodine, and other critical micro-nutrients, when poor white kids are not? Why are black women so reluctant to breastfeed their babies? Nobody really knows, and we won't find answers by denying there is a problem, and demonizing those asking the questions.
Re: (Score:3)
But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race.
Some studies claim that. Other adoption studies have shown that black kids basically do the same as white kids when both are raised by white families. You can argue about which studies are better [wikipedia.org], but there's not a clear answer, unlike your (pardon the pun) "black-and-white" argument.
Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions.
Okay, let's talk about these in turn.
Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood?
Because even if they live in the same neighborhoods, blacks disproportionately end up in worse housing conditions [nchh.org]. From that link, which compares randomly sampled groups of Whites and Bla
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
Ah, this is so cool, it certainly deserves the high "Insightful" moderation. So, when a test comes up with results, that go against your existing dogma, you reject the test — not the dogma? "Hide the decline" much?
I do not know whether or not Africans — or any other race — have a higher (or lower) IQ (or intelligence, if that's what you prefer). But if you are going to argue, that nobody is smarter, then you better have your evidence lined-up — something better than a dogmatic belie
Re: (Score:2)
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
Re: (Score:2)
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
Sure, but that runs against the racists' "blacks are genetically stupid" claim.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, how do you come to the conclusion that IQ tests do not measure intelligence?
Simple: IQ test scores are hard data. Any reasonable interpretation of those data raises inconvenient political issues. So therefore, they are invalid. Problem solved. So despite the fact that IQ is strongly correlated [wikipedia.org] with school performance, job performance, lifetime income, criminality, etc., and despite the fact that we can actually address it in measurable ways with abatement of environmental pollutants (lead, mercury, PCBs, etc.) and better nutrition (folic acid enrichment, DHA supplements, etc.)
Re:we ARE different (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be because we're getting smarter
Why not? Just a single known factor, the reduction of environmental lead, has likely increased average IQs by 3 to 5 points. Other factors, such as folic acid enrichment of basic foods, has likely made a significant difference as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You also appear to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong)
You are wrong.
that we have selected (i.e. evolutionarily) for higher IQs in west and other urbansised areas.
I didn't say that. I said that higher IQ scores are correlated with a history of urbanization. Selective pressure is an obvious explanation for that, but there could be other reasons. For instance, smarter people could just gravitate to cities (but that wouldn't really explain why the average IQ of the whole population increases).
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, IQ is measured as a standard distribution curve with an IQ of 100 being the average. If everyone on the planet suddenly got twice as smart, we'd still have the same IQ because again, IQ measures you in relation to the rest of the population.
If you develop a new IQ test, then you have to standardize the scoring on it so that average == 100 or you're no
Need for absolute IQ (Re:we ARE different) (Score:2)
This suggests, some sort of absolute IQ measurement should be developed — so that differences between generations in a population, or contemporary populations of different locales can be meaningfully measured. One obvious application would be to trac
not on this planet. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could, if natural selection were biased toward intelligence.
Yes, because natural selection works on the sort of timescale between the invention of IQ tests and the present day (i.e. about 100 years).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god I hate weighing in on the wrong side of this argument but I can't let this one lie. (For the record, I'm assuming based on what you are responding to that you're being sarcastic, if you're not... well, so it goes). Yes, natural selection can work in about 100 years. Natural selection can work in about 100s if the environment changed the right way. Do note, natural selection is only a single part of evolution, and for lasting, long term changes to occur requires, among other things, mutations. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Higher IQs are correlated with a long history of urbanization and economic specialization, where higher IQs provide a selective advantage.
There's no arguing this. But, from what I've read about James Watson, he never said anything close to this. Instead, I can even find on his wikipedia page this quote from one of his books:
He writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"
So it's related to a long history of urbanization and economic specialization? And also Watson's unequal powers of reason? What is he implying if not to say that genetically some people are born without the equal "powers of reason"? He didn't quite say that due to "a long history of urbanization and economic specializ
Re: (Score:2)
Citations: Heritability of IQ [wikipedia.org] Race and Intelligence [wikipedia.org]
The "Race and Intelligence" article has the following cautions at the top:
This article's factual accuracy is disputed.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.
Not exactly a convincing support for your argument
Re: (Score:2)
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact, and the ostracization of Watson is just political correctness
is complete bullshit and why Watson was rightfully ostracized for making the claims that lower IQs were inherent to the race without conclusive data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you have ideas, whether they are right or not, there are some people are going to disagree with you.
If others have ideas, whether they are wrong or not, there are some people who are going to agree with them.
I do not believe that there will ever be an impartial and scientific study conducted to definitively prove anything and one sure as hell sure that none could be conducted in my life time. Humanity has believed many things about race in its history, humanity believes many things about it today and hu
Maginificent wild-caught Illiberal (Score:2, Flamebait)
And this, is how Illiberals react, when a thoughtcriminal challenges their — unsubstantiated — beliefs... This perfect example of Illiberal approach to arguing makes a good conversational piece and is now available printed on archive-quality paper.
Wild-caught. Order it with an attractive (organic) wood frame for only $9.99 more and receive free shippin
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear. Sorry, honey, but you have to be a nubile White female to apply.
Please, don't hate.
Re: (Score:2)
What I see is that, contrary to your stage name (or — given your combativeness — perhaps, "nom de guerre" is a better term), you "kan not reed"...
Re:Mister James Watson you deserve more... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr, James Watson is an arrogant (reasonably intelligent) prick who managed to be at the right place at the right time. Both of the other co discoverers of the helix (Francis Crick and Rosealind Franklin [wikipedia.org]) both went on to storied careers in research, in Franklin's case despite dying of cancer at age 37). Watson went on to be a gadfly and generic asshole.
I've met both Watson and Crick. Francis Crick, aside from his drive and intelligence was incredibly polite, well mannered and fun to be with. Watson was an arrogant ass.
Re: (Score:2)
No such differences have ever been identified, except for genetic diseases that decrease intelligence. Otherwise it is as if you body does not have much impact on your intelligence, if any at all. Of course, there is no way to accurately test intelligence for most African people as the cultural and educational differences are to large and they have a huge impact on testing. But there are no indicators either way and if African people are on average smarter or less smart than the rest of the world, the diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Aehm, both? And no, the latter does not follow from the former.
Re:Crushed Freedoms (Score:5, Insightful)
So who moderated his speech? No one. He was allowed to speak his mind, and then other people were allowed to decide whether they wanted to continue associating with him in light of what he revealed of himself.
Now, if you want to argue that being shunned for your opinions is censorship, fine, but do understand that there are implications for other people's freedom of association.
And yet no one silenced Watson. They simply stopped listening to him.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet no one silenced Watson.
Except all those venues that cancelled his sold-out lectures, his forced retirement, and the fact he's being forced into giving up his Nobel (according to the first link in the summary)...
People deciding not to pay to listen to you is far from the same thing as people silencing you.
Free speech means that you cannot be prevented from speaking your mind (within some limits, which Watson did not cross), but it in no way obligates people to listen to you, much less to pay you for the privilege of listening to you.