…and this is a 
Eminent scientist behaving badly
Category: Education & Careers • Politics
Posted on: October 17, 2007 8:00 AM, by PZ Myers
James Watson has really put his foot in it this time. He has a tendency to say some shockingly offensive and bizarre things.
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "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". 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".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "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."
Or, rather, our wanting to see our particular ethnic or racial group as superior to all others is not enough to make it so. There seems to be no environment on earth (except, perhaps, the coddled womb of the upper middle class lifestyle) where the average human being can afford to dispense with intelligence — and that includes Africa — and even where populations have been isolated for ten thousand years at a time, as in North America and Australia, we don't see powers of reason decaying. And of course, Africa is not significantly geographically or genetically isolated at all.
The article is like a summary of Watson's greatest gaffes.
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
He smiles. "Rosalind is my cross," he says slowly. "I'll bear it. I think she was partially autistic." He pauses for a while, before repeating the suggestion, as if to make it clear that this is no off-the-cuff insult, but a considered diagnosis. "I'd never really thought of scientists as autistic until this whole business of high-intelligence autism came up. There is probably no other explanation for Rosalind's behaviour.
It's like he thinks everyone is inferior. That's a relative term, so you might be wondering, inferior to what? I happen to know that he thinks very highly of the Scots-Irish, and considers them to be the driving force behind American successes.
I'll give you three guesses what Watson's own background might be.
Politics
Education & Careers
Comments
The scary thing is that the fundies will use this to discredit both genetics and evolutionary biology, as if science is all a hoax because one major contributor grew up in a less enlightened time and place.
Posted by: Brandon P. | October 17, 2007 8:16 AM
Tactless, certainly. Watson should know that human intelligence is a taboo subject that one simply does not discuss in polite society.
Despite individual and population differences in every other human characteristic, clearly the brain is the only organ that shows no variation; Equal selection pressures, equal drift, equal mutations. How fortunate; there's just one big homogeneous brain plan!
And no, I'm not commenting either way on the veracity of Watson's comments, since they are by necessity political statements rather than scientific ones. That's the problem.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | October 17, 2007 8:24 AM
I'm afraid your desire to have all peoples be inherently and fundamentally equal isn't enough to make it so, either.
Sub-Saharan Africans DO score poorly on IQ tests on average, likely for reasons associated with nutrition and disease in early childhood.
As for the abortion thing - I thought you supported the right of women to do what they wished with their bodies. If reliable markers indicative of homosexuality are found, surely you wouldn't force women to carry an undesired fetus - even if the reason it's undesired is that it's gay.
Right? Right?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 8:25 AM
Just goes to show two things:
1) Even very clever, high acheiving people can be wrong (and stupendously impolitic whilst doing it).
2) That we should be thankful that science is, in part, the process of doubting the word of the experts. Nullius in verbia indeed!
Pity, because this will be seized upon by the usual loons and touted as "High Priest of Scientistofacist Darwinism wants to kill the blacks and ugly people".
IIRC there are differences in intelligence between races at the extreme ends of the bell curve. II also RC those differences are statistically insignificant compared to the high degree of overlap and that the differences WITHIN races are more significant than the differences BETWEEN races.
Doubtless the usual loons will seize on this as validation of their racism, and equally doubtless the other group of reality denying loons will seize on this and deny any racial differences at all.* It does strike me as significant and hilarious that anti-Enlightenment denial of reality is so popular with both typically right wing racist loons and typically left wing politically correct post modernists. Who'd have thought the two would get on so well?
Oh well, it's sad to see a highly recognised and capable bloke make a total arse of himself.
Louis
* There is a perniciously stupid way to misunderstand this. It's the basis of the Is/Ought fallacy. A hypothetical (and deliberately bad) example: Black people are highly represented in international sprinting tournaments. Black people are, at the extreme end of the bell curve, faster than white people. My PA has to run to get me my coffee in time. Therefore black people are only fit to be my PA. Doesn't really work does it? It's the same argument that Watson is using, effectively.
I will cheerfully acknowledge that certain racial differences exist. I will also cheerfully acknowledge that in most cases I can think of the difference within a "race" is more than the difference between "races". And I will very cheerfully acknolwedge that in those cases making any distinction on "race" is flawed in the extreme. However, there are useful uses of "race" for example in medicine (certain racial groups are more likely to have thallasemia for example) and in these cases certain distinctions based on "race" can be valid and productive. It's all about what follows from the evidence. Gosh, that sounds like science. Gosh, that also sound very different to what Watson's pronouncement is.
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2007 8:27 AM
Unfortunately, much weight will be added to his comments by the inevitably foolish response of many of his opponents.
For example, when The Bell Curve came out, the criticism could be (roughly) divided into two categories. The first was detailed scientific refutation of its claims, as provided by Steven Jay Gould and others. This was overshadowed however, by the second category, namely hysterical denunciation which failed to engage any of the arguments, and condemned the fact that anyone could even ask such a question.
Such a reaction is highly beneficial to the "scientific" racists, as they can simply claim that an inconvenient truth is being suppressed by political correctness.
I hope, PZ, that his critics will follow your example, and attack his arguments rather than his conclusion.
Posted by: hyperdeath | October 17, 2007 8:31 AM
Watson is a tosspot, pure and simple.
Posted by: LK | October 17, 2007 8:32 AM
No, that's gender you're thinking of. Racial and ethnic groups vary far more than that.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 8:32 AM
This is a good example of how scientists are different from fundies--if a scientist behaves like an idiot, it is possible to reject his behavior, and still appreciate past work.
We don't have "Watsonists" but "geneticists". So, science marches on, despite personalities.
Just remember, there is no such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Evolutionists"--just "biologist".
Posted by: PalMD | October 17, 2007 8:36 AM
Why is it unreasonable to suggest that black people might be intellectually inferior? Why does PZ consider this ludicrous and easily dismissible?
The "everyone is equal" philosophy doesn't always bear itself out. You can't expect it to be a universal law. Maybe there is a significant intellectual disparity between some races. Who knows? Watson at least has a point.
PZ is continually proving himself a faith-head, PC-fundamentalist.
Posted by: John Smith | October 17, 2007 8:36 AM
And why should variation in the brain coincide with variation in skin color? After all, nothing else seems to.
Better yet, why should anything coincide with the US definition of "black", which includes everyone with any visible amount of African ancestry in the last few centuries, even Colin "Paleface" Powell? Or with the US definition of "white", sorry, "Caucasian", which doesn't even include the southern 1/3 of Europe?
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 17, 2007 8:36 AM
I can explain Watson in three words.
White. Man's. Burden.
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 8:38 AM
I'm afraid I have to agree with Caledonian. The intelligence of various groups of people has absolutely nothing to do with our desires for racial equality or inequality.
It is important that the scientific community shows WHY he is wrong in saying this - using experimental data - rather than dismiss it because it has unpleasant consequences for our ideals of equality.
Posted by: Doddy | October 17, 2007 8:41 AM
Yes, the Mediterranean Race.
How many believers in race have recognized a separate Mediterranean race in the last 50 years?
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 17, 2007 8:42 AM
I think that it's an interesting area for examination. What is "intellectualy inferior"? If I write an IQ test, it will reflect my upbringing. Let's ask some tribesmen in Africa to develop the test, and see how we do.
"You see a gazelle, a zebra and a giraffe at a watering hole. Which do you select to kill?"
"Which will provide you better food value; 20 grubs, 24 millipedes, or a cobra?"
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 8:42 AM
'The Double Helix' was a key inspiration for me becoming a scientist in the first place. I have given it away to other young, budding scientists as a gift to inspire their scientific drive. It will always have a place on my book shelf.
None of this garbage, not one word, should take away from the extraordinary contribution to science made by this man.
This situation just reinforces the difficulties with idolatry of any kind. The man is human and, apparently, somewhat racist. Yes, he should know better, but I think we can safely divorce this stupidity from his actual contributions to molecular biology. We (or at least I) try to do the same with Francis Collins; recognize the extraordinary contributions while pointing out and harshly criticizing the flaws. No one is above criticism.
Posted by: Michael | October 17, 2007 8:43 AM
At #5: Exactly. I saw very little in the article refuting his baseless statement on scientific grounds. He claims vaguely that 'studies show' his stupid claims. What studies? I simply don't understand how even poor scientific reporting can fail to ask that question. When a scientist, or anyone, makes a claim, then bases it on 'studies' they should be automatically asked to cite them. If they can't or won't their remarks are pointless.
His racism is clearly not based on any fact, and I would like to see him discredited on that account. Not because his statement is inherently untrue or a violates an unquestionable bit of dogma, but because despite his claims of studies or evidence supporting him, he has no such evidence.
Posted by: Fnord Prefect | October 17, 2007 8:43 AM
No, that's gender you're thinking of. Racial and ethnic groups vary far more than that.
Any evidence of this? That "intelligence is same as ours" is a specious comment. Even if their environment is less than hospitable for personal growth, "our" intelligence spread easily encompasses theirs.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 17, 2007 8:46 AM
I'm trying to say that for just about each disease -- just about each gene -- you'd have to recognize its own set of races.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 17, 2007 8:46 AM
Well, seeing as how intelligence has never been very well defined, and that each culture has its own definitions of what should constitute intelligence, I'm not sure what leg you're standing on, Caledonian et. al.
Posted by: Mike P | October 17, 2007 8:57 AM
Yes. If Caledonian and friends can point to a study that shows racial differences in intelligence (however you want to measure it) that manages to effectively control for incredibly complex social conditions that we don't understand, it would be appreciated.
Posted by: Tree | October 17, 2007 9:03 AM
I feel compelled to whip out the SETI definition of intelligence: "the ability to build a radio telescope". That one works. That one is rigorous and testable. =8-)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 9:03 AM
I have a question.... what if its true?
Regardless of evolution, certainly we can expect differences among the populations due to genetics, but also, environment, sociological differences, and so forth.
We have to recognize the certainly it doesnt mean that all people from africa have a lower IQ (as opposed to just dumb), it just may mean the the average is shifted down, with tails at both ends like in any other country (every single person I have worked with from Ghana has totally blown me away with their intellect and decency).
So what if it is? Shouldn't all our policies be designed in a way to benefit the maximum amount of people, meaning the entire bell curve regardless of where the average is?
As an example, not that we do this, Doesn't making something handicap accessible make it easier for everyone? Have any of you tried watching TV with closed captions on? The shows are far more understandable!
Even if the average is lower in africa, our policies shouldn't be designed to only reach those at one end or another of the bell curve.
just a thought.
p.s. I doubt very much if given the same opportunities and same nutrition that there is any difference at all in IQ.
Posted by: techskeptic | October 17, 2007 9:04 AM
I knew he was going to say something like this for oh so long now. The main problem is that he think testing for intelligence is possible, which shows you, even famous scientists with a lot of respect, at their core, can be idiots.
When you test people with equal social pressures, desire, time available to study, equal opportunities to learn, opportunities to succeed, and equal resources and about a zillion other social and physical situations all being equal, and you get a wide difference in range, means and std etc... then you can start to wonder if he is right.
Until then, we see he is just a guy living in a bubble that has no sense of what the real world is, and I would love to see how long he would last, in all his brilliance, in the average street situation.
Posted by: Lago | October 17, 2007 9:05 AM
"Why is it unreasonable to suggest that black people might be intellectually inferior? Why does PZ consider this ludicrous and easily dismissible?"
John Smith, I think you hit the nail - unwillingly - on the head. The problem is that we put value labels on differences and often use those to justify all sorts of atrocities. Why would someone with a lower IQ be considered "inferior" ? By whose standards ? I have not the slighetest idea whether africans have different IQs or libidos or whatever - but I can tell you that a bushman/woman manages to survive in an environment in which I'd be dead within a day.
Posted by: Umilik | October 17, 2007 9:07 AM
It is true that there are difference between different races. To my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence that all humans regardless of race have the same potential for intelligence. I think intelligence can be measured and so can physical fitness. There is the possibility that he is correct. Until there is conclusive evidence that he is wrong, I don't think so many people should scorn him. Just like Richard Dawkins says about the nice comforting idea of going to heaven or having a soul- just because it is comforting -that doesn't make it *TRUE*...
Posted by: robotaholic | October 17, 2007 9:09 AM
Ever tried comparing NOVA with American Idol? Americal Idol is far easier to grasp! Why can't NOVA be more like that?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:09 AM
From a 1996 article in American Psychologist:
So if you want to hold IQ testing as the gold standard, you're leaving out an awful lot of factors that otherwise figure into intelligence. Creativity and practical sense are the two that jumped out at me most. We call artistic savants geniuses based on their creative aptitude. Do we hold a double standard when extending that genius to equally creative non-White people?
Posted by: Mike P | October 17, 2007 9:10 AM
Hi, Lago! Sorry for hijacking this thread -- you have twice accused me of somehow sweeping GSP under the rug, I answered twice (if late), and you never came back to those threads (the one on the quill knobs of Velociraptor and the one on my adoption into the OM). Could you elaborate now, please?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 9:11 AM
Without assistance, how long could the Bushman live in, say, downtown Detroit?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:12 AM
Caledonian,
No I'm pretty sure it's races as well. To cite two populist, secondary sources: I seem to remember something being mentioned in "The Selfish Gene" about this, and a quick check of Wikipedia (that most {cough} "reliable" of secondary sources!) backs me up. Look up "race and intelligence (test scores)" and "race and intelligence (explanations)" on Wikipedia for example. Sorry I can't be more precise than that, I don't have the book to hand, and I can only afford a quick look at Wikipedia.
Anyway, it would seem to me that the immediate counter to your claim is to look at that data (Wiki has some discussion of it). That data does not support the claim that, for example, the difference between the lowest IQ black/white individual and the highest IQ black/white individual is smaller than the lowest black vs lowest white or highest black vs highest white or mean black v mean white. I.e. the interracial differences are smaller than the intraracial differences. Obviously it dicusses also the limitations of testing etc.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2007 9:13 AM
Are the decisions as rigged as in the German and the Austrian equivalents, for example...? I wouldn't call rigged decisions "easy to grasp".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Arguments that use intelligence tests as a measure make the same mistake that arguments using strength as a measure for being a combat soldier make. Intelligence speaks to the ability to solve a problem. Problems get solved with all the tools at hand, sensory input, brain size, physical conditions and abilities. To say that Africans or any other group is less intelligent based on tests is totally missing the point of what it is to be alive and reactive with ones environment. Sure it may be true that men are on the whole a little bit larger and stronger than women, or that some Kenyans can run long distances better than most whites, or that little boys do better in some math applications, but in the end it is how the problems get solved and everyone uses all the tools at their disposal to do so. When you look at it this way, all the differences become unimportant. When I worked in the steel mill women were just beginning to break into employment there. Men would say a woman can't lift that 100 pound impact wrench all day. The answer is: "Of course not, nobody but a fool would. The woman will use a power lift." The fact that I won't run a long distance race against a person that is gifted by nature and nurture to excel at such an endeavor does not make me inferior. It just means that I have to save my pennies for the bus fare.
Posted by: Nick in Tacoma | October 17, 2007 9:16 AM
What possible relevance do you imagine that comparison has to this discussion?
Your argument also holds for people with Down Syndrome. Should we conclude that there's no significant difference in intelligence between normal people and those with DS because the differences within the normal population are greater than those between normality and DS?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:18 AM
Well here in Murka, they are firmly grasped...by the balls, until they tell us all they know.
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 9:19 AM
"Without assistance, how long could the Bushman live in, say, downtown Detroit?"
Without assistance, I wouldn't be able to live there very long either. If no one's gonna give you food or shelter or protection in that city, and you've got no bank on you, it doesn't matter where you're from. Luckily I have relatives there, and you can usually find people who will help you.
Posted by: Dahan | October 17, 2007 9:19 AM
robotaholic
I don't think anyone is saying that there is absolutely no chance that potential for intelligence* doesn't have a racial factor. But it's not like testing isn't being done. People have been testing intelligence for years, and they're slowly getting better at it. Currently, the trend seems to be showing that differences in intelligence, with all variables controlled for, seem to be narrowing. That in itself isn't a conclusion, of course, but it should give pause when idiots like you start spouting "PROVE THE RACES ARE EQUAL! PROVE IT!" We aren't scorning him because he suggested that races might not have the same potential for intelligence; we're scorning him because he is blatantly using that possibility as a springboard for his own virulent racism.
That is not the measured, sensitive response of someone awaiting the outcome of intelligence testing. That is a disgusting racist, and you are abetting him with your nonsense.Posted by: Mike P | October 17, 2007 9:20 AM
Jeez, some of you folks are dunces. If there was no essential difference in the capacity to reason between us Moderns and Europeans in the Middle Ages, even those who lived in Russia, the sparsest, most inclimate, least fertile, most predator rich section of Europe, and we have an entire tradition of literature ecclesiastical, scientific, and personal to prove that lack of difference, then how can you honestly sit there and smugly assume that sub-saharan Africans, who by the way, live in an infinitely richer environment that Saharan or Mediterranean Africans, are stupider than everyone else? Bigotry, thats how.
I.Q. tests do a better job of exposing the inherent biases of those who write them than they do of registering the intelligence of the test taker; any psychologist can tell you that.
As to showing he is wrong, hundreds of studies have over the last 60 years. How many times do biologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, and historians have to win this argument before you damned racists will pack up your crap and admit you're wrong?!? And why does Watson's opinion on this even matter? If he's such an expert of genetics then he'd be well aware that, bereft of an environment which encourages the use of traits, traits are not expressed in a life form. Genetics could be, at best, a predictive science of predispositions, but never one of immutable determinations regarding skill and ability, yet this is precisely how he treats it in his comments. By doing so he does not contribute constructively to the debate, as some posters here seem to think, but merely exposes his own ignorance of the advances made in genetic sciences since his partially stolen discovery over half a century ago.
Posted by: Julian | October 17, 2007 9:21 AM
*whatever that is
Posted by: Mike P | October 17, 2007 9:21 AM
I also want to echo two points raised more thoroughly by others:
1) There isn't a comprehensive way to test "intelligence". I.e. intelligence is generally quite a nebulous concept. Where it is well defined it can be well tested but no one in their right mind pretends this then extends to all the other narrowly or generally defined concepts of "intelligence". In other words: IQ tests test the ability to do IQ tests (and related functions).
2) "Even if true so what". This angle is very important. Like the hypothetical and frivolous example I gave above, the fact that on average black people are the fastest runners does not mean it automatically follows that black people are therefore the people who should run to get my coffee. It absolutely does not follow! So what if on average the average black person's IQ is lower than the average white person's? It makes no difference to anything because the suitability of someone to rule is a) rarely based on their intellect despite what we might wish (I'm looking at you Bush!), and b) general trends do not necessarily predict INDIVIDUAL abilities. It's the fallacy of composition again. Just because some group has a property, it does not automatically follow that it's components all have that property.
Basically, it's just a fantastic excuse for a good old fashion fight.
Anyway, everyone knows that the really stupid people on the planet are those people betting on South Africa to win the Rugby World Cup (which in all seriousness they probably will but shhh I didn;t say that) because England are going to win. Stands to reason dunnit. After all, I'm an England fan and thus better than some dodgy South African fan, so England are going to win, right?
Hmmmm. Perhaps not.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2007 9:24 AM
"John Smith, I think you hit the nail - unwillingly - on the head. The problem is that we put value labels on differences and often use those to justify all sorts of atrocities. Why would someone with a lower IQ be considered "inferior" ? By whose standards ? I have not the slighetest idea whether africans have different IQs or libidos or whatever - but I can tell you that a bushman/woman manages to survive in an environment in which I'd be dead within a day."
Yes, but maybe Africa is economically worse-off than other continents due to the average intellectual inferiority of its inhabitants. If this is true, then maybe our social policies shouldn't make the assumption that the Africans can perform various tasks anywhere near as competently as we can.
Posted by: John Smith | October 17, 2007 9:25 AM
Ah, essentialist thinking! How comforting that the old fallacies never go out of style.
Australian aboriginals demonstrate markedly higher spatial awareness and geographic memory than their European-descended counterparts. The sword of differences cuts both ways.
What part of "nutrition and disease" didn't you understand?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:27 AM
Posted by: Tulse | October 17, 2007 9:28 AM
My Ph.D. advisor used to say that appointments to the National Academy of Sciences should be written in disappearing ink. I guess that goes for Nobel prizes, too.
Posted by: frank | October 17, 2007 9:32 AM
>> Have any of you tried watching TV with closed captions on? The shows are far more understandable!
techskeptic, perhaps it's time to visit an audiologist.
On those occasions when I've watched TV with someone who needs them, I find closed captions to be extremely distracting -- especially the real-time ones that accompany newscasts. They lag behind the images by many seconds and are generally full of often-hilarious misspellings and misinterpretations. You'd think this would be easy to fix -- just use the newscaster's teleprompter as the source of the captions and run them concurrently with what s/he's reading. Why is this done so badly?
/off-topic rant
Posted by: Donnie B. | October 17, 2007 9:33 AM
Caledonian,
The relevance it has to the discussion is because you disagreed with precisely that! I said that the interracial difference was smaller than the intraracial difference and you said "No, that's for gender". I went and checked it out just to refresh my memory and found that I was in fact right. Who knew! I also gave you several metrics there, not just one. The point of course being that interracial differences are indeed less significant that intraracial ones based on the available data. I think this shows the poor quality of the data and definitions, and the complexity of the phenomena under study more than anything btw.
Incidentally: I am NOT claiming that no difference exists, I'm claiming that the differences in IQ between races that do exist are not, on average, statistically significant (which given that "race" is such a nedbulous concept, is precisely what we should expect) when compared to differences withn "races".
Your Downs argument does not work because a) Downs is known to cause mental retardation, having a higher concentration of melanin in the skin isn't (i.e. there is a know caustive link between lower IQ and Downs, there is no know caustive link between race and IQ and the data doesn't even support a strong correlation) and b) the spread of IQ in people with Down's syndrome is comparatively narrow, unlike for example the spread of IQ in Caucasians.
But since you're replying to a strawman anyway, I'm not obviously worried.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2007 9:38 AM
The irony is that 150 years ago, all these characterisations were being made about the Irish as explanations for their perennial poverty compared to the English.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | October 17, 2007 9:41 AM
John Smith @ #40,
Is that your racism showing? I suppose your final conjecture there is controlled for centuries of imperial, colonial, and religious control, up to today, right?
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 9:44 AM
Sorry, I forgot to add the obvious point that this means we cannot reliably use racial characteristics as a predictor of IQ, especially in individual cases.
What Watson was saying was "because on average race X has a lower IQ score than race Y, individuals from race X are less suited to rule than individuals of race Y".
What I'm saying is that this argument is not only logically flawed, but it is unsupported by the data (i.e. if you have a specific candidate for ruler from race X and another from race Y then the general IQ data about races X and Y tell you nothing useful about the IQ of the candidates because of the fallacy of composition and because the IQ differences between races X and Y and less than the IQ differences within races X and Y).
Get it?
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2007 9:44 AM
John Smith,
Of course, it is a sign of deep intelligence and thoughtful objectivity to generalize - in a sober manner, to be sure - about the cognitive skills of the population of an entire continent.
And of course, Africa's economic problems, which are serious, have nothing to do with the wholesale exploitation, murder, rape, and inhuman behavior of those oh-so-civilized and intelligent white-skinned Eurpoeans who ran roughshod over Africa (and, often, still do).
But let's ignore that. Let us continue to discuss your fascinating notion that racism is merely common sense. And let us do so in the thoughtful, serious fashion that any dispassionate discussion of ideas deserves.
Pass the schnapps and cigars, Mr. Smith, do you mind, sir? Oh, and please don't get any ash on that lampshade in if you can. Jewish skin, you know. Very rare.
Posted by: tristero | October 17, 2007 9:50 AM
"That is not the measured, sensitive response of someone awaiting the outcome of intelligence testing. That is a disgusting racist, and you are abetting him with your nonsense."
Exactly - it is not only a wicked thing to say, it is demonstrably, laughably false. As a team leader of a number of staff over the years, I have had to manage a large number of people of African origin. Some haven't been too bright, others extremely so. Exactly the same applies for the numerous white and Asian members of staff I've managed. Simply, the human race is a mixed bag and everyday experience for all but the most ardent racist would be enough to confirm this.
By the way, I know that's not a scientific analysis - but my experience does at least give the lie to Watson's disgraceful suggestion that it is somehow the experience of managers that black employees are noticeably worse than employees of other races. What a petulant, ignorant fool.
Rudi
Posted by: Rudi Tapper | October 17, 2007 9:54 AM
Funny thing about this thread is that it's, in general, a bunch of white people talking to other white people, showboating just how non-racist they are. ...when, in reality, we've all made jokes, quips, and even have real thoughts that say quite otherwise. Not acknowledging that and even stating otherwise doesn't make you a better person. It makes you fake and no better than Haggard's hypocrisy with homosexuality and his meth-riddled trists.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | October 17, 2007 9:55 AM
Amazingly Dr Watson hasn't made any mention of old age vis-a-vis intelligence. Maybe he should write about differences between senile seniors and bright prodigies to highlight the differences between people of different ages.
Considering he is 79, I doubt he will.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 17, 2007 9:55 AM
It should be noted that the Irish were for centuries thought by the English to be genetically inferior and inherently stupid- a stereotype which persists to this very day.
I even had a professor in Imperial College who would call something 'Irish' when he meant stupid.
It just seemed natural to Englishmen that the Irish must be backward. After all, the English had produced Newton, Darwin, had developed an empire and countless other achievements. The Irish on the other hand seemed to be congenital drunks who lived in poverty, who never made a serious attempt to drag themselves out of their backward and primitive life-styles.
I have mixed views on race and intelligence, but being Irish has put things into some perspective. I agree with Caledonian that however you look at it, Africans don't score as well (1 std deviation lower) on IQ tests. I think this is something we need to take seriously. A project like the one laptop per child might be a good start in bringing up their score.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 17, 2007 9:56 AM
even though it is politically incorrect to agree with the scientific research done,the data is the data and should be held to the light,even if it is an unpopular finding!!stop trying to squelch the data!!that is simply picking and choosing what you want to be true and what is actually true of differing race intelligence!!if you do that you will no longer be taken seriously as a scientist!!
Posted by: eric | October 17, 2007 9:58 AM
IIRC, the Irish also score worse on average than the British.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:58 AM
I think anyone spouting off such gazzillion times refuted rasistic crap should be put to a IQ test of a very special sort - he shoould be given a piece of land somewhere mid somalia, a pile of wood to build a hut and make tools and weapons and one pair clothes. Then they should be left there and prevented from leaving rural somalia for a year.
Posted by: T_U_T | October 17, 2007 9:59 AM
Here's a paragraph from Watson's book, DNA:
So he goes into a long spiel about how the Brits stunted the Irish educational system, ensuring that Irish IQs remained low right up to our own day, many generations after Catholic Emancipation.
But when it comes to Africans, well, that's a whole different story. I mean it's not as if the Brits were mean to them, is it? They were transported, free of charge, to a land of opportunity. Their low scores have to be a fact of nature, not nurture.
Nothing to see here, folks; just an old man letting his boyhood anxieties out for a run. We are all like that. We never really leave our childhood behind.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | October 17, 2007 10:00 AM
"Yes, but maybe Africa is economically worse-off than other continents due to the average intellectual inferiority of its inhabitants."
Maybe it would be wise to do a little reading and thinking before positing ignorant tripe?
Pre-colonial Africa was possibly the richest continent on earth, but is now a continent of impoverished nations due to factors such as colonial asset-stripping, civil wars (such as the one inadvertantly engineered by the Belgians in Rwanda), drought, crippling dept repayments to the international community, and disease (not least of all the propagation of AIDS, in part, due to superstition cultivated by Western churches).
That doesn't even start to address the problems in Watson's arguments, not least of all that nobody has meaningfully shown that Africans or Blacks, or any other relatively arbitrary racial or ethnic grouping, is less intelligent. For a start, you and others making similar arguments, talk as though you think that Africa is a single country with a single ethnic and racial (and genetic) identity. This is clearly not so.
If Watson hadn't shared a Nobel prize for the structure of DNA, then he'd never be allowed a platform for his offensive and archaic opinions (which have been noted to extend beyond racism to also include misogyny and some fairly immoral/amoral and extraordinary opinions on eugenics). But, who will tell one of the Fathers of Modern Genetics to shut up?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 17, 2007 10:00 AM
"And of course, Africa's economic problems, which are serious, have nothing to do with the wholesale exploitation, murder, rape, and inhuman behavior of those oh-so-civilized and intelligent white-skinned Eurpoeans who ran roughshod over Africa (and, often, still do)."
Africa was far behind the civilized world even before the Europeans got there, so you should drop that boring canard. As for murder and rape: that's generally African-on-African violence.
"But let's ignore that. Let us continue to discuss your fascinating notion that racism is merely common sense. And let us do so in the thoughtful, serious fashion that any dispassionate discussion of ideas deserves."
That's what I was talking about: PC-fanaticism. You've resorted to using typical fundamentalist tactics -- lying and misrepresentation. I did not say that any races are inferior intellectually; I suggested that *maybe* some are. This is a perfectly reasonable position, and you are simply frothing-at-the-mouth faith-head if you're going to insist otherwise.
Posted by: John Smith | October 17, 2007 10:00 AM
Well I for one do my best to escape that racist past I was taught. I no longer (and haven't for many years) indulge in such jokes and quips, and try to real-time correct any racist thoughts. Now how does that make me hypocritical?
eric,
Where is that data? Unsquelch it, would you please?
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 10:04 AM
Where does Watson say the differences he's talking about need to be genetic as opposed to environmental?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 10:05 AM
To quote that great philosopher, The Who, "I hope I die before I get old."
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 17, 2007 10:07 AM
Bernard Bumner:
"Shut up, Watson."
Just think: if Watson and Crick hadn't chosen to work on DNA, the Nobel Prize for the double helix might well have gone to Linus Pauling and Rosalind Franklin. And remember, Pauling said he'd done it all to be worthy of his wife's respect.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 17, 2007 10:08 AM
Caucasian Jesus can tell the colour of someone's skin via the medium of the internet, and sees through their written pretence of liberalism, right to their racist hearts; this peculiar form of world-wide-web omniscience also means that he is able to see all of the electronic porn in the world, all at the same time...
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 17, 2007 10:10 AM
Caucasian Jesus from #51,
You must have a hell of a browser to be able to see the color of skin of the people commenting here. That said...
You state that we are "a bunch of white people talking to other white people, showboating just how non-racist they are. ...when, in reality, we've all made jokes, quips, and even have real thoughts that say quite otherwise."
I think you're confusing a couple things here. Having read through the posts a couple times, I don't see much showboating. I do see people taking this issue very seriously. I see people who are attempting to overcome the racial prejudices that were taught to us when we're young, and who believe that we're all created equal.
If errors are made in one's life, which there will be, it doesn't make one a hypocrite. That kind of thinking is what the right wing likes to use when they point out that someone like Jesse Jackson's has made questionable comments, and therefore is a racist himself and should be ignored. They, on the other hand, pretty much proclaim their twisted views, and then get off scott-free from the "hypocrite" label.
Posted by: Dahan | October 17, 2007 10:11 AM
Caledonian,
Watson said: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically"
I would say this refers to genetic evolution.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | October 17, 2007 10:11 AM
And the part where the traits he's talking about are said to be genetic?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 10:12 AM
As an example, not that we do this, Doesn't making something handicap accessible make it easier for everyone?
Obviously, you've never tripped over one of those sidewalk cutouts for wheelchairs or had to open an automated door by hand. (Not that I'm objecting to any of these, but it doesn't always make things easier.)
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | October 17, 2007 10:15 AM
Caledonian, did you read the article?
The third paragraph:
See that last sentence? It would've been nice if they included the quote, but that looks pretty definitive to me.
Per Caucasian Jesus (love your website, BTW),
Your logic requires that everyone who ever believed in a god and is now atheist is a hypocrit.
Posted by: True Bob | October 17, 2007 10:15 AM
I find it hard to believe that living in Africa with all it's wars, killer disease, dictators, famines, insects and animals is going to make the population stupid. The stress should if anything kill of the dumb ones. If any population would have the corner on fat, dumb and stupid it would us 1st worlders.
Posted by: Bob L | October 17, 2007 10:16 AM
Caledonian:
When he talks about "people who have to deal with black employees".
Posted by: Tulse | October 17, 2007 10:17 AM
Yes? Genes responsible for differences in human intelligence probably will be located within the decade.
The key link, the association between genetic differences in intelligence and demonstrated differences between racial groups, isn't there.
Maybe it was there in the actual quotes. But you're objecting to a projection.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 10:18 AM
Watson reminds me a bit the obsession of the Nazis with population genetics which ultimately led to mass murder, first of the mentally ill, then of the Jews, as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, and Slavs.
In 1940, Himmler established a "German Racial Register" in an attempt to define which other Europeans might qualify as ethnically German. Eventually the register would contain the measurements, the photographs, and the medical records of 1.5 million people, all gathered with the aim of identifying and isolating the people who had the greatest potential for Germanization, and expelling or murdering the rest.
Reading some of the comments in this thread, it seems some people haven't learned this lesson...
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 17, 2007 10:18 AM
That's because you don't understand much about development.
Posted by: