Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Prayer is begging from a pauper.
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
Generating right-left asymmetries
An updated book list for evolutionists
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Atheism as grand oedipal symbolic act | Main | Sharp and cynical »
Category:
Posted on: October 17, 2007 7:31 PM, by PZ Myers
Greg knows a bit about the anthropology of race, and he also knows how to make fools suffer. Now he has weighed in on Watson.
I'm pretty sure he left boot marks on the old man.
Greg has followed through now with more criticisms of 'scientific' racism.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
That was pathetic.
We study IQ inheritance with the same tools we use to study a lot of other traits that we can't tie down to specific genes very well. We're currently in a renaissance of genetics research into not only crude physiology, but psychological and cognitive traits, and the data shows that genetic inheritance alone is a major factor.
And what does this loser do? Unleash a series of ad hominem attacks and insults while repeating the conclusion over and over.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 7:39 PM
Later in life, Galileo refused to accept that the moon influenced the tides. Newton got knee-deep in alchemy. This is no different. Scientists aren't infallible gods - their claims are only as strong as the evidence behind them. And Watson's recent claims are contradicted by the evidence.
Unfortunately for Watson, his age has eroded his inhibitions before his bigotry. Unfortunately for the rest of us, his role in the discovery of the structure of DNA has lent him rockstar scientist status, and his mal-formed opinions on these subjects will lend undue credibility to these ideas.
Greg does a nice debunking.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | October 17, 2007 7:45 PM
Show us this elusive data.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | October 17, 2007 7:47 PM
Dear Caledonian,
I have great respect for you, generally, but it is YOU who do not see the point: it isn't the science you do, but what takes place before and after it is done.
And being pissed off at idiocy is not quite the same as ad hominem attacks.
Look past this unusual instance, where you seem to be - can I say it? - holier than moi?
Posted by: darwinfinch | October 17, 2007 7:54 PM
Calling Mark Vernon! We need you to do a Freudian analysis of James Watson's ego. It's huge and nasty and can't tolerate women, blacks, or just about anyone!
[What a dickhead!]
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 17, 2007 8:01 PM
Black or white, male or female, gay or straight, all have fallen short of the glory of Caledonian... nah.
There is science... and there are social conventions on what sorts of things are suitable topics and suitable claims. The nature of ethnic lineages, genetic inheritance of psychological traits, and our fledgling attempts to understand the human genetic code - these are all part of science.
All this outraged rhubarb? Isn't.
Posted by: Calednoian | October 17, 2007 8:03 PM
Watson had three semi-admirable traits that led to his "success": ego, drive, and an instinctive sense of who to hang around in order to boost his not-terribly-bright self into the history books.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:05 PM
Caledonian, you are a boring gadfly and I won't waste my time tearing you yet another asshole.
Suffice it to say when you call someone a "loser" for unleashing "ad hominems" without addressing the substance of the post (one that is refreshingly free of distractions) then you are a hypocrite.
Do genes influence one's standardized IQ test scores? I think most people with Down's Syndrome agree that they do.
Are black people inherently less intelligent than white people? I don't know but I do know that the question itself is about as scientifically valid as asking "are red haired people less moral than blonde haired people?" The people who ask such questions are the real retards.
And then we have Allen McNeill.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:10 PM
And Linus Pauling started advocating megadoses of vitamin C to cure cancer and a form of woo known as "orthomolecular medicine."
Posted by: Orac | October 17, 2007 8:11 PM
If Watson is so wrong, why do the "rebuttals" of him consist of nothing more than ad hominem? The tenor of these repsonses indicates leftwingers are as much of a threat to science that threatens their worldview as the Jesus freaks are.
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." If this is wrong, what is the reason to believe they have evolved identically? The odds of that happening would be astronomical.
Posted by: Francis Crunk | October 17, 2007 8:15 PM
"Later in life, Galileo refused to accept that the moon influenced the tides. Newton got knee-deep in alchemy. This is no different."
Well, as the article at issue points out rather plainly, this is entirely different because Watson was a mediocre thinker, albeit an aggressive and lucky one.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:16 PM
With the difference that we don't know much about whether IQ is a trait.
As the joke goes, the IQ test measures the ability to solve the IQ test...
Short look at European history, or at my family tree: there ain't no such thing as an ethnic lineage. Oh man. I really wouldn't have expected this gem of profound ignorance from you, Caledonian.
As the author of a book on the Migration Period wrote: "Ethnicity is not fate but goal".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 8:17 PM
There was no substance to that post - it's all insults and outrage. It's outrage that many of you agree with, though, and share. Thusly most of your brain stops working as your emotions kick in.
Actually, we already know that the genes responsible for red hair are associated with certain neurological consequences - the most well-understood of which is a major difference in response to most anesthetic drugs.
The question of whether people with red hair respond differently to societal codes of morality than people with non-red (or even specifically blond) hair isn't scientifically invalid. It is just as reasonable as questioning whether their anesthetic metabolism responds differently. It's just that this topic offends your sense of propriety, while the other does not.
Do not speak on the nature of science.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 8:18 PM
Watson said, "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities
Excuse me ... the what? The "intellectual capacities"? Is that a technical term?
Hence, the asshole's problem.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:19 PM
I agree with Caledonian- which is pretty worrying and probably means I need a trip to the head doctor.
It was pathetic. But then- JW's comments were pathetic.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 17, 2007 8:20 PM
Do not speak on the nature of science.
Do not tell me what not to speak on, retardo.
There was no substance to that post - it's all insults and outrage.
That's false. Maybe you want to start over? Or perhaps quit trying.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:21 PM
Then please do tell me why Napoleon crossed the Mississippi.
The part "peoples geographically separated in their evolution" is wrong. Watson fails to take into account that fumans fuck, almost like bonobos. Result: clinal variation all over the place.
The only human population that ever was reproductively isolated was that of Easter Island, and even that only lasted 400 years. For evolutionary timescales that's still absolutely pathetic, and yet it's the extreme case.
Why has nobody ever classified humanity into two races, Easter Island and Rest? This scheme would be a lot more justified than any other that has ever been proposed. And lots of different schemes have been proposed; I remember seeing a book from the early 20th century that explained mankind's 66 (sixty-six) races.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 8:23 PM
Thusly most of your brain stops working as your emotions kick in.
Huh. You're sure it couldn't be the case that your emotions are kicking in and forcing you to leap to Dr. "Freethinker" Watson's defence?
Seems that way to me because your arguments thus far in his defense are incoherent or simply repeating Watson's own incoherent ramblings.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:23 PM
Don't be a fool. IQ is a measurable thing. Scientists simply don't know precisely what it is that's being measured - and the vast majority of laypeople don't understand it at all, as you've been more than willing to demonstrate.
It's a measurable trait that inheritance is known to have a measureable, statistical effect on. It's not different than other traits we study, except that it triggers irrational tirades from the ignorant and uninformed more often than most.
Of course there is. It's just not a simple thing, and not a thing that can be applied to individuals as easily as groups. Nevertheless, certain traits vary predictably between various ethnic groups - groups that often don't match our social concepts of 'races'. Go to razib's blog and search for the discussions on lactose intolerance as just one example - educate yourself instead of spouting off on things you don't understand.
I will say this only once: if you find yourself disagreeing with me, check your position before concluding that I am wrong - then recheck it.
Of course ethnicity isn't fate! That's as absurd as the moron-generated strawman that genes determine everything about us!
You are putting yourself in the same league as people who claim homeopathy works and that the medical establishment is covering up the real cause of AIDS.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 8:25 PM
Why is it that Caledonian devotees always write like shitheads? I mean, that's an easy enough question to answer, but there's a particular mise en scène -- some kind of ineffable quality -- to their feeble, timid, awkward garbage that seems not only to be unique to this board, but expressed in every last post that's ever been written applauding his masturbatory pontification.
Is there something about anal retentive behavior that causes people to write like that? Why, why do they write like shitheads? What has to go wrong in your life before you can not only commit something like "Look past this unusual instance, where you seem to be - can I say it? - holier than moi?" to print but also PUBLISH IT?
Also, if I take a picture of Caledonian's latest immolation, can I get a Pulitzer? Or does the immolation have to have its roots in something other than a weird cocktail of self-satisfaction and self-loathing?
Posted by: Dustin | October 17, 2007 8:27 PM
Don't be a fool. IQ is a measurable thing.
But is it related to "intellectual capacity"?
If so, please explain how. Then maybe send your explanation to Watson because he'll need it.
It's not different than other traits we study
IQ is like lactose intolerance?
Right, Caledonian. Keep digging.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:30 PM
I will say this only once
Another lie.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 8:31 PM
Francis Crunk,
"If Watson is so wrong, why do the "rebuttals" of him consist of nothing more than ad hominem?"
That's easy. You don't argue with racists. You dismiss them or humiliate them. Relentlessly and without mercy.
Does that strike you as unfair and demeaning? Well yes, it is. So?
Posted by: tristero | October 17, 2007 8:32 PM
And what if it's a chaotic composite of 20 or 300 things? Would be neat if it were a discrete character with two states, like any of the mutations that produce lactose tolerance...
You also imply that IQ is constant throughout lifetime. But you can train solving IQ tests.
Let me simply repeat: each trait has its own geographic distribution. You won't find any bundles that mark peoples or races. You have understood the latter part, but not the former. I find that strange.
I also find it interesting how outraged you become when someone sends your tone back to you. :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 17, 2007 8:41 PM
IQ is not a reliable measure of intelligence. Hell, we can't even agree on what "intelligence" means.
IQ tests don't measure much except how proficient you are at taking IQ tests. Kind of like the GRE. Hm.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 8:43 PM
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary.
Has he said anything about apartheid? Does he think that policy should have been left in place?
What about slavery?
James Watson, Policy Wonk, tell us how the world should be run.
While you are at it, tell us how you stole a woman's research and then smeared her afterwards. Tell us how that's done.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 17, 2007 8:44 PM
I would recommend anyone to read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure Of Man, which does a first-rate job of demolishing the notion of black people being inherently lower in IQ than white people.
What, exactly is IQ anyway? What does the number assigned as a score in such a test reveal about anyone? IQ testing has a chequered and sometimes appalling history in the way it has been used to discriminate against people.
If you would like to join MENSA, the society of people who have scored highly in an IQ test and then presume themselves to be experts in everything, there is a straightforward way to do it: get some books of IQ testing and practise doing the tests. Once you are familiar with the way the tests are constructed, apply to MENSA, pass the test and send of a hefty joining fee (they're not daft, these MENSA people). Hey presto, you are now a person of superior intelligence.
On the other hand, if you live in an African village, uneducated and poverty-stricken through no fault of your own, then sorry, but you've been labelled and you're stuck with it.
I would just ask this question: are IQ tests Intelligently Designed?
Posted by: Swiftsure | October 17, 2007 8:44 PM
This conversation is largely defunct now that some have resorted to name-calling.
The whole thing was begun with some pretty insensitive comments by JW and went downhill from there, but calling each-other racist isn't helping much.
And rebutting one set of rubbish quotes from JW with another set of rubbish from GL is only fanning the fire.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 17, 2007 8:46 PM
"IQ is a measurable thing."
Caledonian, do agree with academic tracking? Because from your argument, it sounds like you would.
You sound an awful like Lewis Terman and many other "intelligence testers" of the early 20th century.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 8:52 PM
Intelligence research by Nisbett, Grigorenko, Phillips and others indicates that nutrition, educational opportunities and family environment factors account for most of the differences between American black and white children. The difference in IQ between the groups has also decreased in the past three decades, which would indicate a non-genetic change.
Also, as the textbook I currently use for teaching intelligence points out, in the early 20th century the average Italian American was considered significantly below average on IQ tests. Today? Italian Americans score above average. Less than a century to move from one side to the other of the bell curve...
Posted by: gatoscuro | October 17, 2007 8:52 PM
I ran them through the ultimate tester for all-things-right, Googlefight. Watson won. Weird.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=jim+watson&word2=greg+laden
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | October 17, 2007 8:53 PM
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." If this is wrong, what is the reason to believe they have evolved identically?
Because they didn't evolve independently.
Next!
Posted by: Graculus | October 17, 2007 8:53 PM
But the I made Jesus and Charles Darwin fight and Jesus kicked arse so maybe Googlefight sucks after all.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | October 17, 2007 8:56 PM
"It's a measurable trait that inheritance is known to have a measureable, statistical effect on."
Ah! But do we know how much of that "inheritance" is genetic and how much is a product of the environment? It is a fact that there is little intergenerational social mobility in this (or any) country... if your parents are poor and not well educated, chances are good that you are also poor and not well educated, and chances are excellent that you AND your parents would score rather abysmally on a standard IQ test (designed by, who else, intelligent white men who are rather well off financially). Is that due to genetic inheritance? Maybe a little, but I would bet not entirely, probably not even mostly.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 8:59 PM
Don't be a fool. IQ is a measurable thing.
Technically IQ is a measurement of something, not a measurable thing. The difference is important. Mass is a measurable thing because we define what we are measuring before we measure it, whereas a kilo is a measurement of mass. If IQ scores are distributed such that "white" people, whatever group that actually picks out, score higher than "africans" or "blacks," again, whatever group these terms actually pick out, then we only know that whatever it is that IQ measures, which has not yet been established, is more prevalent in "white" people.
The further problem is that every definition of intelligence we have is based on a distinctly western ideal, not to say that there is no objective standard but that to use a skewed standard is certainly not good science.
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 17, 2007 8:59 PM
I think these sorts of conversations are extremely helpful.
For example, when we argue against the claim that human variation takes the form of nice neat little bundles of traits that are distributed in a fashion more or less corresponding to societal definitions of race, and whose contents more or less correspond to Western racial prejudices particularly as regards intelligence and temperament, and then get people who lash out at us for supposedly thinking genetics has no influence on intelligence, we can safely dismiss the people who do the lashing as idiots. It's not quite as effective a procedure as having them wear signs announcing themselves as such, but they're much more cooperative with this approach.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 17, 2007 9:00 PM
from earlier discussions of this topic, I'm still waiting for a definition of "race."
Posted by: MAJeff | October 17, 2007 9:01 PM
Bride of Shrek: That's obviously not a fair fight. Charles Darwin narrowly defeats Jesus of Nazareth.
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | October 17, 2007 9:03 PM
This conversation is largely defunct now that some have resorted to name-calling.
Thanks, troll. Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | October 17, 2007 9:03 PM
"What, exactly is IQ anyway? What does the number assigned as a score in such a test reveal about anyone?"
IQ traditionally is a measure of a person's "mental age." Here is a nice explanation from Walter Lippman, circa 1922:
The first IQ tests developed in the US were given to members of the US military, and revealed that the average mental age of adults in America was 14 years old.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:09 PM
Wait. So, if you're 60, having an IQ of 150 means you're showing early signs of senility? :P
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 17, 2007 9:10 PM
So, are those of you arguing from a genetic standpoint saying that genes responsible for skin color are somehow linked to genes responsible for determining intelligence level? I guess that's a nice explanation, assuming that there are very few genes that control for both skin color and for intelligence, and assuming also that these genes almost always occur on the same chromosomes, and that they sit right close to one another (so as to resist the muddying effects of crossing over and independent assortment).
But really, does that sound very likely to anyone? Because it doesn't to me.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:15 PM
Much like theists who put a velvet rope around their faith-based claims, there are those who feel that even discussing group differences in intelligence automatically makes one a racist. This is, of course, horribly presumptuous and egregious question begging.
There is much work being done in the biological correlates of g-factor intelligence. For those who feel that they can simply train themselves in matrix analogies and thereby score highly on a highly g-loaded assessment - well, I wish them luck. It's not going to happen. Better yet, why not train yourself to decrease your reaction time in ECT's (elementary cognitive tasks)? This is, after all, highly correlated with g.
Now, from my reading of Dr. Watson's remarks, he is neither making a causal argument for group differences nor is he making a prescriptive one. He is simply pointing out that which is not a secret among psychometricians: that for whatever reason, group differences in g exist. Of course, for those of an egalitarian bent, this is the ultimate sin.
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 9:24 PM
I wonder what would happen if you ignored race and instead used as your grouping variable socioeconomic status when administering an IQ test to a random sample of the population.
I wonder...
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:29 PM
Caledonian:
Thanks for pointing out the ad hominem nature of my post. It was indeed such an attack, but I forgot to specifically mention that.
You'll note that I spent only a couple of paragraphs on the science. I could write a book on that. In fact, I am writing a book on that.
You see the intended irony, right? No? OK, I'll explain. You see, this guy, Dr. Watson (funny name, like in Sherlock Holmes and everything) goes out of is way to insult EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT and their relatives. He calls them all stupid.
So then, see, I takes this guy and I write a post in which I call HIM stupid. See?
I thought that was hysterical!
(I would have figured most people would have figured I was being nasty at the part where I suggest he turn around and bend over so I could ram my boot up his ass. But I do appreciate you pointing it out!)
Cheers,
GTL
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 17, 2007 9:30 PM
Race: A contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.
(Dictionary.com)
Posted by: J Myers | October 17, 2007 9:32 PM
"You see, this guy, Dr. Watson (funny name, like in Sherlock Holmes and everything) goes out of is way to insult EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT and their relatives. He calls them all stupid."
Does he really? I recall something from my Introduction to Philosophy class called "the principle of charity". It addressed the notion of reading the works of philosophers with their likely intent in mind in an attempt to understand their perspective. Do you honestly believe that Dr. Watson believes that EVERY SINGLE PERSON LIVING ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT is stupid? Do you really believe that, Greg? Or was it more likely that Dr. Watson was talking in terms of central tendency and you're just trying to score points by intentionally interpreting his comments in the most damning light?
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 9:42 PM
I would also like to point out, for giggles, that Lewis Terman and his intelligence-testing buddies were proponents of eugenics and supported laws enforcing compulsory sterilization in California.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:44 PM
"This conversation is largely defunct now that some have resorted to name-calling."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. It's not. And I'm not joking. Conversations with racists should end that way. And quickly.
Posted by: tristero | October 17, 2007 9:45 PM
"I would also like to point out, for giggles, that Lewis Terman and his intelligence-testing buddies were proponents of eugenics and supported laws enforcing compulsory sterilization in California."
So?
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 9:46 PM
"So?"
Terman developed the Stanford-Binet IQ tests used in the US in the early 20th century. Haven't you been reading anything I've posted?
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:48 PM
Most human traits aren't controlled by single genes with only two states. Why in the world would we expect the nature of intelligence, one of the most complicated topics in the known universe, to be one of them?
Wrong. I do not imply that.
Wrong. IQ isn't constant. It becomes increasingly 'heritable' as time passes, and decreases with age past a certain point.
Wrong. You can practice specific skills that certain IQ tests examine, but the practice wears off with time, and quite rapidly. The very best IQ tests involve functions that cannot be trained.
But some traits are more bundled than others.
It's not that I haven't understood the former, it's that you don't understand the implications.
Tone is irrelevant. Lack of intelligent content is grounds for contempt.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:50 PM
Six: Ouch, what nerve did I hit?
Yes, he may be speaking, though incorrectly, about central tendency. But he is simply, obviously parroting the Rushton line. This means that, given the alleged central tendency and the alleged variance, he's calling all but a couple of percent of the people on the continent of Africa stupid. Yes, I think that is sufficient to take him to task and rake him over the coals. Yes, a most damning light is what is needed here. Very very damning.
But on a much less important note, you need to check in with your own advice. You understand, right, that my comments here was meant to be both dripping with sarcasm and really funny? You must, I think, embrace the notion of reading the works of philosophers with their likely intent in mind in an attempt to understand their perspective.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 17, 2007 9:50 PM
Tristero: It's dangerous to level accusations of racism against posters who you don't know when you're only working on a small amount of information.
It also effectively shuts down any debate.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 17, 2007 9:54 PM
The vast majority of people on this continent are stupid. Given the known consequences of disease, malnutrition, and parasite load on the developing brain, the claim that all but a couple of percent of people on the continent of Africa are stupid is not only reasonable but inevitable.
But let me guess - you take offense at the idea that most people here are stupid, don't you.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:54 PM
CB: I agree that it isn't nice to accuse strangers of being racist.
I would like to put forth an hypothesis, though... I would bet that most of the people on here arguing in favor of Dr. Watson are well-educated white males. It's just a hunch of mine...
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:57 PM
"The vast majority of people on this continent are stupid."
The vast majority of people on this continent are also of lower socioeconomic status and not terribly well educated.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 9:59 PM
Emphasis mine.
I will make a further bet - the majority of people who have argued in favor of Dr. Watson here are well-educated, period.
Those against? Not so much - not in cognitive psychology, genetics, or statistics.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 9:59 PM
LM: Most of the people discussing any topic on this board are well-educated white males.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 17, 2007 10:00 PM
"I will make a further bet - the majority of people who have argued in favor of Dr. Watson here are well-educated, period."
I agree. That's part of my point.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:01 PM
"Don't be a fool. IQ is a measurable thing. Scientists simply don't know precisely what it is that's being measured"
What is interesting is that everyone uses the word intelligence in the general sense as if it really meant something. All it means as far as I can see is what the tests measure.
But suppose it means something. Sure, like muscles it has a hereditary basis, but why would one assume that unlike muscles it couldn't change vastly according to environment? In which case any difference between any group that was not in some way extreme would be relatively unimportant.
I remember in Sapolsky's course on the biological basis of behaviour, he described an experiment in which researchers took a group of rats and knocked out some gene that made one group much dumber at simple tasks than the other. Then they took a bunch of the dumb rats and brought them up in a highly stimulating envrionment with lots of toys and tasks. They completely overcame the genetic defect and performed as well as the normal rats. And this is just simple rats we are talking about.
That is why it is dumb to talk about racial or sexual differences in intelligence. First we really don't what we are talking about, and secondly, the interplay between heredity and environment is so complex and plastic to render any differences between normal groups meaningless. Watson should have known this. In his favor, he thinks Collin's view on religion is bullshit.
Posted by: sailor | October 17, 2007 10:02 PM
CB: Touché! :)
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:02 PM
The vast majority of people on this continent are stupid. Given the known consequences of disease, malnutrition, and parasite load on the developing brain, the claim that all but a couple of percent of people on the continent of Africa are stupid is not only reasonable but inevitable.
Holy crap, Cal!?!?!? Man, have you stepped over a line. Count yourself lucky that you did not say that on my site, because I'd kick your IP's ass as well.
Have you ever even been to Africa? Are you really sure you want to say that you fully expect almost everyone on the continent of Africa to be dumbed-out by parasites affecting their brain development? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Holy crap!
Hold me back, boys, hold me back...
(Breath deep ... breath deep ... ok, ok, just start ignoring that guy....)
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 17, 2007 10:04 PM
True enough. So let's specify: the bet should be something along the lines of "the proportion of posters defending Watson's statements being well-educated, white males is much greater than the proportion of well-educated, white males who are attacking it".
It's not ideal, of course, because the population of Watson defenders here is so small that reliable statistics on the type of person who would defend them in general, but we work with the populations we have.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 17, 2007 10:07 PM
@ 64: Oh, for the love of... Can we stay on task here?
Hey, I asked you what you thought of tracking. What do you think of it?
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:09 PM
"Terman developed the Stanford-Binet IQ tests used in the US in the early 20th century. Haven't you been reading anything I've posted?"
I'm well aware of the history of psychometrics, but I fail to see what Terman's alleged policy beliefs has to do with anything.
Just for giggles, Hitler was a vegetarian.
Posted by: SoxOfSwords | October 17, 2007 10:10 PM
SOS: First of all, there is nothing "alleged" about his policy beliefs.
Now, you don't think it's fishy that the dude who developed IQ tests in this country, which subsequently found that all groups were intellectually inferior to whites, was also a eugenicist?
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:13 PM
Caledonian: "consequences of disease, malnutrition, and parasite load on the developing brain"
But your position is not simply that Africans have had their brain developmentally affected by these insults, but that Africans have genetically based lower potential for cognitive ability. Right?
Further, you imply that lower brain function is part of a genetically based life history trade-off created by sub-Saharan African ecology. Correct?
What is your model, exactly? Whose hypotheses have influenced it? Rushton, Cochran, Sarich? The more details you provide, the more specific any critiques can be.
Posted by: Colugo | October 17, 2007 10:15 PM
Greg,
So we agree that he's likely talking about g and central tendency. So do you 1) disagree with the notion that black Africans, on average, score lower than other groups, 2) agree with this but feel the means of assessment are invalid, or 3) have some other perspective?
In an effort to be mutually charitable, why don't you lay out your position all sarcasm aside. Sometimes it's hard to tell in this medium.
Unperturbedly yours,
6
Posted by: sixOfSwords@yahoo.com | October 17, 2007 10:17 PM
"which subsequently found that all groups were intellectually inferior to whites"
Factually incorrect.
And, no, I don't find it suspect at all. You are suggesting that the content of the SB is somehow either designed to be racially biased or is inherently racially biased and that is simply unsupported by the research.
Posted by: sixOfSwords@yahoo.com | October 17, 2007 10:21 PM
This is ridiculous. Watson made a politically incorrect off-the-cuff speculation; a public figure should know better. But by far, the truly malignant behavior here is that of the people who resorted immediately to name-calling because the scientific issue at hand has implications for their political beliefs, especially Greg Laden, but also most of the commenters here. Intentionally or not, they prevent the truth from coming to light clearly and minds from being changed appropriately.
Here are examples from Laden's post:
Here are some examples from the commenters here:
#5:
#7:
#8:
#11:
#12:
#16:
#20:
I find this comment most troubling:
That's about the worst, wrongest, counterproductivest thing you could say or do.
There's a good way to treat incorrect speculation: calmly (re)state the known facts of the matter and illustrate why they lead to a different conclusion. There's a bad way to do it, too, which is Greg Laden's preference: scream epithets at the person who's expressed an opinion you don't agree with; addressing the opinion itself is optional. Every sentence that applies an adjective like "stupid" or "racist" to Jim Watson's character instead of applying "incorrect" or even "misguided" to his statement makes it harder to sympathize with his critic. This is a time to talk about the facts and the arguments, not about the people presenting them. Laden has done a great disservice to everyone who wants to stamp out centuries-old misconceptions about race and ethnicity. Shame on him.
Posted by: Epistaxis | October 17, 2007 10:23 PM
sixOfSwards: I actually have explicitly stated my "position" in my post, pretty unambiguously. At some other time I may address this in more detail with all the bells and whistles, but my writing patterns don't really need to be jerked around by whatever the press happens to report on a given day, as I'm sure you understand.
One thing I'll mention quickly: There are published numbers that show "Africans" to have an IQ of around 70, and it has been suggested that this makes sense because African-Americans are a certain admixture of Europeans (IQ of 100) and these Africans (IQ of 70).
What I can tell you is that these numbers are utterly, amazingly bogus, yet they are still often cited and relied on in this kind of discussion by people who simply must live in a world in which black people are inferior. The utterly bogus nature of these numbers together with their tenacity tells me that in general, the "side" of this "discussion" busy pushing the inferiority of non-whites is as politically motivated as it is annoying.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 17, 2007 10:26 PM
"Factually incorrect."
Really, now? Not according to what I've read. Of course, the results have changed in recent history, yes? I believe I read something about Asians scoring higher than whites. I'm talking, however, about the original tests designed by Terman in the early part of the 20th century.
"And, no, I don't find it suspect at all. You are suggesting that the content of the SB is somehow either designed to be racially biased or is inherently racially biased and that is simply unsupported by the research."
Not necessarily racially biased, but yes, biased. Have you SEEN those tests? Come on, now.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:29 PM
Greg,
So I take it that you have a problem with the validity of the instruments used in these kinds of studies? I have to assume this because you describe the data as "bogus". Now is it intelligence assessments in general that you have problems with or the specific tools used in group studies? Similarly, are all measure of intellectual aptitude suspect or only those that show group differences?
~6~
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 10:35 PM
"Have you SEEN those tests?"
Yes, I've seen them and use them extensively. There is no racial bias. The literature on this is clear.
~6~
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 10:37 PM
As an aside, I'm not trying to be nasty, so take my comments in the spirit of genuine inquiry and discussion.
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 17, 2007 10:42 PM
Would someone please define "race" and "ethnic group" for me? Because those terms are even more slippery, insubstantial, and nonexistent than "intelligence". Which "blacks" does he mean are less intelligent? Papua New Guineans? Haitians? Jamaicans? Australian aboriginals? Congolese? Dark-complected Brits?
And less intelligent than who? Fair-skinned Americans? Pale Canadians? Scots? Irish?
Posted by: Carlie | October 17, 2007 10:43 PM
SOS: I know you're not asking me, but I would argue that there are problems with all intelligence tests. These tests are always biased in some way. Also, they don't do a good job of teasing apart the genetic and environmental bases of what we call intelligence, which these tests purport to measure (the validity of which has still not been proven). It may appear superficially that race is a predictor of test performance, but considering that race is closely tied to socioeconomic status and access to resources (especially educational resources), it would appear that there is more to the story than simply the color of one's skin.
Is it mere coincidence that most blacks perform poorly on such tests, and that most blacks live in poor, urban communities?
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:43 PM
Tristero said: "That's easy. You don't argue with racists"
Laden and Meyers, and hundreds of people in comments, have seen fit to argue with him. But they can't seem to be bothered to explain why he's wrong. Laden does do a good job of calling names, hyperventillating, and denigrating the achievements of a person who has contributed vastly more to science than he has or ever will.
Back to the matter at hand. Why should we think the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution have evolved identically?
Posted by: Francis Crunk | October 17, 2007 10:44 PM
Sixofswords - even if there were no racial bias, those tests have an incredibly strong preparation bias. I used to teach classes that would almost guarantee a several hundred point increase in scores on the SAT and GRE, just from familiarizing oneself with the way in which the tests were given. The ability to do well on any "intelligence" test goes right back to educational history. As for their validity, Binet designed his test specifically NOT to segregate intelligence levels, or discover innate ability, but to note students who were lagging behind and needed some extra schooling. Any "IQ" tests based on his model are, to interject Tom Maglliozzi, bo-o-o-ogus.
Posted by: Carlie | October 17, 2007 10:48 PM
"Yes, I've seen them and use them extensively. There is no racial bias. The literature on this is clear."
You use tests from the 1920s? Remember, I'm referring to those initial tests. The ones given to the military were especially ridiculous. And biased, though not necessarily racially so.
I'm arguing that Terman had an agenda, and this agenda had a lot to do with the outcome of the tests that he created. The tests that are used today aren't nearly as ridiculous, but I still think that their results should be taken with a grain of salt. There are other, better explanations for poor test scores than race... and anyway, we don't really know if IQ tests measure intelligence in the first place. But all of that has been said already.
Posted by: LM | October 17, 2007 10:49 PM