Oh dear, Watson.

First your assumptions: All intelligence is equal and defined as a simple IQ score.

I never assumed this. Tests typically use a wide variety of cognitive tasks and extract the underlying factor (g) from them through factor analysis. You get virtually the same g factor no matter what your chosen mental tasks look like.

While this g is sometimes used as a working definition of intelligence by psychologists, it certainly doesn't necessitate the only possible description of human intelligence. Nor does it have to give us something useful.

That IQ equates economic development, not the other way around

I never assumed this either, I said it was a hypothesis. There are data points that suggest this though (some discussed in the linked papers), e.g. comparing countries of various IQ scores before their developments. Also measuring the effect of various environmental variables on the g factor (none seem to do much). Most likely development and IQ feed each other to some extent: IQ causes some development and development causes some IQ.

You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning?

All separately defined endogamous groups have biological identity by definition. Genetic data predicts self-defined racial group virtually perfectly in the US, and human populations are moderately to largely differentiated racially compared to other animals.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Self-identified ancestry is associated with differences in brain size, as the paper shows. It is well-established that brain size is associated with IQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

And when did the determination get made that brain weight = intelligence, because elephant brains weigh more?

Humans have higher EQs than elephants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

"That kind of shoots your idea in the face."

I don't see how. This paper argues that population differences in IQ appear genetic because population differences are most pronounced on the most heritable test items and least pronounced on the least heritable test items. This is exactly the opposite of what an environmental theory of these differences would predict. It also shows the tests are not cross-culturally biased, but this is demonstrated by a number of other papers.

"you think your group is better than other groups and like to find things you think confirms that"

I am not white.

I appreciate you including a set of polling data, that really makes your case. I know Iraq was involved in 9/11 from a poll too, oh and that George Clooney is the sexiest man in America.

This was a poll of scientific experts only. Scientific agreement among experts actually should be worth your attention, especially when you are convinced that most scientists believe the opposite and/or have no familiarity with the relevant literature despite confident opinions. Evidence and expertise come first, but they are hard won and without them the general agreement of scholars is your best heuristic.

At the very least it should suggest you tone down the invective.

JJC

I see my response to Lorax still has not been posted after almost an entire day, so I will try and break it down into smaller bits, and see if the system will take it...

First your assumptions: All intelligence is equal and defined as a simple IQ score.

I never assumed this. Tests typically use a wide variety of cognitive tasks and extract the underlying factor (g) from them through factor analysis. You get virtually the same g factor no matter what your chosen mental tasks look like.

While this g is sometimes used as a working definition of intelligence by psychologists, it certainly doesn't necessitate the only possible description of human intelligence. Nor does it have to give us something useful.

That IQ equates economic development, not the other way around

I never assumed this either, I said it was a hypothesis. There are data points that suggest this though (some discussed in the linked papers), e.g. comparing countries of various IQ scores before their developments. Also measuring the effect of various environmental variables on the g factor (none seem to do much). Most likely development and IQ feed each other to some extent: IQ causes some development and development causes some IQ.

You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning?

All separately defined endogamous groups have biological identity by definition. Genetic data predicts self-defined racial group virtually perfectly in the US, and human populations are moderately to largely differentiated racially compared to other animals.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Self-identified ancestry is associated with differences in brain size, as the paper shows. It is well-established that brain size is associated with IQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning?

All separately defined endogamous groups have biological identity by definition. Genetic data predicts self-defined racial group virtually perfectly in the US, and human populations are moderately to largely differentiated racially compared to other animals.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Self-identified ancestry is associated with differences in brain size, as the paper shows. It is well-established that brain size is associated with IQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

James Watson has been flipping firecrackers into the scientific establishment`s lap for years. I think he does it just for the pure satanic enjoyment of watching the outrage he evokes.

James Watson's statement can be reduced to three main hypotheses:

1) That sub-Saharan African nations have significantly lower average IQs than European nations.

2) That national differences in IQ have a significant causal relationship with differences in economic development.

3) That these differences have a substantial genetic component.

In fact, a popular and expanding research literature in peer-reviewed biology, psychology, and economics journals support all three conclusions. For example:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d15x2810855wx085/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.11.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2006.05.005 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjhp/2006/00000011/00000004… http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6435.00191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0461

Watson is by no means an outlier among scientists and scholars in his belief that people of African descent average lower native intelligence.

A 1987 scientific poll published in the American Psychologist of over 1200 relevant scholars (sociologists, psychologists, and geneticists) found that 46% - a plurality of those polled - believed the evidence pointed to genetics playing a role in observed racial intelligence differences, compared to only 15% who thought genetics did not play a role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_%28study%29

And this poll was conducted before the 1990s which introduced novel cross-cultural, anatomical, and transracial adoption data. A 20 year replication of this poll is slated for sometime in the next year and will likely skew even further to the genetic position.

Watson, one of the most esteemed living biologists, was taking his statements from the science journals, not just parroting empty, discredited prejudices. His treatment has been unfair and reactionary.

I can't think of a better term for the curious position of the Science Museum in London that Watson's statements are "beyond the point of acceptable debate"

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3070583.ece

Is this primitive dogmatism truly representative of the spirit of the scientific community?

"Genius?" Why do you refer to James Watson as a "genius?" He inverted the bases in a tinker-toy model of DNA and figured out base-pairing. That's cool, really cool, but it was Crick who pointed out that it was the double helix that was wonderful, and not the fellows who worked out base pairing.

The data addressing population genetics and intelligence are worth discussing, but I'm not sure there are any data on Watson and intelligence that are worth discussing.

The hypotheses you infer Watson is making from the statement ""all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

1) That sub-Saharan African nations have significantly lower average IQs than European nations.
2) That national differences in IQ have a significant causal relationship with differences in economic development.
3) That these differences have a substantial genetic component.

First your assumptions: All intelligence is equal and defined as a simple IQ score. That IQ equates economic development, not the other way around (this comes from your further arguments, not simply statement 2. Watson is talking about science and not underlying biases.

Thankfully you provide citations In fact, a popular and expanding research literature in peer-reviewed biology, psychology, and economics journals support all three conclusions. For example:

Well I looked at them...The first concludes "A 1 point increase in a nation's average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.11% annual increase in GDP per capita." Does this mean smart poor people with instantly have the infrastructure and political power to revolutionize their society or that poor people in poor societies have fewer environmental conditions that promote increased IQ scores?

Your second reference ends with "...but we question the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth. We argue that the relationship is more complex." Clearly supporting your contention that people who are not like you are not as smart.

Your third citation focuses on race differences. Race differences and brain sizes, are you kidding me? You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning? And when did the determination get made that brain weight = intelligence, because elephant brains weigh more?

Fourth, same as the first. You assume a correlation between IQ and economics mean IQ is the cause not the effect. I assume you are an ignorant twit that can use google and maybe PubMed.

Fifth same

Sixth actually says rich national people are smarter and that health and education not important. However the abstract also states (emphasis mine) "They also show that an average IQ has a very large and significant effect on population health but not in the evolutionarily familiar sub-Saharan Africa." Unfortunately I cannot access the article to look more closely at the data to see what the authors mean.

Seven as 1, 4, and 5

Eight addresses genetics by focusing on twin studies. Low and behold they found out genetics plays a role!!! Holy shit, who would of thunk it. The authors find that "The results found here are consistent with the preponderance of evidence from other studies on the cross-cultural validity of GMA. Apart from the obvious example of language bias, there is little or no evidence of population-specific cultural effects."
That kind of shoots your idea in the face. They go on to cite examples "GMA in 12- to 15-year-old Kenyans predicted school grades at about the same level as they do in the West" and that "GMA predicted university performance equally well in African and non-African engineering students in South Africa" Finally, their concluding statement "There appears to be a set of human psychological adaptations underlying the cognitive problem solving required for the type of GMA test used here, with individual and group differences comprising normal variants." or there is variation in most phenotypes, which is due to genetic differences, and this is subject to natural selection. or you think your group is better than other groups and like to find things you think confirms that.

I appreciate you including a set of polling data, that really makes your case. I know Iraq was involved in 9/11 from a poll too, oh and that George Clooney is the sexiest man in America.

Should be "Nor does it have to to give us something useful." :)

Sorry, the comment I was correcting has apparently not yet been posted by the host.

It is a response to Lorax.

"You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning". No matter how many time people like you keep telling yourselves that doesn't make it true. We both know biological differences exist between the races.
"And when did the determination get made that brain weight = intelligence, because elephant brains weigh more" It isn't simply brain weight but brain weight in relation to body weight! East Asians have the highest ratio of brain to body weight and they have the highet IQs.

Read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective". There are abridged editions free to download on the internet. This was given acclaim by New York Times Book Review, National Review, and many notable scientist in the field. It is written in a manner that even you should understand and answers all your questions.

One more thing, IQ tests aren't perfect. Everyone knows that. But the correlation between scoring high and high achievment is there and that is why they are still used. You fail to understand that national tests scores in every single country confirm what Watson says. Blacks on average to worse that Whites.

But you can even ignore all of this. There is an ultimate test and that test is history. Compare the histories of the Chinese and European man to African man. Try to explain why they were still living in the stone-age when The aforementioned peoples had advanced civilizations. Who has contributed so much to the sciences, literature and philosophy? All of this is an indication of intelligence.

It is asounding how people like you can be so delusional when the evidence is all around you. I lump you in the same category as religious fundamentalist because your belief requires faith.

I see my response to Lorax still has not been posted after almost an entire day, so I will try and break it down into smaller bits, and see if the system will take it...

First your assumptions: All intelligence is equal and defined as a simple IQ score.

I never assumed this. Tests typically use a wide variety of cognitive tasks and extract the underlying factor (g) from them through factor analysis. You get virtually the same g factor no matter what your chosen mental tasks look like.

While this g is sometimes used as a working definition of intelligence by psychologists, it certainly doesn't necessitate the only possible description of human intelligence. Nor does it have to to give us something useful.

That IQ equates economic development, not the other way around

I never assumed this either, I said it was a hypothesis. There are data points that suggest this though (some discussed in the linked papers), e.g. comparing countries of various IQ scores before their developments. Also measuring the effect of various environmental variables on the g factor (none seem to do much). Most likely development and IQ feed each other to some extent: IQ causes some development and development causes some IQ.

You do know race is a human derived term with no true biological meaning?

All separately defined endogamous groups have biological identity by definition. Genetic data predicts self-defined racial group virtually perfectly in the US, and human populations are moderately to largely differentiated racially compared to other animals.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Self-identified ancestry is associated with differences in brain size, as the paper shows. It is well-established that brain size is associated with IQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

And when did the determination get made that brain weight = intelligence, because elephant brains weigh more?

No, humans have higher EQs than elephants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

"That kind of shoots your idea in the face."

I don't see how. This paper argues that population differences in IQ appear genetic because population differences are most pronounced on the most heritable test items and least pronounced on the least heritable test items. This is exactly the opposite of what an environmental theory of these differences would predict. It also shows the tests are not cross-culturally biased, but this is demonstrated by a number of other papers.

"you think your group is better than other groups and like to find things you think confirms that"

I am not white.

I appreciate you including a set of polling data, that really makes your case. I know Iraq was involved in 9/11 from a poll too, oh and that George Clooney is the sexiest man in America.

This was a poll of scientific experts only. Scientific agreement among experts actually should be worth your attention, especially when you are convinced that most scientists believe the opposite and/or have no familiarity with the relevant literature despite confident opinions. Evidence and expertise come first, but they are hard won and without them the general agreement of scholars is your best heuristic.

At the very least it should suggest you tone down the invective.

JJC

"Compare the histories of the Chinese and European man to African man. Try to explain why they were still living in the stone-age when The aforementioned peoples had advanced civilizations. Who has contributed so much to the sciences, literature and philosophy?" This statement by Alex perfectly illustrates how conquerors and their social descendants distort history to justify their deeds.

OK, Alex, let's look at the history of Africans and Europeans. An objective look at history shows us that through most of human history prior to the last 500 years, any comparative analysis of European and African societies would have significantly favored the Africans. The facts are that Europeans were living in savagery when Africans and Asians were building great civilizations.

The Mediterranean cultures which formed the basis of "Western Civilization" were founded on the intellectual and cultural achievements of African people! When the Greeks were traveling to Africa to study astronomy, medicine, mathematics, architecture ("Greek" columns are but imitations of their majestic predecessors in the Upper Nile regions) and philosophy; Europeans were (for the most part) still living in the crudest structures and drinking from the skulls of their enemies. Africa was home to some of the greatest classical civilizations, such as Egypt and Carthage. Even after the decline of Africa's prominence, nations such as Ghana, Songhai and Mali easily rivaled and in many respects surpassed their European contemporaries in the 8th-15th centuries. There is evidence, for example, of pre-Columbian contact and even trade between Africans and the Americas (check out the stone figures in Olmec, Mexico.

Africans were studying at African universities long before there was such a concept in Europe. Spain, for example, did not have such a thing as a library until it was established by the largely African Moors. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that the roots of the much-heralded "Renaissance" began with the incursion of Arabs and Africans into Europe through the Moorish conquest, and through the extended European contact with Arab and African culture as a result of the Crusades.

How convenient it is to forget that civilization spread north to Europe and that Western Europeans are descended from the barbarian hordes who finally destroyed the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. But such is the nature of his-story. In every age, conquerors and oppressors invent a glorious past for themselves and conversely deny the history and the humanity of the oppressed.

Thank you, Alex and James Clinton, for baring your figrative posteriors and demonstrating to the world that there are still legions of bigots and fools who actually believe the kind of ignorant filth that you spew.

OK, Alex, let's look at the history of Africans and Europeans. An objective look at history shows us that through most of human history prior to the last 500 years, any comparative analysis of European and African societies would have significantly favored the Africans. The facts are that Europeans were living in savagery when Africans and Asians were building great civilizations.

Actually some economists have already quantified the technological sophistication of different world regions over the last 3000 years. At no point was sub-Saharan Africa more technologically advanced than Europe over this time span:

"Was the Wealth of Nations Determined in 1000 B.C.?"

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12657

Eurasia has always been more advanced since the dawn of settled society, which is precisely what Jared Diamond was trying to explain in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Perhaps you should inform him that there is nothing to explain after all.

The Mediterranean cultures which formed the basis of "Western Civilization" were founded on the intellectual and cultural achievements of African people!

Afrocentrism is not taken seriously by mainstream scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrocentrism

North Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans, and cluster closer to Europeans both cognitively and genetically.

...Now if he'd only apologize for stealing Rosalind D. Franklin's work, publishing it in Nature without attribution, cutting her out of the Nobel prize and then publishing in his book "The Double Helix" how MAYBE SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING WITH HER HAIR.

Sorry, but he's a bigot from wayback. And one of his kids got thrown out of Exeter for drinking. Hnf.

Some general philosophical points (Mr. Krigger please try to avoid name calling). One can be wrong without being a fool or a bigot.
1. Barbarism in Europe during the middle ages cannot be wished away. However, this was a product of rigid, intolerant monotheism which became politically powerful. IQ generalization does not fit well with all of Eurasia. Ghengiz Khan and his hordes were a select group who loved warfare and plunder, nothing else. (good warfare IQ?) There is a basis for this selection process, like modern American football selects for physique and aggression.
2. Mr. Krigger's history is also seriously flawed, as mathematics and linguitics came from India and Greece as did practical inventions from China. I was aghast to see Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) the Indian born philosopher who never left India, being described as an sub saharan african who landed as an adult to teach in India, China and central asia. Inner city schools actually teach this as historical truth.
3. Lousy political systems/warfare etc. can take you backwards and then subsequent reform leads to rebirth, viz India and China etc.
4. The issue being debated in India with regards to affirmative action for a large number of tribal hunter-gatherer populations is similar. Why is society forcing people with less aptitude/interest into professions where they may fail at a higher rate? This is a fair question and need not take away their political rights as human beings. This forced "civilizing" into modernity is as bad as Catholic style missionary religious conversion. I think this destroyed cultures in Australia for example.
5. Why is it that academic intelligence be the end all of everything, assuming or having proved the 1 SD IQ difference beyond all doubt. It is difficult to deny other intelligences which can confer success. We all know that correlation alone does not equal proof. Medical research in many areas has stumbled badly on this with much epidemiological peer reviewed junk publications.
6. If we continue race/intelligence research etc., what do we do with the results? These are serious questions which should be answered. How do we prevent Nazi style psuedo science "cures"? I could go on.....

A quick note in response to Mr. Clinton:

1. Are you honestly attempting to claim that at the height of the Egyptian Empire, when it held sway over northern Africa, the Mediterranean, southern Europe and even had a military presence as far east as the Indian subcontinent, that there was anything in Europe that could compare to it? If so, what civilization or nation do you care to name?

2. Why do Eurocentrists try so hard to separate Egypt from Africa? Scholars of Egyptian civilization note the definite African nature of Egyptian society, yet so many of you attempt to make a false distinction between Northern Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. What if one were to divide ancient Europe into Mediterranean and Northern Europe? The Anglo-Saxons and the Normans would fare even worse in the account of history!

3. I note that instead of dealing with the substance of my statements regarding the African contribution to civilizaton, you simply lump it under the rubric of "Afrocentrism" and cite a Wikipedia article to dismiss it as "not taken seriously by mainstream scholars." A careful examination of the Wikipedia article you cited, however, gives credence both to the African identity of Egyptian civilization and to the notion that Egyptian civilization was crucial to the development of "Western Civilization" You choose, however, to ignore this, as well as the stated fact that much of the controversy regarding "Afrocentrism" revolves around the wild assertions, looked on with derision by many (including myself), regarding the role of melanin that are made by a few scholars such as Frances Cress Welsing, Leonard Jeffries, etc. Those assertions have not relation whatsoever to the central argument made here, which is that African civilizations were among the earliest and most advanced of the classical civilizations.

3. Since we're quoting Wikipedia, I'd like to direct Sesh's attention to the following article regarding the history of mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics. In it he will find that the Egyptians, along with the Babylonians, were the earliest known practitioners of advanced mathematics (the earliest known Egyptian mathematical text date back to 2000 B.C., and papyri calculating the value of Pi with great precision have been found dating back to 1650 B.C.--over 700 years before the earliest Indian texts). He will also find that Egyptian mathematics was one of the primary contributors to the development of the Greek mathematical tradition, from whence it spread to Rome and Western Europe.

Two last points:

1. You are quite correct that the barbarism of the Dark Ages cannot simply wished away. Neither can the fact that this barbarism was of long standing. The accounts of the first Romans to encounter the natives of England and Germany still bear witness to the savage and uncouth nature of social development in Western Europe at the time.

2. As to the unfounded contention that Europe was somehow always ahead of Africa in its development, please consider the following, which dates to only 700 years ago:

Mansa Musa, who reigned in the Kingdom of Mali during the 14th century, made a pilgrimage to Mecca and made such lavish gifts of gold that for years afterwards the value of that precious metal was depressed because Mansa Musa and his entourage had so increased the supply. In contrast, the highly esteemed Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, who was especially noted for his study of Medieval European cities, is cited in Cedric Robinson's seminal work, "Black Marxism: the Development of the Black Radical Tradition", as stating that as late as the 14th century A.D., cooked human flesh could be purchased at the marketplaces of some European cities. In fact, it has been noted that while numerous cultures have engaged in cannibalism for ceremonial purposes at various times, Europe is the only continent in which archaeological evidence points to human flesh being consumed as a regular part of the diet.

I honestly believe him. Perhaps he wasn't misquoted and we took it the wrong way. He never said people in Africa or are of African decent are ignorant. He said all our testing says not really. So lets look at it this way, he is drawing attention to the educational system in Africa, is it better than the rest of the worlds?

"Judge a man by his questions, not his answers." --Voltaire--

Back in '05 the Harvard president (Summner) made a similar remark that women have less ability in sciences than men
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on…

I think there is a psychological complex in white men. They would love to see all women sit home and have blacks as their slaves

Is it any wonder this guy has this attitude? Cold Springs Harbor was the United States fountainhead of the previous century's global warming hoax - Eugenics. This line of thought lead to the eventual justification of Hitler's final solution. Perhaps it oozes from the institution's walls.

As for all of the historical justification you all are throwing at each other - face it, whether from Africa, Europe, Asia or Native America, you all sound as guilty as the doctor. Your each making claim to some racial superiority based on who was doing what and when. We are all brothers and sisters going back 60,000 to one ancestral father. Some of us are smarter, some dumber, but its not due to the color of our skin or the slant of our eyes. Stop the bigoted mental gymnastics and root out the prejudice in your own back yard. As a white anglo saxon protestant middle aged male I find this all tiresome

"Endogamous groups"? LOL. Why do you think all human variation is clinal? Because humans fuck, almost like bonobos.

The by far longest period of reproductive isolation was experienced by the population of Easter Island for about 400 years. Why has nobody ever classified humanity into two races, "Easter Island" and "Other"? That would make a lot more sense than any of the dozens of schemes that have been published.

"Biological differences between the races"? Ignorance on your part. The alleles of each gene have a different geographic distribution. For each gene you would need to recognize its own set of races -- and the schemes for different genes would not overlap much.

--------------

EQ-wise we are all beaten by the smallest primates -- by a factor of 2 in several cases, and sometimes more. The EQ is negatively proportional to body size. (Funny, then, that East -- especially Southeast -- Asians tend to be quite short, while there are places in Sudan where being 2 m tall is normal.)

And if you correct for that fact, humans, chimps, elephants, dolphins, and sperm whales all have the same corrected EQ...

In contrast, the highly esteemed Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, who was especially noted for his study of Medieval European cities, is cited in Cedric Robinson's seminal work, "Black Marxism: the Development of the Black Radical Tradition", as stating that as late as the 14th century A.D., cooked human flesh could be purchased at the marketplaces of some European cities. In fact, it has been noted that while numerous cultures have engaged in cannibalism for ceremonial purposes at various times, Europe is the only continent in which archaeological evidence points to human flesh being consumed as a regular part of the diet.

Could you cite some evidence for this (for cases within the last 20,000 years)? "Highly esteemed" and "seminal" don't count.

The best evidence so far comes from North America, from Anasazi cooking pots. In one place human myoglobin was isolated from human excrements. Was published in Nature 6 years ago, I can dig up the reference and the abstract, if you want.

David:

I'll have to put my hands on a copy of "Black Marxism to get the citation from Henri Pirenne, as I no longer have the work in my possession. Unfortunately the Virgin Islands is not blessed with a large number of bookstores or large reference collections.

I want to make it clear that I am not, by any means attempting to make an argument for African superiority or European inferiority. I don't subscribe to a biological theory of race, and I believe that in essence, human beings are just that--human beings. What I am attempting to do, however, is to pierce the pernicious myth being propagated by some posters--namely that Africans are devoid of historical achievement and that Europe was one of the cradles of civilization.

Why do Eurocentrists try so hard to separate Egypt from Africa?

A better question is: why do so many people try so hard to meld Egypt into sub-Saharan Africa?

An even better question is: why all the concern with what one nation did thousands of years ago, when the issues that concern us are taking place today?

"But you can even ignore all of this. There is an ultimate test and that test is history. Compare the histories of the Chinese and European man to African man. Try to explain why they were still living in the stone-age when The aforementioned peoples had advanced civilizations."

You first: explain why the Nubians and Ethiopians were civilised back when the ancestors of modern Europeans were painting themselves blue and eating each other.

whenever I read nonsense like this I imagine a similar speech being given by a Malian scholar back in the 10th century (when Timbuktu had more books than all of western Europe.)

"He never said people in Africa or are of African decent are ignorant. He said all our testing says not really. So lets look at it this way, he is drawing attention to the educational system in Africa, is it better than the rest of the worlds?"

No, he said that development policies for Africa were futile because Africans were genetically inferior and less intelligent than other people.

His statements matter not because of "political correctness" or a desire to avoid hurting Africans or African-Americans feelings. They matter because they could be used to justify the following positions:

1. European colonisation of Africa was justified because the Africans were incapable of governing themselves. We did them a favor really.

2. Africans are innately incapable of running developed economies to economic aid to Africa is pointless.

Anyone remember when Asians were "innately" incapable of running democratic governments and cultural predestined to live under dictatorships?

I doubt many readers are old enough to remember when eastern European Jewish refugees from Nazism were denied entry into the US, England and Australia because it was a "scientific fact" that they were intellectually subnormal and if we let them in they'd interbreed with us and "drag us down to their level"?

Very few geneticists dispute there's genetic component to IQ, very few of them accept that grouping people into broad general categories like "African" is a valid way to make predictions about innate genetic variations in IQ.

African-Americans consistently test much higher on IQ tests than do Africans, Waton's supporters argue that this is because of a higher incidence of "European" genes amongst African Americans.

If we accept that logic what are we to make of the higher incidence of "African" genes amongst self-described white American southerners. (On some estimates, up to 20% of whites in some US southern states have African ancestors).

Anyone want to argue that the lower incomes, lower education achievement levels and higher crime rates in the south-eastern states of the US are a result of the genetic inferiority of white southerners?

Dr. Watson has released a statement:

"Rarely more so than right now, where I find myself at the centre of a storm of criticism. I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece

He seems to be suggesting he either misspoke or was misquoted.

The by far longest period of reproductive isolation was experienced by the population of Easter Island for about 400 years.

Tasmania was possibly isolated for 8000 years.

The alleles of each gene have a different geographic distribution. For each gene you would need to recognize its own set of races -- and the schemes for different genes would not overlap much.

Well, they do a bit - you can recover the "major geographic regions" of humankind by cluster analysis, but opinions differ on how meaningful this is.

Dr. Watson should go and watch this PBS video called
"A Class Divided" and learn its teachings, rather than
saying nonsense:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Apparently, Jane Elliott's lesson in bigotry is
as necessary today as it was in 1968.

To Mr. Kriger again:
Wikipedia is a starting point, but not a final authority as many of these articles (esp. re: history, archeology etc.) are quite dated or are purely opinions and the original publications are part of that tradition. Better archeological dating methods are being combined with modern philology to give us a better picture. We will know more when some of the scripts of the Indus valley and Linear A are deciphered. You may not be aware, but excavations are still in progress unfortunately too slowly thanks to the "war on terrorism".

Also check out mathematical linguistics of Paanini 500 BC the basis of Turing machines etc. anticipated 2000 years before modern linguistics. The concept of zero and pi were known in India as many of these texts are just being translated and edited. The modern position value decimal sytem is an Indian one, it just uses an Arabic style font. These are well documented unless you over-rely on Wiki.
Descriptions/dates of Herodotus and that of many other Indian and Chinese records do match up. I cant see why all of them will make up all this. Of course in the Egyptian case, we have physical anthropology (the mummies themselves)which is more meaningful than skin color. (melanin) Having said all this, I accept that Eurocentrism is alive and well; after all they have the money and political clout. Even in the midst of all this, there is a good chunk of serious scholars who continue to investigate in an open minded manner. Free markets do work...

As I said before, none of this should really matter as the most technologically advanced society is not necessarily a happy society. I potentially see us blowing each other up. Maybe intelligence beyond a point, is self destructive as ego assumes importance. I am not trying to be an elitist in an indirect way, but just stating what I feel.

African-Americans consistently test much higher on IQ tests than do Africans, Waton's supporters argue that this is because of a higher incidence of "European" genes amongst African Americans.

Which supporters are those? Most of those who favor any genetic component for race and IQ in the academic literature also argue that nutrition and disease explain most of that gap.

. As to the unfounded contention that Europe was somehow always ahead of Africa in its development,

Tell me exactly how something is "unfounded" when I clearly provided a quantitative source demonstrating exactly that. Just because you don't read the citations I provide doesn't mean they don't exist.

www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/wealth1000bc.pdf

On average European regions have been more technologically advanced than African regions since the dawn of settled civilization. This is demonstrated by coding and adding up the total sophistication of technology in each region.

The authors compared 30 existing European peoples with 34 existing African peoples in 1000 BC (3000 years ago). (page 15)

The average was much higher for Europe (0.66 vs 0.36), the lowest was much lower for Africa (0.0 vs 0.5), the highest was a tie between the Caucasian Egyptian and Greeks, and the standard deviation was much higher for Africa because we are lumping the culturally and genetically dissimilar North Africans (who were relatively advanced) with the (relatively unadvanced) Sub-Saharan Africans.

But now let's not get off course here. I am simply challenging this false assertion, directed at someone who is not me:

"OK, Alex, let's look at the history of Africans and Europeans. An objective look at history shows us that through most of human history prior to the last 500 years, any comparative analysis of European and African societies would have significantly favored the Africans."

This statement has been falsified until a more rigorous and quantitative treatment is provided than the one I have provided. At no point in the 2500 years before 1500 were Africans ahead of Europeans. You were the one making an "unfounded contention".

Now what I am not challenging is that some Africans were ahead of some Europeans at any point in history. That would be a foolish belief.

The use of deep history, in my mind, doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in determining the validity of the three Watson hypotheses I list at the start. (I have already provided papers dealing with how those ideas can reasonably be tested) At no point have people in the genetic-IQ crowd (the serious ones anyway) ever proposed a monocausal genetic IQ theory of history. This is a strawman. The correlation between development and IQ is far from perfect even today, and we can easily assume it was even lower in the past when chance ecological advantages and trajectories probably mattered most (e.g. Guns, Germs, and Steel) Also African or European IQs could have easily have been different in points throughout history because of the environment, genetics, or both.

No, he said that development policies for Africa were futile because Africans were genetically inferior

No, James Watson never said anybody was "genetically inferior" a term without scientific meaning.

I doubt many readers are old enough to remember when eastern European Jewish refugees from Nazism were denied entry into the US, England and Australia because it was a "scientific fact" that they were intellectually subnormal

Well then you shouldn't have trouble providing a citation for this ridiculous claim.

Intelligence tests were never used to exclude Jews or any other ethnic group. This is an academic myth first spread by Leon Kamin.

http://tinyurl.com/2ftpax

Most psychologists have always argued that Jews had higher intelligence. And by WWII especially this was not in doubt.

His statements ... matter because they could be used to justify the following positions: 1. European colonisation of Africa was justified because the Africans were incapable of governing themselves. We did them a favor really.

Anything could be used to justify anything. That doesn't make such arguments logical or convincing.

Colonization could just as easily, if not more reasonably, be justified on an environmental theory. If Africa is underdeveloped because of AIDS, corruption, or any other reason, forceful intervention to "correct" these things could be argued. Especially if it is believed that these exact problems were created by us to begin with.

2. Africans are innately incapable of running developed economies to economic aid to Africa is pointless.

There are tons of mainstream economists already arguing that economic aid to Africa is pointless or even harmful.

Again, it would be just as logical if not more logical to argue that people who are genetically handicapped in creating wealth should be given more charity.

Why do supposed "liberals" automatically assume the most right wing policy preferences would be the most rational response to genetic differenes?

It's no wonder they fight against the expression of these ideas so viciously and irrationally.

Nazism is not the logical extension of genetic differences, and treating it that way is more dangerous to society than anything James Watson ever said.

The fact that Watson - an allegedly insightful and notable scientist - would make arguments on terms as flimsy as race (which any scientist worth their salt knows is, in biological terms, an ephemeral, arbitrary, and unquantifiable distinction) is an insult to the entire established field.

His own apologies illustrate the utter illegitimacy of his claims: He's not only backpedalled, but is actually trying to overlook that even made these claims. Surely if the data supported him, he would be able to show it to the world with confidence in (if nothing else) its validity?

Pathetic.

The institutions - both in Europe and here - were right to shut him down, not because he was offensive, but because it is incredibly irresponsible and intellectually destructive to have a man of his reputation and visibility purporting such poor "science" - to racist claims, no less! (Note that the claims are racist not because of their inherent content - i.e. the idea that blacks are less intelligent than whites - but because this content is completely unsubstantiated.)

Of course, in two years or so, this will all be forgotten, and he'll freely be shooting his mouth again.

As if we didn't have enough trouble getting a workable understanding of modern findings and principles in science through the media to the public at large.

To extend what Mr. Clinton said above into the disability arena, most disabled (physical and mental) people dont want to be seen as just "dole collectors". In fact the fight has been over accomodation, so that they could contribute to society. I have seen the integration of many Downs syndrome adults into jobs with a high success rate. (I am not in any way suggesting that one racial group of people are equal to the intellectually disabled of another as did many 19th and early 20th century mainstream scientists). Rather, it is a philosophical point. Maybe the sub-saharan communities can achieve self sufficiency on their own terms with help, not charity. The West is approaching this with some cultural assumptions. Maybe Watson should have clarified that.
Until European colonialism and resource depletion, they had a stable life. Academic intellect may not be the whole answer, although I have personally seen plenty of smart blokes there who are capable. The average IQ etc. thus becomes meaningless. Leadership, I believe is what is lacking; a leader need not be a grand intellect, he just must know how to hire one-a different sort of intelligence. Zimbabwe is a case in point; a perfectly smart but psychopathic tyrant is destroying the country.
Finally, we all know Watson frequently extrapolates into the unknown: viz therapy for every complex genetic disease, therapy for sex drive, and a cure for stupidity. If discovered soon,(the last one) can the current administration in the White House be part of the first clinical trial?

would make arguments on terms as flimsy as race (which any scientist worth their salt knows is, in biological terms, an ephemeral, arbitrary, and unquantifiable distinction

There is a field called population genetics. What do you believe a population is?

There is something called the HapMap that maps the allele frequency differences between a white population from Utah, a black population from West Africa, and two east Asian populations (Chinese and Japanese).

Let me cut a deal with you. One that you should be eager to take if you truly believe in your own ideological arguments (doubtful but possible). Pick any random news story reporting on a newly discovered gene that explains some sort of difference between individuals

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=gene&btnG=Search+News

I will then look at how that randomly chosen gene is distributed among the 4 HapMap populations using these public databases:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/09/so-you-want-to-be-population-geneticis…

If the random gene is present in identical frequencies in all four populations I will apologize and agree with you that Race Does Not Exist and say Watson was wrong. But if this totally random gene (with a known effect on human health or behavior) is distributed differently among the populations, then you will apologize and agree that racial differences exist and are predicted by genetic and evolutionary science, just as Watson is telling us.

His own apologies illustrate the utter illegitimacy of his claims: He's not only backpedalled, but is actually trying to overlook that even made these claims.

Apologizing is not back-peddling. What Watson said was that he was sorry people thought he was saying Africans were "inferior", which is a moral characterization without scientific basis. Lower intelligence does not mean personal inferiority. He quite clearly states in the title of his apology that talking about racial intelligence differences is not racism:

"James Watson: To question genetic intelligence is not racism...

The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece

"(Note that the claims are racist not because of their inherent content - i.e. the idea that blacks are less intelligent than whites - but because this content is completely unsubstantiated.)"

I presented plenty of data in my first comment above that show they are not. Watson's words were taken by a journalist in casual conversation but the facts he was referring to are straight from the science journals.

In effect there is a public moratorium on discussing or even mentioning what is published and debated in the technical literature. This is by no means consistent with the values of science or an open society.

The trouble here is that we have to overcome the legacy of psuedo scientific 'final solutions' based on crainometry and other truly discredited fields. There is still a legitimate fear in the minds of many (all population groups) that intelligence data will be abused again, with loss of political rights. Maybe for the time being, research should remain in journals, as I dont trust the media to report it (or anything) correctly. They are after all trying to be sensationalistic, so that ratings and AD $ go up. The second part is that agencies like the Pioneer Fund with Rushton et. al. go about this the wrong way. They start from an answer and fit data later. Watson is part of the mainstream and is trying to approach it the other way, but in the current climate he will get lumped with them.