BS: Racism of top scientist?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:08 AM

...others who oppose embryonic stem cell and the development of other advanced techniques will only drop us farther behind those who have the will to advance"

Evolution doesn't work that way.

I know it's very science-fictiony and cool to think about preparing or manipulating the human race (and whatever "race" is to replace and/or supplant it) for the future enviroment, but it's not science. And it's not how evolution works.

I think you can rest easy -- the mutants of evolution were NEVER prepared ahead of time in anticipation of a future environment. We won't either. It can't be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:26 AM

I agree Q that theories must be formed and attempts made to prove or disprove them. Often though it can only done by preponderance of evidence rather than by certainty. Sorry about the global warming tread drift, but I use it as an example. You state that "effects will be ameliorated" and of course that is true, but most people seem to think that they can be stopped or reversed by human action. If it is repeated often enough the public will accept theory as fact.
My own theory is that there is now no master race but genetic selection through a deeper understanding of DNA and the ability to clone will create one. I think that we may be only talking a few decades to a century away and the rest of us will just die off without re-producing.
Thank God that I don't expect to be alive to see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:57 PM

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

That is enough to mislead anybody from the media.

"Equal powers of reason" ???

Of course not. People from the same country do not have equal powers of reason. In fact, alot of people act according to their emotion or are motivated by self-gratification, etc. Reason is a learned behavior.

Western logic is not common to all people. The "power of reason" is based on all kinds of environmental factors. What is reasonable behaviour in one country does not make it "reasonable" in another.

I don't know what kind of 'tests' he was referring to but most tests are culturally biased and an IQ test measures only your ability to do well in school. It does not measure your ability to succeed in life. Its a test developed by White folks for white folks and has very little application to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 12:22 AM

It gets scary when scientists are attacked for asking questions
which don't meet current political sensibilities, or for asking
them in terms that don't.

Recall the first guy who said that the sun might not revolve around
the earth...

Talk about 'double-think.' We have folks who insist that Darwin,
not Genesis be taught in schools. Then we have folks who insist that
evolution of different intellectual abilities on different continents
cannot have occurred.

They probably wouldn't know what the term 'adaptive significance'
means if it bit them on the ass.

Of COURSE folks whose ancestors lived tens of thousands of years
in the African plains would have developed different hard-wired
perceptual skills than those who evolved in Bolton, UK. Different
'gifts' if you want to put it in spiritual terms. Problem is, the
IQ tests were developed by the (relatively recent) folks from
Bolton. With major perceptual (vs. intelligence) elements.

In practice, I'd bet that people arrive at the same conclusions
(objective truth) via different routes.

Then again, we've done so much genetic mixing that it is probably
hard to find the hard-wired differences that relate to skills in
bringing down a zebra vs. a woolly mammoth.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 02:25 AM

Every population has a small group of people who are highly intelligent, a large group of people with median intelligence, and a small group of people who are not able cross the street alone. At least if we are to judge by Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:16 AM

...and I want you to know, M.Ted, that I appreciated the help. Still...

...I didn't want to cross that street.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

Well, John, if you need helpers to cross the street, the helpers pretty much decide where you go, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:41 PM

"Other scientists point out that our species is so young - Homo sapiens emerged from its African homeland only 100,000 years ago - that it simply has not had time to evolve any significant differences in intellectual capacity as its various groups of people have spread round the globe and settled in different regions. Only the most superficial differences - notably skin colour - separate the world's different population groupings. Underneath that skin, people are remarkably alike."

That sums things up pretty well - it comes from a report on all this in today's Observer -

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:43 PM

"Other scientists point out that our species is so young - Homo sapiens emerged from its African homeland only 100,000 years ago - that it simply has not had time to evolve any significant differences in intellectual capacity as its various groups of people have spread round the globe and settled in different regions. Only the most superficial differences - notably skin colour - separate the world's different population groupings. Underneath that skin, people are remarkably alike."

That sums things up pretty well - it comes from a report on all this in today's Observer - How a giant of science was brought low.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:47 PM

The helpers deciding where the rest of us ought to go is at the root of some of the concerns about Watson's comments. Having something of a history as a stirrer I'm the last to criticise stirring as an activity and I too remember the scorn with which Wegener's ideas were rejected by high profile geologists until plate tectonics was introduced as a mechanism for continental drift.

But just because Watson was on the inside of a team that discovered the structure of DNA (while the woman whose work was seminal to their understanding was kept out of the team) doesn't mean that he has the understanding to deal with the moral, social and political implications of genetic engineering of the human population. He belongs to a generation that argued strenuously that science was 'value free', without understanding that the ways one asks questions and even the very questions one thinks of as askable are largely determined by one's upbringing and cultural context.

Of course different populations will have different strengths that will have been selected for in different contexts; how we distinguish between those strengths and then apply "value" to each of those strengths is the problem. Watson has not shown any evidence of understanding such issues.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

Does anyone here know what Dr. Watson said? The press, who have no understanding of his field, have set the wolves of character assasination. Where are the verbatim quotes? What are the stated conclusions?

Going back to an early post, did he say anything beyond the few speculative sentences that were printed in his book? Nothing there that I would quarrel with.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 01:28 AM

Q - Quote contained in post 20 Oct 07 - 01:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 03:08 PM

This is so controversial that I hesitate.
I think it true that "intelligence" here is just that which IQ tests measure.
It is not possible or at least very difficult to devize such tests that are not culturally biased.
If there is a measurable difference between average scores between races, the difference would certainly be much less than the variation within a racial group.
It is recognised that East Africans are genetically gifted in endurance running.http://www.springerlink.com/content/8e3p04c2fcm17cku/

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 04:55 PM

Obviously, in 100,000 years, isolated populations may indeed evolve specific traits...especially physical ones to cope with climate and environment. Iniut people are more resistant to cold...etc.

Similarly, we know that other mammals have quite different traits...even among those which can interbreed. Pit Bulls and Dobermans DO have higher 'tendencies' toward antagonistic behavior than Labradors or Cocker Spaniels. And Border Collies don't just perform well at sheep herding because they are handy...they are widely reknowned for their intelligence.
   *IF* there are such differences among humans, they are not nearly as significant, as some members of almost any group can fit into the top echelons of almost any study. I suppose we 'could' design tests to find out for sure, but why bother? We purport to admire and celebrate individual rights and achievements, no matter what group they come from...so why even try to rank their ethnic group in those ways? Rather, we should strive to make opportunity fair, so that anyone from any group will have the chance to achieve whatever potential they have.

   We have all seen what spurious 'scientific' studies have done to spread prejudice and unfairness in the world...I can see no benefit to showing that any human trait is better represented by a particular group...but some will keep trying, especially in athletic realms.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM

Quote given by Dianavan- If this is what the hullabaloo is about, I see nothing illogical about the supposition.
Nothing quantitative is implied.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 11:49 PM

For Q's benefit, an extract from the original article follows, with Watson's quotes in quotation marks.

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

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. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: mg
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 12:05 AM

It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of years for traits to be selected for. Nature is red in tooth and claw. If the only work available to you is say weaving, and you starve and your children and starve because you are too clumsy to do any weaving, then nature...well economic nature or social brutality or whatever..has eliminated all the clumsy fumblefingers because they starved before they reproduced or were done reproducing and their children starved with them, unless, the children supported the family or whatever.

If you were too short-sighted to hunt and that was your only source of food, say in the Arctic..nature would eliminate the short-sighted from the gene pool (assuming both men and women hunted).

Nature can work pretty fast in terms of epidemics, some people selecting for running over others, i.e. Huns...and the ones without the aggressive traits lost forever...people not being able to survive famines without certain traits...this does not have to be a slow process...

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:50 AM

Well, mg, much of your comment, while containing some truth, is oversimplification and not really addressing Watson's argument nor some of the more serious responses to it.

Myopia (at least the optical if not the cultural version) has some genetic input and may have negative selection pressure applied to it but it still recurs in the human population, probably because as a human population our culture is not quite as red in tooth and claw as the more biassed social Darwinists might portray society.

Watson's proposition about "equal powers of reason" was an implied attempt at categorising the whole of the population with black skins by comparison with the whole of the population with white skins. At such a gross level it is patently nonsense, even though some cultures "may" have more of a reason to cultivate some types of thinking in preference to others. We can all delight in east African long distance runners having a genetic predisposition favouring such activities, putting us mere mortals at a disadvantage for medals in marathons but it is only a predisposition. Not all people with the whole of their ancestry in east Africa have such genetics and I've yet to see any evidence that properly and precisely supports the proposition that selection pressure has had any effect on any population's (let alone an individual's) "powers of reason".

With his achievements great as they are, you'd expect Watson to raise his public heuristics above the level of a middle high school debating topic.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 02:08 AM

If the quote is correct, and not selective, it is a step too far. I have a suspicion, however, that the statement has been edited for punch; edited quotes are a frequent occurrence in the press.   

Lumping all Africans (I presume meant were a group of people with dark-skin and perhaps a selection of some other physical characteristics) is as bad as lumping all Europeans or all Asians; quite a jumble of physically variant creatures. Whether they have mental abilities that are the same in all aspects is a matter of speculation only at present. In fact, however, there does not seem to be any difference that would prevent any group from integrating into and functioning in society.

I remember some years back when a prominent sports commentator was fired by his broadcasting company for mentioning the muscle structure of certain Black athletes, which gave them an advantage in certain aspects of American football. Other groups had advantages in other ways. These variances are evident to anyone utilizing detailed physiological and forensic studies, but they still cause much tearing out of hair when they are mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 12:09 PM

This was the one that got me,
"Dr Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".From The Telegraph

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 10:04 PM

*sigh* the guy is almost 80, after all, and he's certainly and unfortunately right about TEST scores. But we all know that intelligence tests only test the ability to take intelligence tests... let's see him out in the bush, surviving!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:54 AM

As the contestants come to the center of the ring for round two of the "International let's bash the Nobelists" encounter ...

Nobel laureate: 9/11 not so bad

Lessing: Attacks by IRA in Britain were worse than attack in New York

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:56 p.m. CT Oct 22, 2007

***

No comment.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:10 AM

Mrrzy,

The last part of your 23 Oct 07 - 10:04 PM post appears to me to have a built in implication that the only place where Black people can show our intelligence is in the bush...

I'm sure you didn't mean that.

I believe you meant well, but

Sigh

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:31 AM

Mrrzy {a continuation},


I felt that I had to write that first post to you on the public forum and not just send you a personal message. I felt {and still feel that way} because Mudcatters and Guests (people who might find this discussion through google and other search engines} now and in the future may read this thread and I didn't feel that that post of yours should stand alone. My concern is that it might be picked up by prejudiced people who would then use it for their negative purposes.

I mean no disrespect to you and I don't think you meant any disrespect to me and/or other Black people-but your comment could be read to be disrespectful.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, you are the mother of twins, right? And you grew up in various African nations, right? {or maybe I have you confused with another/other Mudcatters}. So on the first point, I have a special fondness to twins because I'm one, and in some traditional African cultures, being the mother of twins confers a special honor. And on the second point you have had much more direct experience with Africa than I do, and will probably ever have.

None of that has anything to do with the price of beans in Boston. But your status and your background incline me to like you sight unseen {not that that matters to anyone but me}.

But I believe that you didn't mean anything negative by your "survive in the bush" comment.


Best wishes,

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:46 AM

Correction:

I have a special fondness for twins...

And I believe that you didn't mean anything negative by your "survive in the bush" comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:31 PM

Gee, Azizi, I always thought it required intelligence and resourcefulness to survive in the bush. And Canada still has a lot of 'bush' although Mitsubishi and the provincial governments are doing their best to eliminate it.

The Tsuu-tina on my city's doorstep have gave up on making a living from the bush and soon will open their Casino to hunt the buck, more rewarding than hunting the one with horns.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:34 PM

Ummm - why, if they can survive in the bush better than city folks, would that mean that that is the *only* place they can outperform?

Anybody remember the Chitlin Test? It was from the 70's, I think, it was an "IQ" test that only poor inner-city folk could do well on, as it assumed their background knowledge rather than your standard educated rich person's. Like knowing that the top and bottom of dice add up to 7 (which as a Parcheesi player, I actually did know)...

I think my point was that intelligence tests only test the ability to take intelligence tests. I, though I am very smart, wouldn't survive in the bush even though I did grow up in post-colonial Africa!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 06:55 PM

When M.Ted wrote "This was the one that got me,
"Dr Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true""

I was tempted to respond at the time with "It got me too" but I let it ride as I was busy.

Although it was a preposterous statement to make in almost any specific context that I can think of, what really stuck in my craw was the arrogance of it and its intent as a 'blanket statement'.

Watson may have had some exposure to people with black skins in the US, as that's where he's from and he may also have had some exposure to people with black skins in Britain, as that's where he worked with the team that cracked the DNA structure. I'm willing to bet he's had nil exposure to Australian Aborigines or Micronesians but they've been tarred with the same brush; you can guarantee the closet racists in Oz will be nodding their heads in assent to his intent, just like the closet racists north of the equator.

The man is accorded the highest scientific status yet the quote above has precious little scientific merit. Gossip? Conjecture? Anecdotal? Too right!! And while such statements may all have their part in framing experimental design and scientific investigation, they should never be presented as 'scientific results', which is effectively what he did. And at 80, with serious scientific achievement behind him, he ought to have known better.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 09:43 PM

Azizi - I don't think that the reference to surviving "in the bush" was specific to African Americans. I know lots of Canadians who can "survive in the bush" and lots who could not. The point is that IQ tests are designed for middle class, urban dwellers of a European, cultural background. Most of those people wouldn't have the common sense to enable them to survive in the bush.

There are many kinds of intelligence. You can be highly intelligent and be unable to function in society so what's the point of measuring intelligence or comparing IQ scores? There are many factors that contribute to success. IQ has very little to with it.

Dr. Watson is a very small, minded individual who has led a very sheltered life. He is a disgrace to science.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Q, as Guest
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:09 PM

Linda S. Gottfredson, professor or Educational Studies, Univ. Delaware, and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, is a defendant of IQ testing and author of a recent article in "Scientific American," "The General Intelligence Factor." She says that "Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life." ... No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition." ..."the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. ...People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential-- and they are born that way...." "Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent aptitudes into intellectual equals." ..."differences in mental competence are likely to 'result in social inequality'" [' ' represents author's underscore].
She goes on- "Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered 'biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon'." [' ' indicates author's underscore]. She correlates speed of nerve conduction, brain energy used in problem solving, speed and efficiency in neural processing, etc., etc.

Dr. Watson undoubtedly had the application of these studies to different groups of people in mind when he spoke to the reporters; no way were they capable of placing his comments in context. These studies are for the future; most people are not mature enough to even consider them.

Intelligence

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:18 PM

There's no doubt that intelligence tests are biased. Unfortunately, success in modern industrial societies is biased the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Q, as Guest
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:14 AM

"From its beginning, research on how and why people differ in overall mental ability has fallen prey to political and social agendas that obscure or distort even the most well-established scientific findings. Journalists, too, often present a view of intelligence that is exactly the opposite of what most intelligence experts believe." Further extract from the article by Prof. Gottfredson cited above.

Modern IQ tests are made up of about a dozen subtests which make insignificant 'impurities,' specific aptitudes or bias from social and educative factors.
For a variety of invalid reasons, people will continue to make inaccurate statements about the tests, such as those made above by Dick Greenhouse, Mrzzy, Dianavan and others, or refuse to consider their implications. The research of Prof. Gottfredson and others has gone far beyond speculation.

If Dr. Watson referred to a specific group, he, perhaps, is speculating in advance of current research. I know of no published studies which impose any sort of 'rank' upon genetic groups although individual differences in intelligence are clearly identifiable.
I have not seen any rebuttal of the arguments made by Prof. Gottfredson.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:21 AM

"Modern IQ tests are made up of about a dozen subtests which make insignificant 'impurities,' specific aptitudes or bias from social and educative factors."

I'm not at all sure what that means. Perhaps you can explain it in plain English.

When I ask a child to identify a picture of an electrical outlet and he says its a "plug-in", the answer is incorrect. I am not allowed to mediate. I only administer the test and score the results.

Thats how testing is conducted. Regardless of how 'insignificant' the impurities might be, the final score is always effected. I'd have to see these so-called, modern tests to determine how unbiased they are. I am certainly not going to take your word or Dr. Watson's word for it. His word is worth nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:17 AM

Q, your original post, containing quotes from Gottfredson, rely for their correct interpretation on knowing which bits are omitted and which are exact quotes and, without having read the article itself I can't address the details fully. [I used to take Scientific American and New Scientist to distribute articles for students when I was teaching but the students objected to the tone of Scientific American articles and preferred those of New Scientist; they characterised the former as "handing down the tablets; everything in this article is definitive" while the latter was characterised as "here are the arguments for and against the proposition"; they preferred the latter. I mention this to 'declare my bias', if you will, in the spirit of properly rational discussion.]

But taking the notions one by one as relevant to Watson't quoted comments, I offer the following.
"Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life."
"Success in life" would appear to be a subjective notion rather difficult to treat with the same objectivity normally applied to investigations regarded as "rigorous".

"No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition."
This may well be true and such a global factor may also actually exist; its manifestation may vary beyond the ability of investigators to fully characterise it though and that fingers a problematic difference between the evidence and Watson's comments.

"the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. ...People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential-- and they are born that way...."
It is in the detail of which findings are taken for granted and 'how' such researchers use them that keeps their research rigorous; I have no particular problem with the generality of the statement but am wary of possible motives behind how it is then used.

"Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent aptitudes into intellectual equals." ..."differences in mental competence are likely to 'result in social inequality'" [' ' represents author's underscore].
I have no problem with the notion that the population contains great variablity and that some of it might also be inheritable; testing the relative contributions of genetics and nurture is always the problem and I doubt that twin studies have been sufficiently exhaustively applied to investigating them.

"She goes on- "Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered 'biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon'." [' ' indicates author's underscore]. She correlates speed of nerve conduction, brain energy used in problem solving, speed and efficiency in neural processing, etc., etc."
Again, Gottfredson may well be correct in her understanding of the associations and her attributions of causality, but I don't think there has been sufficient evidence gathered to make blanket statement that cover whole populations. And that is the intent implicit in Watson's statements.

I agree with her (and, I gather your) opinion of the inability of most journalists to both understand and report on such matters but we are discussing Watson's comments. He is a senior scientist with long experience at trying to correctly convey complex information to journalists; it is reasonable to expect such a person to be acutely aware of how information is likely to be interpreted and to ensure he presented it in a way that allowed the reporters to get his desired message across.

In this I think he was either successful (in which case he really is a racist or, more likely, he was deliberately being provocative and "playing the racist card" (as it is regarded in Oz political manouvering) for "effect". If the latter is true, I'd have to agree with Robyn Williams' assessment of him and which I posted above. I expect better of such senior scientists.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 03:16 AM

The last para in my most recent post should read
In this I think he was either successful (in which case he really is a racist) or, more likely, he was deliberately being provocative and "playing the racist card" (as it is regarded in Oz political manouvering) for "effect". If the latter is true, I'd have to agree with Robyn Williams' assessment of him and which I posted above. I expect better of such senior scientists.

Dropping parentheses, dropping quotation marks; one day I'll get it right.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:30 AM

For the record, I do not feel the need to state my position on Dr. Watson's comments that are the subject of this thread as Rowan and others here have stated my position so well.

**

Mrrzy,

I stand by what I said to you in my previous posts on this thread that "The last part of your 23 Oct 07 -10:04 PM post appears to me to have a built in implication that the only place where Black people can show our intelligence is in the bush..."

However, given the international nature of this discussion forum, I concede that it is possible that non-UnitedStaters may not as readily or may not at all associate the statement "surviving in the bush" with stereotypical images and negative opinions of Africans to the same degree that {I believe} many UnitedStaters have and still do. A variant form of that statement "Go back to the bush" {meaning "Go back to Africa"} has often been directed to Black people {African Americans}. That statement is very stereotypical of African nations and is very offensive. However, Mrrzy, I accept that you didn't mean your statement to be either stereotypical or offensive. That said, since the topic of this thread is Dr. Watson's comments about Africans, it seems to me that it was not {is not} unreasonable to for me {and perhaps for others} to believe that your statement about surviving in the bush referred to Black people.

I agree with what I believe is your and dianavan's {and some other posters on this thread's} core point that most-if not all-IQ tests are culturally biased.

I recall the 1970s Chitlin test. You wrote that "it was an "IQ" test that only poor inner-city folk could do well on, as it assumed their background knowledge rather than your standard educated rich person's". I would like to make a friendly revision of your statement. The Chitlin test assumed knowlege of Black street culture of that decade and also some general knowledge of African American history & culture {such as the names of singers like Bo Diddley} up to that decade. Black people and non-Black people of all economic categories could score well on that test if they were knowledgeable about Black slang of that decade, and familiar with other indices of Black culture.

Imo, a bad {meaning "not good"} example of the Chitlin test is found at https://www.unb.ca/sweb/psychology/fields/psyc1024/module09/write/essay/chitlingfs.html .

In that version of the Chitlin test, when you select an answer, the statement that lets you know that your selection is correct includes the sentence "you be eggheadish man". And if you choose incorrectly, the statement appears that "you dude not be eggheadish!"

What??!! "Dude??" "Eggheadish???". I consider these to be extremely inauthentic examples of Black vernacular then and now. In my not at all humble opinion, the developer of that version of the Chitlin test needs to enroll in Harlem 101.

**

With regard to the word "Black", my apologies for the confusion that may occur in my usage of this referent on this and on other Mudcat threads. Sometimes when I use "Black" I mean "African American". My statement about the Chitlin test is an example of that usage. But sometimes when I use the referent "Black" I mean the more inclusive referent for "a non-White person and/or non-White persons of African descent". When I used "Black" in my first post to Mrrzy on this thread, that is the usage that I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:53 AM

I, as an American who grew up in Africa, do not use the term African-American to refer to American blacks. Nor do I capitalize black... now, Osama is actually an African American.
To digress even further, there is a thing going on (I have read somewhere, or heard on NPR?) about all the African refugees in the US who are African Americans but do not share the culture of bi[at least]racial-americans-whose-ancestors-were-slaves-and-slave-owners-but-who-only-acknowledge-their-black/slave-side-and-call-themselves-african-americans. There is apparently an interesting culture "war" brewing. Wonder what the difference is in IQ testing between those populations.
It's interesting the degree to which people who think of themselves as not racist actually are. My mom, one of the most inclusive people I know, actually thinks that for a white person to date a black one takes a lack of self-esteem on the part of the white one - which ASSUMES that said white person is anti-black, and that such an attitude is normal, or why would it take low self-esteem to date one?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:00 AM

Well, Crocodile Dundee was white, and he did very well surviving in
the bush!

I'm not being entirely silly, in fact.

The venerable Mr. Watson (who is by no means a 'disgrace' to science,
he's in fact on of the most distinguished living scientists) perhaps
suffers from the old 'when all you have is a hammer, everything
starts to look like a nail' syndrome. In fact, Watson may be confusing
'nature' with 'nurture' with respect to most of his remarks.

He is, after all, referring to 'social policies.' Well, if we look at
Africa we see a rather sad recent history of pretty lousy rulers and
regimes, who were on top of that difficult to deal with. I submit
that isn't because the guys in charge weren't intelligent, but rather
because they either lacked the training to carry out progressive
agendas, or the means, or the will (read 'corruption').

But those sorts of problems have everything to do with how societies
are structured and the context in which they operate. And the context,
interestingly enough, is really the aftermath of European colonialism.
The the colonial days are over, the mess and the broken governmental
and social structures which the colonial powers left still remain.
If there's a degree of social and political chaos on the continent
of Africa, that isn't the invention of the Africans, it's the legacy
of the colonizers who turned African society upside-down, subjugated
the people, did NOTHING to develop any sort of effective leadership,
and then deserted the place (or got tossed out) while looking over
their shoulders and in many cases bragging about the 'independent and
democratic state' which the Great White Fathers had bestowed upon
their former colonies.

So one finds oneself asking "now which racial/ethnic group
is lacking in intelligence?" once we put the situation of the African
continent into historical context.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:33 AM

It's a pretty stupid person who can't design a test that everyone can do well at.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

>It's a pretty stupid person who can't design a test that everyone can
>do well at.

Well, then I guess all those PhDs who've been working on the
problem for the better part of a century must be some pretty
stupid people.

Then again, 'a test that everyone can do well at' is a pretty
stupid test, because it doesn't measure anything, now does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:44 AM

It measures the test writer's ability. The PhDs you laud have designed IQ tests for a portion of the population, then taken those tests to people from outside the culture of the tested/normed and targetted group. But I suppose that makes sense to you, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:45 AM

Speaking of PhDs--the name Watson ring any bells? You toss forth scholasticism as though it does itself equate to intelligence. Sheesh, you're smarter than that I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:55 AM

It was PhDs who designed the "No Child Left Behind" fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

>The PhDs you laud have designed IQ tests for a portion of the >population, then taken those tests to people from outside the culture >of the tested/normed and targetted group.

Well, when I was doing my own degree in psychology 30 years ago,
those of us in the testing and metrics courses were acutely aware
of the issues of cultural biases in testing and working very hard
to eliminate them and to be able to demonstrate that they'd been
eliminated. That's why the 'stupid people' who produce the Stanford-
Binet IQ test, for example, have revised it 5 times. And why the
'stupid people' who put together the Scholastic Aptitude Test are
continually refining it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:58 AM

That is good. However, you missed the intent of that remark. It's like "it's a pretty stupid person who can only find one way to spell a word". Relax. PhDs do not confer sainthood. And you should be well aware that IQ tests have been used to supress people. As to your degree, good. I am happy for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:01 AM

"Without offering any data on all that occurs between conception and the age of kindergarten,
they announce on the basis of what they have got out of a few thousand questionnaires
that they are measuring the hereditary mental endowment of human beings.
Obviously, this is not a conclusion obtained by research. It is a conclusion planted by the will to believe.
It is, I think, for the most part unconsciously planted... If the impression takes root that these tests really measure intelligence,
that they constitute a sort of last judgment on the child's capacity, that they reveal "scientifically" his predestined ability,
then it would be a thousand times better if all the intelligence testers and all their questionnaires were sunk in the Sargasso Sea."

- Walter Lippmann

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:49 AM

Why quote Walter Lippmann on the subject? He's as much an authority
on the question of standardized testing as James Watson.

Look, some people, for whatever reason, have a distaste for
standardized testing.

Sometimes it's because of legitimate defects in the testing,
though concerted effort as bias-elimination over the last several
decades have made that argument less and less valid.

Sometimes it's because the test results have been employed by
intellectually dishonest people for nefarious rhetorical purposes.

Sometimes it's because the tests tell them what they don't want
to hear, and the only way to keep denying what they don't want
to here is to declare that the test, or more conveniently, all
such tests must be inherently flawed. They can do this while ignoring
all the scientific data to the contrary, and fill up loads of column
inches in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:28 PM

... the African refugees in the US who are African Americans but do not share the culture of bi[at least]racial-americans-whose-ancestors-were-slaves-and-slave-owners-but-who-only-acknowledge-their-black/slave-side-and-call-themselves-african-americans.

Fwiw, there are "African Americans" whose ancestors may not have been enslaved.

**

There is apparently an interesting culture "war" brewing. [between African Americans and newly arrived Africans]

We do live in "interesting times", but then again, all times are interesting. I'm not aware of any cultural war between newly arrived Africans who are now living in the USA and African Americans who have been here for some generations. But that doesn't mean that it's not happening.

My daughter who is an elementary school teacher has shared with me that some Somalian children have had difficulties with other Black children teasing them because of their {the Somalia students'} dark skin. However, she has also told me that some other Black American students have befriended these Somalian students {who also are Black Americans in the larger sense of that referent}.

Wonder what the difference is in IQ testing between those populations.

So many IQ tests in the USA are culturally biased toward mainstream {meaning "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant"} culture. It would seem to me that newly arriving Africans who are not familiar with that culture should not be tested for IQ using these same tests that are also problematic for many African Americans {who have been in the USA for generations}.

Given these cultural biases, if these tests are given to both of these populations, it seems to me that their results would be basically meaningless.

So why set up competitions for who scores the best on meaningless tests?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:31 PM

" They can do this while ignoring
all the scientific data to the contrary, and fill up loads of column
inches in doing so. "

Then YOU give the data that shows IQ Tests to be accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:37 PM

Cultural Bias in Intelligence Testing
It is extremely difficult to develop a test that measures innate intelligence without introducing cultural bias. This has been virtually impossible to achieve. One attempt was to eliminate language and design tests with demonstrations and pictures. Another approach is to realize that culture-free tests are not possible and to design culture-fair tests instead. These tests draw on experiences found in many cultures.

Many college students have a middle-class background and may have difficulty appreciating the biases that are part of standardized intelligence tests, because their own background does not disadvantage them for these tests. By doing some intelligence tests which make non-mainstream cultural assumptions, students can come to experience some of the difficulties and issues involved with culturally biased methods of testing intelligence.

The Australian/American Intelligence Test
The 10-item Australian/American Intelligence Test is drawn from typical items on standard Western-European intelligence tests.

The Original Australian Intelligence Test
The 10-item Original Australian Intelligence Test is based on the culture of the Edward River Australian Aboriginal community in North Queensland.

Chitling Test of Intelligence
One facetious attempt to develop an intelligence test that utilizes distinctively black-ghetto experiences is the Chitling Test. It is a humorous example that demonstrates well the built-in cultural bias found in most IQ tests. The Chitling Test (formally, the Dove Counterbalance General Intelligence Test) was designed by Adrian Dove, a Black sociologist. Aware of the dialect differences, he developed this exam as a half-serious attempt to show that American children are just not all speaking the same language. Those students who are not "culturally deprived" will score well. The original test has 30 multiple-choice questions - go to short version of the Chitling Intelligence Test (15 questions).

Redden-Simons "Rap" Test
Other, similar tests have been developed for Blacks (for example, the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity by Robert L. Williams) and for the Chicano culture and the Redden-Simons Rap Test.

The Redden-Simons "Rap" Test is a 50-item, multiple-choice test of vocabulary items typical of "street language" in 1986, in Des Moines, Iowa. On the short version of the Redden-Simons "Rap" test (12-items), "street" individuals averaged eight correct items, and college students averaged only two correct items.

Using "street" norms, any student who does not get at least five items correct is mentally retarded [sic.].