BS: Racism of top scientist?

Subject: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 08:03 PM

If anyone else has started a thread on this, I have missed it, sorry.

news report here

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 08:52 PM

Current book-
James D. Watson, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science."
Knopf, 368pp. (U. S. edition).

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:06 PM

Disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:28 PM

The immaturity of those in charge of the Science Museum is evident, but 'disgusting seems a little strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 09:47 PM

Disgusting is not strong enough.

How about contemptable, despicable and detestable?

I think its also objectionable and obnoxious.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 10:52 PM

Immaturity at the Science Museum? They were right to cancel him, for the very simple reason that he'll never be able to speak about his work in science again.

Every where he goes, people will demand that he explain his remarks. They'll put him on display like a caged animal and goad him till he embarasses himself again--Goodby Science Museum, Hello Jerry Springer!!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 11:18 PM

such strong language! It is as dangerous to apply caustic comments to Watson's ideas as it is for him to carfelessly toss out assertions like that.
Watson obviously believes what he says...on several topics. He is, himself, educated & intelligent...yet has allowed himself to draw almost silly conclusions from 'data.

Of COURSE 'tests' show some cultures and ethnic groups to have lower scores on IQ tests....but this in no way proves why. If he is the scientist he thinks he is, he'd need to have something more than reports from "...people who have to deal with black employees."

People will believe him, though, just as they believed Hitler and others, so it is up to those in the scientific community who KNOW how to answer him should do so...clearly and carefully, not with epithets like 'disgusting'. It is a serious claim, and should be either proved...or resoundingly disproved!

It is easy to begin. If Watson can refer to "...people who have to deal with black employees", I can refer to the black PHDs in math, physics, astronomy etc., who have shown that intelligence is not reserved to Watson's race ethnic group. (There IS only one 'race').

If Watson thinks he can design tests that support claims like that, he should say so, or shut up.

There ARE some physical attributes that are associated with different groups, due to evolution...and yeah, 'most' white men CAN'T jump as high....and there are sound reasons why, just as sickle cell anemia is a disease of mostly black men.

here is one page which attempts to look at the issue....I wonder if Watson has read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:06 AM

Perhaps a quote from Watson's latest book will lead to rational rather than emotional comment.

"A priori, 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. Rather than face up to facts that will likely change the way we look at ourselves, many persons of goodwill may see only harm in our looking too closely at individual genetic essenses."
He also points to a search for genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence, and characterizes it as a "very hot potato."

He does not "draw any conclusions," merely points out avenues of investigation. This is the nature of scientific inquiry; where it will lead, the future will tell.

He also says scientists may identify malfunctioning genes that predispose people to criminal habits or behavior (Several other geneticists already are investigating genes and behavior). He writes that "the integrity of science, no less than that of ethics, demands that we let the truth be known"

See post above for book reference, American edition. So far, I have only looked at a few pages of his book; it seems to have quite a bit of gossip about other scientists in it. This may be boring to many readers. A review I saw called the book boring and disappointing when compared with his previous works.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:14 AM

This isn't as unusual as you might think. Pick up a copy of Donna Haraway's Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science, (1989), and read her chapter on "Teddy Bear Patriarchy." It's about how scientists at New York's American Museum of Natural History were directly responsible in shaping immigration legislation (the quotas of 1921 & 1924) in the early 20th century, based upon Social Darwinism and the "superiority" of some races over others.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Frogprince, in San Francisco.
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:37 AM

Adding up a few of his remarks pertaining to "race" and intelligence, "beauty" in women, and homosexuality, you come up with the irony of a man who had the intelligence to sort out the structure of DNA, but who comes off as ignorant as any "cracker" in Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 12:58 AM

That's a great read in that link, Bill D.

This really struck home with me:

"Biological explanations for behavioral differences are dangerous. Every time you hear someone give a biological explanation for behavioral differences between groups, you should be suspicious. In societies with large differences in wealth, power, and opportunities between people, biology is used to justify inequality and exploitation. Biology is seen as natural and unchangeable, and it gives members of the advantaged group the opportunity to say, "Well, it's too bad that some people are much better off than others, but that's just the way it is. There's really nothing we can do about it." Be suspicious."

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:07 AM

BillD was on the right track in writing
"It is easy to begin. If Watson can refer to "...people who have to deal with black employees", I can refer to the black PHDs in math, physics, astronomy etc., who have shown that intelligence is not reserved to Watson's race ethnic group. (There IS only one 'race').

"If Watson thinks he can design tests that support claims like that, he should say so, or shut up"
but he could have gone further.

Watson belongs to the school of scientists that employs reductionism (limiting experimental design so that, in any experiment, all variables except one are kept constant and analysis is done on the effect of the one variable) and would probably accept Popper's dictum on defining science; a statement/hypothesis/idea is not scientific unless you dan design an experiment that could disprove it and, if your proposition can't be so tested it ain't science.

The plethora of examples already contradicting Watson's proposal categorises his statement as "poorly informed", at the very least. Watson'e abilities in experimental design may be excellent applied to DNA analysis but I've seen very little evidence that he is truly a polymath, let alone what used to be termed "a renaissance man." In the matters he addresses he's no better than Joe Bloggs, with due respect to any real people who revel in that name.

And when Bill writes
"There ARE some physical attributes that are associated with different groups, due to evolution...and yeah, 'most' white men CAN'T jump as high....and there are sound reasons why, just as sickle cell anemia is a disease of mostly black men"
he's displaying his US context.

There are at least three different alleles for sickle cell anaemia; each arose in separate areas where malaria was endemic, as a genetic response to the negative selection pressure applied on the human population. The one in the African American population did indeed come from west Africa but another came from the Mediterranean (particularly Italy and Greece, where I think people with black skins were originally a bit thin on the ground) and another comes from SE Asia and is also not associated with people who have black skins.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:03 AM

My impression from what I have heard of the debate so far is that the scientific reaction is largely centred about the thought that the man is speculating about a field in which he has no expertise. I gather however that the BNP has not been slow to latch on to the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:17 AM

Watson is a classic example of a clever scientist using his authority outside his domain. He is a molecular biologist, not a geneticist, and certainly not a human evolutionary geneticist. Knowing the structure of DNA doesn't help one bit with assessing the phenotypical results of genetic differences, but it does get your opinions on the front pages of newspapers.

For a far better view of human intelligence, read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasurement of Man,

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:59 AM

But he does seem rather an "equal opportunity" advocate with his insults(?)

Race remarks get Nobel winner in trouble (Associated Press)

[quote]

In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which give skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

[endquote]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 05:53 AM

Instead of banning him, or withdrawing the invitation, let him make his lecture, listen to what he has to say, and then aftewards, refute him point by point: which, I am sure, would not be too hard to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: redsnapper
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:32 AM

This is not the first time Watson has said very stupid things. Not the first top scientist (I meet many) a little past his sell-by date.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:33 AM

Still, one has to wonder if it's helpful to take some subjects "off the table." Remember Larry Summers--it doesn't pay to think out loud.

            Another thing is, one wonders what his "control group" is. In North America, most people of color, and many others too, have all kinds of ethnic genes in their makeup. I don't know how you'd isolate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: PMB
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:32 AM

It looks like he's stepped right in it- latest report says his lab have sacked him. Silly man.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:34 AM

To paraphrase Riginslinger, there are too many confounding factors to evaluate the truth or falsehood of Watson's statements on race and gender. He, as a scientist should know this and should avoid shooting from the lip in his public statements [unless he is just trying to sell books].

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:34 AM

You should not cherry pick the science that supports your preconcieved notions. Sometimes your sacred values can turn out to be mistated or simply divergent from the truth.

It has also been found that significant diversity causes more strife than neighborhoods that are less diverse.

Kidna goes against the American motherhood and apple pie melting pot legend, doesn't it.

Survival and intelligence need not be lumped together. The DNA record can include changes from the grandparents to the the grandchildren due to famine or other life changing factors, as well as store the experience and adaaptation that goes back millions of years.

To presume we understand the human genome at this point is just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:15 AM

In 1954 (?) when Crick, Watson (and Wilkins ?) announced they'd 'cracked' the structure of DNA--that is, reached the brilliant conclusion that it was a double helix--they paved the way for many other things, not the least of which is testing prior to birth for certain genetic problems that a fetus might have or determining the real 'whodunit' of the mystery novel. However, expertise in one area does not make any of those men experts in another. We recognize that when 'celebrities' add their names to political campaigns as though their voice behind the candidate will get that person votes. I'd forget that a team effort resulted in Watson getting the Nobel way back and maybe concentrate on what he said. The man is 78 years old and he may have had too much aluminium in his diet.

The premise he espouses was already tried, about 30 years ago. It didn't fly then and it ain't gonna fly now. Even smart people can be stupid. Remember: racism creates its own justifications.


Dear Dr Watson,

Fuck off.

B Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:25 AM

I was going by memory--read "The Double Helix" back in 1970 or so. It was Wilson, not Wilkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:29 AM

One of the larger flaws in his thesis:

"A priori, 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. Rather than face up to facts that will likely change the way we look at ourselves, many persons of goodwill may see only harm in our looking too closely at individual genetic essenses."
He also points to a search for genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence, and characterizes it as a "very hot potato."

...is that it has made a HUGE jump to a wrong conclusion. The leap is in the assertion that races have followed a different evolutionary track. They have not. In fact, there is no such thing as diverse "races" in homo sapiens at this point. We are all one race.

Thus, though the assertion that "...there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically" may be true...

...there has been no "geographically separated evolution" at this point. And now, with the world of communication and transportation such as it is, even if a few million years down the road it looks as though there COULD have been such "geographically separated evolution", it is unlikely that such a thing would ever occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:33 AM

A review of the book, "Junk Science" by Dan Agin.


"An overdue indictment of government, industry, and faith groups that twist science for their own gain. During the next thirty years, the American public will suffer from a rampage against reason by special interests in government, commerce, and the faith industry, and the rampage has already begun. In Junk Science, Dan Agin offers a response-a stinging condemnation of the egregious and constant warping of science for ideological gain. In this provocative, wide-ranging, and hard-hitting book, Agin argues from the center that we will pay a heavy price for the follies of people who consciously twist the public's understanding of the real world. In an entertaining but frank tone, Agin separates fact from conveniently 'scientific' fiction and exposes the data faking, reality ignoring, fear mongering, and outright lying that contribute to intentionally manufactured public ignorance. Many factions twist scientific data to maintain riches and power, and Agin outs them all in sections like these: --'Buyer Beware' (genetically modified foods, aging, and tobacco companies)--'Medical Follies' (chiropractics, health care, talk therapy)--'Poison and Bombs in the Greenhouse' (pollution, warfare, global warming)--'Religion, Embryos, and Cloning'--'Genes, Behavior, and Race' We already pay a heavy price for many groups' conscious manipulation of the public's understanding of science, and Junk Science arms us with understanding, cutting through the fabric of lies and setting the record straight."

from Amazon Books site.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:33 AM

"However, expertise in one area does not make any of those men experts in another."

One of the most notably employed logical fallacies of this type is the Einstein quote that one cannot simultaneously have peace and prepare for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:40 AM

I remember reading somewhere that scientists had proved that the Chinese/Japanese as a group - where the most intelligent humans. All I know is that I'm not as intelligent as Nelson Mandella! But I can probably play the guitar better than him!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:49 AM

This article, the result of very clear thinking, is excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:03 PM

Excellent aricles Peace. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond also has much to say about geography being the determining factor in the disparity between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' among world cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: folk1e
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:06 PM

Separate geographical locations have allowed the human genome to have different expressions. That is why we can say someone is Asian or Caucasian. There are other genetic differences, one of which is the ability to metabolize alcohol.
We all have different IQs but does anybody care if one group is marginally higher than another? Have we done "double blind" tests to prove the point?
What does IQ measure anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:09 PM

"What does IQ measure anyway?"

Well, I don't want to brag, but I passed my IQ test. Got 67. HA! But I will still spak with all of you. I didn't become a snob because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 01:14 PM

The HUman Genome project is housed in a building that could hold several Spruce Goose's and is about 15 miles from my house. The guy who runs the project selected his OWN DNA to run the first genome decoding project. He also holds all information as a propriatary secret and demands profit from every patent they make on DNA.

The other giant in the Human Genome research is about the same age as Mr Mega profit and is from Virginia. This Virginia scientist is also very religious and believes that the science of human DNA is God given and should belong to the people free of charge.

The argument between these two gentlemen is an argument that we all should have had 20 years ago when General Electric first patented life and got the Supreme Court to go along with them.

One reason we have all the new dealy E Coli outbreaks is that GE developed many of the new strains. The reason they did so might amze you. They were trying to get cows to be able to eat waste saw dust instead of grass. A new bacteria was needed for this runinating challenge. Mnay cows exploded LITERALLY in the process of discovery. Deadly bacteria won the challenge but not GE 's profit motive to feed cows free saw dust.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

Donuel, can you provide any source material about the GE stuff.
Not that I don't believe it, I would just be interesting in reading up.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:35 PM

Interesting suject and definitely one that people have strong views on. Personally I would go with the article a way up the page that said most differences are superficial (eg, skin hair etc.).

Having said that, any idea is worth looking at. I personally wouldn't expect genetics to have any noticeable effect on IQ, but if it did, there would surely be all sorts of implications. Tricky thing to experiment on though. How on earth would you keep cultural factors, quality of education etc constant when you can't really even measure them?

Also such information would create havoc. Imagine for example that it was proved that one race had a higher IQ than another and it was genetically based. The variation within that genetic group would presumably be as big as in any other. So you would still have very clever people in the 'stupid race' and very stupid people in the 'clever race'. Very few of the clever people who had the wrong skin or nose or whatever would get jobs in areas where intelligence is perceived as important though.

On top of that, IQ doesn't really 'mean' a whole lot. There's no link to common sense. There's no link to work ethic. There's no link to monetary, romantic or any other form of success really other than academic.

At the end of the day it sounds as if this particular comment was just someone prejudiced speaking his mind, but I don't think any subject area should be taboo. You won't make society better by censoring ideas. You might if you teach people to think those ideas through and question them.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 02:40 PM

Well, the only usable definition of "intelligence"I've ever encountered was that whicj is measured by IQ tests. Which doesn't indicate a helluva lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 03:03 PM

Ok...the latest....Watson has apologized and backed off...but he was still suspended from his position. "The board of trustees at New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which Watson has led for nearly four decades, said they had suspended his administrative responsibilities pending a review of his comments."

"The biologist apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for his comments and said he was "mortified" by the words attributed to him."

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 04:15 PM

'Rick Kittles, an associate professor of genetic medicine at the University of Chicago, said Watson's remarks aren't backed by science.

"It's a rather ignorant statement from an intelligent man," said Kittles, who is also scientific director of African Ancestry Inc., which helps African-Americans trace their genetic heritage. "Unfortunately, when a Nobel laureate says Africans are less intelligent than Europeans, the average person on the street runs with it. That's the sad part."'

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

We bring good things to life

was not an accidental pun. GE started patenting life forms (except for Full term humans as ruled by the court) right before they started using that brand recognition phrase.

I bet your own google sleuthing would reveal not only the court decisions in favor of GE patents on life but also the early E coli experiments. Since many of the experiments did lead to public harm there may have been some creative deletions in the last 30 years.
PCB was a lesson hard learned by GE.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

I remember something a principal pointed out to a group of us aspiring teachers, a long time ago--that the best students are not the smartest students, they are the ones that work the hardest.

This isn't exactly a revelation-but it is true--and it means that, even if there was a discernable genetic component to IQ, and even if IQ was truly reflective of intellectual capacity, IQ isn't a very good predictor of achievement.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:41 PM

We confuse intelligence with memory as well.

I was saddened when I first read this story on the net, recalling that giant achievment of which he had been a part. As a freshman in high school I was given the chance to go to a conference for HS students on the DNA code discovery. It was the hot topic of the day and I was honored to attend. They were heroes in a new way for me.

So I found it sad initially but realized that it is much like another hero said, "Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum." Hopefully he is sincere in his latest statements.

Thanks for that link Bill.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

It isn't the results which are significant - it's the IQ test - it was devised to sort out a particular set of Humans - presumably the ones which live in the same general type of neighbourhood as the devisers.

It was intended to quantify something fairly undefinable, but which the devisers understood to be something good.

When applied to different sets of Humans living in other areas, it probably simply shows how the test fails when applied to another culture.

All IQ tests show is how good someone is at doing IQ tests.

The only thing which is common to all humans is that we are all individuals - even identical twins, sharing the same DNA, can easily be distinguished by their pet dogs and cats.

Whatever the differences are, however thay are measured, the only true measure of intellegence or stupidity might just be how easily they can be fooled into thinking that there is a way to grade the quality of a person by having them do some sort of test.

Is that a paradox?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:23 PM

No, I think Watson and Crick were a paradox..............paradox..................I'll be leaving now..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:28 PM

I like Doc Watson's "Salt Crick". One of my fave-o-rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:29 PM

Sheesh, Spaw. Talk about a guy with too much aluminium: THIS is a paradox.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:28 PM

as opposed to a pair o' doxies

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:02 PM

Some forty years ago, along with others, I was invited to submit a research paper to a volume exploring aspects of the field of Exobiology by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and prepared under the auspices of NASA. This also is considered a problematical area of research by many, since it involves speculation and research on the possibility of life elsewhere, and the forms it might take. Everything from organo-chemical evolution to identification of possible fossils in meteorites was covered.

Some advice came verbally and highly recommended from NASA scientists that might keep us to avoid being subjected to ridicule and our contributions deep-sixed. Dr. Watson could have used that advice.

Never speak to the press without clearance. If it is deemed desirable, the press may be given a written, pre-cleared statement. Never discuss your speculations. Results are for scientific gatherings and publication only, not to be given to the press or public.
The press is after a story that will sell; they have no regard for nuances, qualifications or exceptions and no respect for the person being interviewed.

I have no idea what Dr. Watson said to the reporters; obviously he said too much when he should have said nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:46 PM

Scientists are often blinded by attempts to prove preconceived theories. When objectivity is lost bad science is the result. At times these theories are very unpopular such as this one. Others such as the causes of global warming seem to be much more readily accepted, but are given birth by the same wish to prove a theory by ignoring contradicting data.
To often there is a desire to expound beyond what can be or not be proven. When we try to average a large group and compare that to the average of another large group results may be not at all as they appear.
Perhaps starvation and disease may keep one group lower than the other even though the upper percentage of the lower group may exceed the same upper percentage of the higher one. This proves nothing! I can statistically prove that the most deadly places are hospitals by showing that more people die there than most other places.
Figures don't lie but liars figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:16 AM

Robyn Williams, who broadcasts the Science Show weekly on ABC Radio National (Oz) was asked (on air in the Breakfast program, on Thursday I think) about Watson's comments. Having interviewed Watson about 15 or so times over the years, Robyn Williams made the point that Watson was well known as a person who liked to start controversy and, when challenged about having gone too far, would (apparently genuinely) appear surprised that his comments could possibly be taken to mean whatever it was that people were complaining about. "Attention seeker", "adolescent" and "puerile" were three words I recall being used to describe Watson's frequent behaviour in stirring up controversy and subsequent understanding of the reactions.

Watson's behaviour in starting the current controversy and his subsequent reactions seem to have been accurately described.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:18 AM

I remember when I was in school, everyone joked about continental drift. It was believed impossible by most scientists. Now it is the basis of our knowledge about the disposition of the continents, their positions in past ages, heat flow and some other factors in the evolution of our earth's crust.

Now we are just beginning to learn something about about the structure of life. The beliefs of Bush and 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. Undoubtedly there is much to learn, some of it will be distasteful to the ignorant or belief-bound, and certainly some going in directions we find it difficult to imagine.

Hypotheses are propounded, and as observations are gathered, they become theories. Some wither and die as they fail to fit observations, others may be promising but are held in abeyance until support does or does not develop at a future time.

Preconceptions are sometimes useful as they are often quickly tested, and disposed of as observations fail to support them; often a problem is attacked by what researchers call "the theory of multiple working prejudices" (or hypotheses if you prefer), which is a handy base from which to start an investigation. It is used more often than the old 'scientific method.' Contradictory data are a fact of investigations in their early stages, additional work may sort them out, sometimes resolving one conflict but leading to others- science is not straight line. Nothing wrong in setting up a straw man to knock down as progress is made.

Ideas and hypotheses always are ahead of the 'facts'- they are the necessary beginning.

People want a simple model of global warming; it is a complex result of interacting streams. The earth, through its history, has had strong climate fluctuations; during the Tertiary Period much of the Arctic had temperate climates and forest elements of the southeastern states. The cause was not simple, involved was the axis of inclination of the earth, the lack of mountains to interfere with air flow, ocean currents, solar radiation, etc.

Twelve thousand years ago, much of the northern plains and the prairie provinces of Canada were covered with an ice sheet. The last tiny remnants are melting now.
Our major 'ice-boxes,' Greenland and the Antarctic icecap, are melting at accelerating rates now. Is this due entirely to a shift away from an ice age to a warm period or has Man something to do with it? Ice cores show a drastic rise in greenhouse gases over the last hundred years, accompanied by a rise in man-made chemicals- surely this has significance!
Regardless of what you believe, ice is melting, sea levels are rising, animal distribution both terrestrial and marine is changing, arid and wet areas of the globe are shifting- if we plan ahead, the effects will be ameliorated. Populations may have to shift drastically or find other means of sustenance, but at least something will be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

"I have no idea what Dr. Watson said to the reporters; obviously he said too much when he should have said nothing."

               ...and with that my friend, Sherlock Holmes, stormed out of our rooms on Baker street, and left Inspector LaStrade and I standing there, staring into the fireplace.

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.].

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:39 PM

The Chitling Intelligence Test
[Adrian Dove]

Dove, A. The "Chitling" Test. From Lewis R. Aiken, Jr. (1971). Psychological and educational testings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

A "handkerchief head" is:
   
   (a) a cool cat, (b) a porter, (c) an Uncle Tom, (d) a hoddi, (e) a preacher.

Which word is most out of place here?

   (a) splib, (b) blood, (c) gray, (d) spook, (e) black.

A "gas head" is a person who has a:

   (a) fast-moving car, (b) stable of "lace," (c) "process," (d) habit of stealing cars, (e) long jail record for arson.

"Bo Diddley" is a:

   (a) game for children, (b) down-home cheap wine, (c) down-home singer, (d) new dance, (e) Moejoe call.

"Hully Gully" came from:

   (a) East Oakland, (b) Fillmore, (c) Watts, (d) Harlem, (e) Motor City.

Cheap chitlings (not the kind you purchase at a frozen food counter) will taste rubbery unless they are cooked long enough. How soon can you quit cooking them to eat and enjoy them?

   (a) 45 minutes, (b) 2 hours, (c) 24 hours, (d) 1 week (on a low flame), (e) 1 hour.

What are the "Dixie Hummingbirds?"

   (a) part of the KKK, (b) a swamp disease, (c) a modern gospel group, (d) a      Mississippi Negro paramilitary group, (e) Deacons.

If you throw the dice and 7 is showing on the top, what is facing down?

   (a) 7, (b) snake eyes, (c) boxcars, (d) little Joes, (e) 11.

"Jet" is:

   (a) an East Oakland motorcycle club, (b) one of the gangs in "West Side Story," (c) a news and gossip magazine, (d) a way of life for the very rich.

T-Bone Walker got famous for playing what?

   (a) trombone, (b) piano, (c) "T-flute," (d) guitar, (e) "hambone."

"Bird" or "Yardbird" was the "jacket" that jazz lovers from coast to coast hung on:

   (a) Lester Young, (b) Peggy Lee, (c) Benny Goodman, (d) Charlie Parker, (e) "Birdman of Alcatraz."

Hattie Mae Johnson is on the County. She has four children and her husband is now in jail for non-support, as he was unemployed and was not able to give her any money. Her welfare check is now $286 per month. Last night she went out with the highest player in town. If she got pregnant, then nine months from now how much more will her welfare check be?

   (a) $80, (b) $2, (c) $35, (d) $150, (e) $100.

"Money don't get everything it's true ."

   (a) but I don't have none and I'm so blue, (b) but what it don't get I can't use, (c) so make do with what you've got, (d) but I don't know that and neither do you.

How much does a short dog cost?

   (a) $0.15, (b) $2.00, (c) $0.35, (d) $0.05, (e) $0.86 plus tax.

Many people say that "Juneteenth" (June 19) should be made a legal holiday because this was the day when:

   (a) the slaves were freed in the USA, (b) the slaves were freed in Texas, (c) the slaves were freed in Jamaica, (d) the slaves were freed in California, (e) Martin Luther King was born, (f) Booker T. Washington died.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:41 PM

1, 2, 3, 4, _______ ?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:45 PM

PMB has made the sensible point that it's possible to be brilliant in one area, without that brilliance showing outside one's speciality.

Watson has been corrected by geneticists who point out that skin colour has no bearing on genetic relationships, and there is no such thing as 'race' in the sense he means.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:46 PM

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

Go look it up. Your local university library has any number of
texts on psychological testing and instrumentation. When you've
read the literature and noted just how much effort goes into
measuring and removing bias, you can make up your mind.

I've taken the courses, and established my belief in the worth
of the standardized tests on that basis. But I don't feel the
need to 'recite' for someone whose mind is clearly already
made up, in the absence of anything but 'everyone knows' and
perhaps a few anecdotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:02 PM

"I've taken the courses, and established my belief in the worth
of the standardized tests on that basis. But I don't feel the
need to 'recite' for someone whose mind is clearly already
made up, in the absence of anything but 'everyone knows' and
perhaps a few anecdotes."

So, you have no proof is what you're saying. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:03 PM

It has been demonstrated by research that elderly people often revert to childish racist notions they learned as a child. Do they do it because there are fewer social resrictions placed upon the elderly or are they merely senile regarding racism?



We could euthanize the elderly before they reach the racist stage but then there is the issue of people who are racist there whole life like Al Sharpton.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:15 PM

"The unreliability of IQ tests has been proved by numerous researchers. The scores may vary by as much as 15 points from one test to another,29 while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance.30 In addition, Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing.31 In one study, for example, ninety-nine school psychologists independently scored an IQ test from identical records, and came up with IQs ranging from 63 to 117 for the same person.32

In another study, Ysseldyke et al. examined the extent to which professionals were able to differentiate learning-disabled students from ordinary low achievers by examining patterns of scores on psychometric measures. Subjects were 65 school psychologists, 38 special-education teachers, and a "naive" group of 21 university students enrolled in programs unrelated to education or psychology. Provided with forms containing information on 41 test or subtest scores (including the WISC-R IQ test) of nine school-identified LD students and nine non-LD students, judges were instructed to indicate which students they believed were learning disabled and which were non-learning disabled.33

The school psychologists and special-education teachers were able to differentiate between LD students and low achievers with only 50 percent accuracy. The naive judges, who had never had more than an introductory course in education or psychology, evidenced a 75 percent hit rate.34 When Ysseldyke and Algozzine cite Scriven, they clearly show their belief that the current system is in trouble:

The pessimist says that a 12 ounce glass containing 6 ounces of drink is half empty — the optimist calls it half full. I can't say what I think the pessimist could say about research and practice in special education at this point, but I think the optimist could say that we have a wonderful opportunity to start all over!35 "

from

www.audiblox2000.com/dyslexia_dyslexic/dyslexia014.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

I'm glad some other people are seeing the flaws in the term 'African American' as a synonym for black. I'm not American so thankfully I don't encounter it often, but every time I do I wonder what went through the inventor's head. I mean what about someone born to Africaaner parents in the USA? Surely he's an African American? Ditto Algerian, Morrocan Tunisian etc. Sure black isn't an accurate description of skin colour but neither is white.

Other terms that perplex me are ideas like that of a 'black culture' (or for that matter a white, asian, or whatever else culture but I don't hear these very often.) Which one? There are loads of different cultures in sub-saharan Africa. There are quite a few scattered around the carribean. I would guess that the aborigines in Australia vary culturally from area to area as well. If we're talking within a country like America or the UK people could come from any of these in addition to the more long standing post-colonial or slavery era populations.

Slightly off topic but I thought I'd voice my views while I was here.

On the subject of the IRA bombing etc being worse than 9/11, that's a tricky one. In terms of overall number of casualties etc. the IRA have done more damage, but that was over a period of time and in numerous different locations. I don't think there was a single event that was close to being as traumatic as 9/11 during the IRA campaigns. All the same, don't throw the author out because they were approaching the subject from a different angle.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:03 PM

Somewhat off-topic:

In the 19th century and earlier, people who are now called African American used to use the referent "African" for themselves. Two examples that are still in use today are the religious affiliations AME [African Methodist Episcopal] and AMEZ [African Methodist Epistopal Zion.

For various reasons, we [African Americans] used the group & individual referents "Negro", "Colored", "Afro-American", "Black", and others. In the 1970s, "African American" became the formal referent for Americans of non-White African descent {although that "Non-White" part isn't entirely correct since many African Americans have some White ancestry}. "Black" is still used as an informal referent for this racial group {though some Black Americans have lighter skin color than some persons who are designated White}. "African American is the formal referent. Given that for so many years African Americans were socialized by mainstream American culture to be ashamed of their African ancestry, in my opinion, it is good that many of us not only acknowlege but also celebrate that ancestry.

That said, I agree that Europeans and Asians living in Africa are also Africans and that when they come to the USA {not to mention Canada and South America} they could legitimately be called "African Americans}. I also know that there are many African cultures, and at many sub-groups of African Americans who have been in the USA for generations. And I know that there are other people throughout the world who are called Black.

Confusing, yes. But it bes that way sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:12 PM

Greg, please don't confuse criticism with ignorance.

It would be naive to assume that other members of this forum have not also studied psychology or had considerable experience in the application and interpretation of IQ tests.

"....are IQ tests biased? It depends. The answer is likely "No" if you limit interpretations to IQ scores and what they are shown to be, but "Yes" if you extend interpretations to "intelligence," whatever that is."
Richard Niolon, Ph.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:00 PM

My quotes were all from the article by Gottfredsonwhich is linked on that post. The article is complete, thanks to the University of Toronto website.
The journal "American Scientist" is published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and contains a lead article on advances in a particular field, written by a leading investigator, short reports by scientific teams and individuals on their ongoing research, etc.The short papers are followed up by the authors in their full publications.

The study of intelligence and society, using the g factor, the various tests falling under the tag IQ and intelligence factors, and, increasingly, electrophysiological and other physical tests, is a rapidly growing field of study.
The general factor, g, which emerges from analysis of mental ability tests, is now used as the working definition of intelligence by most intelligence experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:46 PM

Fair enough. I suppose I was speaking from a certain level of ignorance. (As is all too common on the internet-at least I'm not alone!) All the same- aren't there better ways of making people proud of their heritage? Also, isn't it ignoring to a certain extent the changes since the black population left Africa? I mean, musically speaking for example jazz, gospel, blues, rap and quite a few other genres and sub-genres are not African. (Though African music may have played a big part in how they came to be.) Anyway, back to the yer man Watson. Have any main-stream scientists supported his claims? Or even parts of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'd love to see Juneteenth added as a federal holiday!

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:33 PM

"Anyway, back to the yer man Watson. Have any main-stream scientists supported his claims? Or even parts of them?"


                     If any mainstream scientists had an inkling that Watson might have some kind of a vague point, does anybody think he/she would say anything that could be picked up by the media?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:38 PM

Q -

"In the heat of the debate:"

The journal "American Scientist" is published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and contains a lead article on advances in a particular field, written by a leading investigator, short reports by scientific teams and individuals on their ongoing research, etc.The short papers are followed up by the authors in their full publications.

This is an accurate description of Scientific American, which is where the Gottfred article appeared.

"Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., has been bringing its readers unique insights about developments in science and technology for more than 150 years.

"SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a member of a distinguished international publishing enterprise -- Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH."

While it is not a "peer reviewed professional journal" "Scientific American draws much of its content from such sources, and is respected as a reliable reporter on mainstream science to the general public. It is, however, a "journalistic product" rather than a "scientific journal" in the traditional sense.

The principal magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science is, I believe, called just Science.

The American Scientist magazine is published by "Sigma Xi: The Scientific Research Society." Some, but not all articles are "peer reviewed" prior to publication, and those that are not are clearly identified.

Any of the three would be a credible source, but in this case the article does come from Scientific American.

This is not an argument with the article. I've read it and find it contains much useful information. I've also checked some of the references it cites, and my assessment is that it is a "worthy input" here.

I'd suggest further, that some who've already commented about it should read it first. It's not all that long, although there are a couple of "big words" in it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:02 PM

Watson's basic point, that intelligence may vary by group, is understood, and acceptance implied in many papers. His point rests on the assumption that intelligence has a biological basis, in particular one that operates along classical genetic lines." *
An article by Brandon Keim in "Wired Science" mentions the following papers:
Scientific American- An article in the Journal of Biosocial Science supports the notion that Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically disposed to higher intelligence (Includes Einstein, Mahler, Freud).
CNN News- Scientists at Princeton create a genetically engineered 'smart mouse.'
PHYSORG.com- Geneticists at Washington Univ. School of Medicine St. Louis (a Jesuit school) confirm association of gene CHRM2 with performance IQ.
New York Times- Nicholas Wade; Dr. Robert Plomin, in journal Psychological Science, "Newly Found Gene May Be Key to High IQ."
Human Molecular Genetics journal, Bruce Lahn, "Key gene found for Evolution of Human Intelligence."

*Many more references- see article Intelligence by Race- Watson

The article goes on, however, to refute Watson, and logically with regard to race, largely because so far only statistical data are supportive, but it seems to me lack of data is the real reason for rejection of the hypothesis that there are racial differences in intelligence.


Of course I have sometimes thought that my lack of genius was the result of dilution of my Irish ancestry by the English.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM

T'was the Guinness, Q, the Guinness.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:27 AM

He's right though. Orientals are the smartest and have the shortest whizzers. White people are in the middle. Africans aren't the smartest but have the longest whizzers.

He's not a racist. It's PC that's done him in--and those who practice it.

It's caused by global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 03:22 PM

Africans only have the longest whatevers when it's limp, though. Same size when erect. No (or less) shrinkage...

And what would be the matter with the people of different physiology through the geographical isolating effects of evolution to have evolved different intelligences?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 03:45 PM

Different intelligences, depending on environmental factores (ie: a need to know) is quite different than implying that one type of intelligence is better than another. Like I said, IQ only determines your ability to do well in school.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:51 PM

I think the argument that there's no reason to believe people in different areas do worse or better in IQ tests is fairly believable. The issue is whether it's about cultural differences, educational ones, genetic ones, even maybe some others. Watson's great 'appeal to reason' based on a couple of his friends experiences with black employees suggests that he might be a tad biased on the issue. That's my understanding anyway. (That was understatement by the way in case anyone missed it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 10:35 PM

Like I said, IQ only determines your ability to do well in school.

IQ is a measurement of horsepower, not performance. Many people with high IQs do poorly in school because they quickly lose interest in the subject matter and pace. They often spend their time looking out the window and thinking about other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 10:40 PM

I think that jazz, blues, and other sorts of african-derived music reflect a high level of abstract reasoning--and intellectual quickness, too. A lot of non-african-derived sorts can't do it--many can't even hear it---what does that tell us, boys and girls?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 12:46 AM

fumblefingers - Thats why I said it only measures your ability ...

Just because you're able doesn't mean you will.

I would also like to make sure that people understand that education and schooling are two different things.

IQ does not measure your ability to learn in other environments.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 02:35 PM

Ho hum. Regardless of what the studies show, no one will shift their opinion.
Also obvious that understanding of G and IQ tests is frozen in the days of Binet.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Rowan
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:59 PM

Robert J Sternberg, who is listed as "Dean of School in Arts and Sciences & professor of Psychology at Tufts University", wrote a commentary piece on Watson's comments and the responses to them in New Scientist No. 2627, 27 Oct 07 (p24).

After giving a brief description of differing components of intelligence Sternberg wrote "Skin colour correlates only weakly with genetic differentiations" and "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one ...[deriving] from people's desire to classify."

I hope nobody interpreted my comments about Scientific American as "dismissive". I agree with JiK's description of it and have sought it out whenever I've wanted a succinct summary of a field; I still remember the effect of September 1964 (?) issue on plate tectonics as the final nail in the coffin of "land bridges explain everything". But when trying to get students to understand the dynamic state of our comprehension of various fields (try homonin evolution), the students found Scientific American gave an authoritative tone while New Scientist articles (necessarily shorter in a weekly) gave more of the cut and thrust of debate. The Sternberg piece isn't even an article, but commentary and, presumably, only a spur to further investigation.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:20 PM

I don't have time to do any serious reading or thinking about Watson's present remarks.

I do want to say that I read Watson's 'Double Helix' when it was a new book, and he struck me as a shallow and mean-spirited person. There is no doubt that he is intelligent. He also displayed an enjoyable, malicious wit, but he seemed to lack empathy and wisdom.

When it comes to studying life, he should probably stick to molecules.

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:27 PM

No one here has yet quoted the good doctor. He said in his apology that there is no scientific evidence for his assertion. That outta close the matter, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Racism of top scientist?
From: Trevor
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 04:32 AM

I don't know whether anybody's said this already but it occurs to me that the question isn't so much about how intelligent we are, more about how we are intelligent.Can't remember whether that's Goleman- or Gardner-speak, but for me its about some of us finding it relatively easy to understand how a flower grows but immensely difficult for us to understand and use a musical instrument. For others music might be easy but playing football is difficult. So what are we going to measure?