BS: Racism of top scientist?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:10 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:28 PM

as opposed to a pair o' doxies

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?