Scientific racism is alive and well... Unfortunately

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Scientific racism is alive and well... Unfortunately

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
By Cahal Milmo
Published: 17 October 2007

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".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "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."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

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

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ ... 067222.ece

I fully expect to get a debate, or at least a schit throwing contest, between the white supremacists on this board and everyone else. If that doesn't happen I'll settle for intelligent discussion or flames directed at Dr. Watson.

Dude has some ass backwards ideas.
..........................................................




I remember reading about him in highschool biology

Watson and Crick right? Revolutionized genetic science(it's been a while, i forgot how).

I know Watson is a big promoter of Eugenics.


I wonder, does he believe human beings are products of their surroundings or their genetic make up? :roll:



Here is something interesting someone wrote on this:

"He hasn't found the gene for intelligence yet? So why is he making any statements on it?

If he had found it, he wouldn't get nearly as much of a negative reaction among scientists. But he's pulling ##### out of his ass (literally)."

"It's sad that someone who did so much could say something so stupid. (Like my alliteration of "so"?) One of my professors wasn't as fond of him and thought the dude was always a showboat and a "tell all" for the media. He likes making a splash.

Not all tests have found racial differences in intelligence, and the better ones that have only show a minor variation. By the same logic though, Jews, Asians, and Indians, (India Indians), should be our overlords, because they score higher than whites on intelligence tests. To attribute the success of various nations to their genetics is like attributing obesity to what cereal you eat."





He's a brilliant man. One of the greatest scientists of the century.

But, i don't agree with this.
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

He's always had soem "different" ideas that plays to the closed minded. :
  • He suggests a link between skin-color and sex drive - dark-skinned people have more libido
  • He suggests that if a gene for homosexuality were, discovered, women ought to have the choice of aborting a homosexual fetus
  • He says that he doesn't hire fat people
Just like everyone else, the man is entitled to his opinion. Doesn't mean you have to agree. The fact that you and I might consider him a jerk doesn't diminish his scientific discovery. Oh well.

Gene
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

Gene DeMambro wrote: Just like everyone else, the man is entitled to his opinion. Doesn't mean you have to agree. The fact that you and I might consider him a jerk doesn't diminish his scientific discovery.
Conversely, his scientific discovery doesn't imply that you need give any extra weight to his social, political, or cultural opinions, thinly disguised as "scientific" though they may be.
Mike
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Wow. Interesting comments. All he needs now is evidence. When has there been a "fair" race to race intelligence test? You can show that whites are stupider than whites by comparing Catholics and Prostestants in Ireland, where there is a 15 point gap in averages--same as between races. Must be their race.
--Ian
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

It's a touchy topic and one that seems to be politically incorrect even to address..

IMO there are different kinds of intelligence and I would not assume all people from all over the planet would have the same kinds of intelligence.. Vast differences in culture and how the mind was/is used to survive would seem to make this a given--differences in abilities based on culture and vise versa. The question is what is intelligence and how can it be measured or classified..

I had seen some stuff from a guy named Rushton(sp?) no idea if he is regarded as legit or not.. I read something about studies he did on motor coordination, and reportedly how most African children developed higher motor skills sooner than most Caucasian children and I think it also said that Caucasians developed faster than most Asians.. Again I have no idea if this was a "valid" study but it's very tough to determine what is true or not when the topic is so taboo..

IMO any honest data should be taken at face value rather than how it plays from a PC standpoint..
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
Sochin
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Victoria BC
Contact:

Post by Sochin »

First we must determine if Cahal Milmo got the story right and the editors did not sensationalize the story to gain readership.

From direct experience with the media, I remain sceptical that anything in a newspaper has any real value.

Then we must determine if a priori racist ideas coloured his interpretations of the data ( all data must be interpreted) or if a realistic interpretation is being smokescreened by reverse racist backlash.

While I've met too many stupid whites and smart blacks to take this at face value, I hate knee jerk responses just because colour is involved. They are at best, counterproductive to racial acceptance.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Don't forget too....

To say africans do not do as well on testing should be looked at like this:

Of COARSE they won't do as well.

They barely have a stable building to have a school, let alone one with quality.


Drop watson off in the middle of africa, with a group of africans the same age.

Who do think will have an easier time surviving?

Different skills.




"IQ tests test the logic portion of the brain. The logic portion of the brain is developed by higher mathematics training. The Asian culture puts a great deal of emphasis on doing well in math, that is a reason for thier math supieriority. Then we have the american black culture. per capita, more blacks are in poverty than asians and so they put emphisis on other things in life. Thus they have lower IQ scores than asians. And it's even more so in africa it self."


Alot of people will say blacks are better athletes then whites or other races.

Really? Or are they culturally conditioned to believe it, or go for it?

"Kenyans are better runners because Kenyans run everywhere. From childhood they run everywhere, it's a cultural thing. Of course they're going to run faster than everyone else.

Poverty is actually the factor in sports ability. Look at boxing, 1800-1930(?) Irish immigrants and blacks are the poor group, they dominate boxing. 1930-1960 Italians and Blacks are poor, they dominate boxing. 1960-1990 white gets rich, blacks are poor they dominate boxing. 1990-Present, Blacks and Hispanics are poor, they dominate boxing."



Look at the sheer number of Brazilians in MMA.

They arn't naturally inclined to it, just that what boxing is in america for blacks, Vale Tudo is for Brazilians
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Stupid Black Man
Image

Stupid White Man
Image

Stupid Black Men
Image

Stupid White Men
Image

Blacks
Image

Whites

Image



Any Questions?


Found this.

Thought it was funny. :lol:
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

You are right, Mike. The Nobel is not a Man of the Year award. It's an award for discovering something. And just because he discovered the double helix of DNA, doesn't mean he's good at anything else. I guess you and I think alike on this one. As for me, I pay him no mind.

Cheers,
Gene
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Gene DeMambro wrote:You are right, Mike. The Nobel is not a Man of the Year award. It's an award for discovering something. And just because he discovered the double helix of DNA, doesn't mean he's good at anything else. I guess you and I think alike on this one. As for me, I pay him no mind.

Cheers,
Gene
Still, it's kind of shocking, usually these men, though are not awarded for being good Samaritans, are pretty smart and informed.

I guess thats why i think it's so shocking.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

I particularly enjoyed the spelling mistakes in this one--and the Durex ad.

"They barely have a stable building to have a school, let alone one with quality."

He didn't say AFRICANS weren't as clever, he made the distinction by race. So that applies to someone of African ancestry going to a school in the OC with a marble bathroom.

"Drop watson off in the middle of africa, with a group of africans the same age. Who do think will have an easier time surviving? Different skills."

False equality, I say. Saying blacks are better at hunting on safari and whites do better in calculus is not exactly praise. It's inflammatory to suggest black people can't pass more standard tests of intelligence even if we create a substitute test for them. If a Nobel laureate wants to say Africa isn't doing well because of heritable differences in intelligence, there had better be some reliable evidence.

There just aren't reliable data on this matter because you can't separate out the influence of all the other factors, namely, the environment / upbringing. It's even hard to say what races are, since they have no real distinguishing features, so how do you define study populations? Lastly, there's not much of a reason to establish there is a real difference--let's say you were hiring and had identical, 1 black, 1 white applicants. You couldn't use an IQ gap between races to choose because even if the peaks of the bell curves are legitimately offset, there is such overlap that you wouldn't know who the better candidate is just by looking at them. It would be such a poor test that you'd always be better off, well, doing an IQ test if that's what you cared about.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The whole subject gets me irritated.

There are differences between racial groups. There are differences within racial groups.

For example... West Africans have more fast twitch muscle, and East Africans (e.g. Kenyans) have more slow twitch muscle. This is why you see people with West African heritage consistently at the finish line in the Olympic 100 meter race, whereas you often see East Africans do well in the Marathon.

Genetic variability is our strength as a species. It ensures survival should there be catastrophic environmental changes.

Vive la difference! And get over it, world.

- Bill
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Bill Glasheen wrote:The whole subject gets me irritated.

There are differences between racial groups. There are differences within racial groups.

For example... West Africans have more fast twitch muscle, and East Africans (e.g. Kenyans) have more slow twitch muscle. This is why you see people with West African heritage consistently at the finish line in the Olympic 100 meter race, whereas you often see East Africans do well in the Marathon.

Genetic variability is our strength as a species. It ensures survival should there be catastrophic environmental changes.

Vive la difference! And get over it, world.

- Bill

But thats makes sense. Hell how many different types of whites are there? How much variation in them? Different types of asians, different types of south asians.....

I have worked with blacks with the same size and weight as me whom i could tear to pieces.

And im not that athletic.

Of coarse, it's vice versa as well but hey.
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Watson said he was sorry for the comments in an appearance at the Royal Society in London.

"I am mortified about what has happened," he told a group of scientists and journalists. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways 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."

Watson, who shared his Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins, has long been on record as saying there is a genetic basis for intelligence -- something undisputed by other scientists. But experts deny there is any such thing as race on a genetic level.
No such thing as race on a genetic level?
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Can't tell if Watson has just become too old to make sense or its just a case of a guy being really smart in one area and really dumb in another.

The whole "nature or nurtue" debate has been going on pretty much forever......we are not going to solve it here.

At the genetic level there is only one "race" and that is "human."

Even WITHIN titular "racial" groups the vast difference's in individuals of the SAME ethnic group.....heck often wide difference in the same FAMILY.........tend to render distinctions such as "intellegence"----if one could come up with defination of what exactly that might be----essentially meaningless over the broad range of humanity.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”