Dr. James Watson and Racism

[ParanoiA]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/18/science.race/index.html

 

Just wondering what you all thought of this guy. I don't know anything about him, really. Is this race remark a big deal in Europe?

 

Seems like the comments I've read debunking his comments aren't really substantive - rather sound more like people who are concerned with the downstream implications rather than the accuracy of his statement.

 

"gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."

 

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense."

 

"He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.

 

"It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices," Lammy told CNN.

 

But is it really irrational? How is he wrong?

 

Don't misunderstand, I don't think he's right. I just want the meat and potatoes that proves him wrong. Anyone?

[hotcommodity]

You can't really expect any institution to publicly back what Dr. Watson is saying, no institution is interested in having protestors at their doors. Chances are he wouldn't have declared this theory if there was any scientific argument that could readily challenge his belief. If he's not given a chance to explain his theory any time soon, it will probably take longer to debunk.

[CDarwin]

Don't misunderstand, I don't think he's right. I just want the meat and potatoes that proves him wrong. Anyone?

 

He said he wonders about the economic future of Africa because they aren't as smart as we are... Where's any evidence that's right?

 

Africa's in the state it's in because European powers imposed their politics forcefully on cultures that had no way to cope with them; thus we get dictators and ethnic conflict in states whose boundaries have no more meaning than "this is as far as X European power was able to conquer 200 years ago." There's no substantial evidence that there's any link between race and intelligence; we've discussed that.

 

What evidence did Watson even cite? Black people are hard to work with? There's a serious scientific claim.

 

I feel sorry for the old guy, but you can't defend his statements on that basis at least. Maybe there's some context we don't know about.

[Sisyphus]

Dunno why this is in the politics forum, exactly, but anyway, I'll withhold judgment until I know more. The article didn't say whether his opinion is based on research or what. It makes it sound like he thinks black people are stupid because Africa is messed up and he's had some difficult employees. If that's in fact the case, then yeah, it's just racism.

 

Actually, I do have an inkling why it's in this forum. You didn't hear about it from Rush Limbaugh (like I did), did you? The "this guy, who apparently won a nobel prize!" part made me laugh. Who hasn't heard of Watson and Crick?

[DrDNA]

I just chalked it up to the ramblings of a (possibly) senile, tired, old man. I felt kind of sorry for him when I heard it. What a fall from grace...its a long way to the bottom from the top.

 

But a lot of people from his generation have antiquated ideas about race that you might be shocked at. The world he grew up in was quite different than the one you see today.

 

Dunno why this is in the politics forum, exactly, but anyway, I'll withhold judgment until I know more.

 

Seems appropriate. Where do you believe that it should be?

[Sisyphus]

Seems appropriate. Where do you believe that it should be?

 

Genetics?

[ParanoiA]

Actually, I do have an inkling why it's in this forum. You didn't hear about it from Rush Limbaugh (like I did), did you? The "this guy, who apparently won a nobel prize!" part made me laugh. Who hasn't heard of Watson and Crick?

 

Understandable presumption, but no actually, I didn't hear it from Rush. I saw it on Fox news and then looked to see if it was on the other network sites.

 

I don't know, I guess I thought politics sounded close enough.

[Pangloss]

LOL! That does sound like something Rush Limbaugh would say! Very funny -- thanks for mentioning that. Not exactly lighting intellectual fires these days, is he? (grin)

 

I don't know enough about this either, but just glancing at the article I'm troubled by the fact that Watson's not just saying that black people are intellectually inferior (due to, say, bad upbringing, which I think we all understand can adversely affect ANY person, but which is reportedly something that the African American community is struggling with on average more than the white community these days (e.g. 70% born to single moms)), but because their genetic makeup doesn't ALLOW them to become equal. That's something that I'd have to see some pretty hard evidence for, and at first blush just sounds like Phrenology 2.0. (It also sounds pretty familiar, like something we've pondered and rejected on scientific grounds before.)

 

Even more disconcerting is his "gloominess" over public policy not reflecting his conclusions. Gee, sorry doc, we'll get right on that. NOT.

[ParanoiA]

The article didn't say whether his opinion is based on research or what. It makes it sound like he thinks black people are stupid because Africa is messed up and he's had some difficult employees. If that's in fact the case, then yeah, it's just racism.

 

Well, there's his little blurb here:

 

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper 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."

 

Not exactly the scientific answer I was looking for, but he seems to suggest that something he's interpreting as evidence backs his claim. I'm wondering what that is.

[Fred56]

Why does he think Africans are "less smart"? Does he look into Africa's history at all? I mean, centuries of enforced displacement (slavery), economic mismanagement, and generally Western Empire-building indifference couldn't have anything to do with it, right?

[ParanoiA]

I don't know enough about this either, but just glancing at the article I'm troubled by the fact that Watson's not just saying that black people are intellectually inferior (due to, say, bad upbringing, which I think we all understand can adversely affect ANY person, but which is reportedly something that the African American community is struggling with on average more than the white community these days (e.g. 70% born to single moms)), but because their genetic makeup doesn't ALLOW them to become equal.

 

See, he didn't say equal in worth or value, he said specifically intelligence. This is what I mean by charging into value judgements and downstream implications over objectivity. That's suspicious to me. Why not just immediately rebutt with the facts that debunk this "testing"? Isn't that how you'd rebutt a flat earther?

 

The Bell Curve; that was proven wrong wasn't it? Any others?

[DrDNA]

LOL! That does sound like something Rush Limbaugh would say! Very funny -- thanks for mentioning that. Not exactly lighting intellectual fires these days, is he? (grin)

 

In all fairness, by his own admission, half his brain is tied behind his back.....or is it half his brain is shoved up his back side? Ah, who can tell the difference anyway?

 

 

I wish that a predominantly African/American US university would quickly invite Watson to come give a talk...watching that scene unfold would be worth a $50 pay per view charge.

[PhDP]

Of course Africans are not as smart as we are, and Floridians are not as smart as New Yorkers, it's all about money, health, climate (cold climate = higher average IQ) and other factors...

 

However, there's little evidence that "blacks" have lower IQ because of their genes, Watson, of all people, should know this. All the studies in which environmental factors were neutralized failed to prove any significant difference between the average IQ of "blacks" and "whites"l

[DrDNA]

On a positive note, I hear that the Klan is looking for new membership.

 

 

EDIT:

Well, I think he is sorry....

Quote:

"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.

 

"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's publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not address whether Watson was suggesting he was misquoted. "You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid," she said.""

End Quote.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist

[ecoli]

he was just suspended from Cold Spring Harbor...

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-liwats1019,0,3326067.story?track=rss

 

 

I heard him give a speech there once. Well, really it was an introduction to somebody else's research. My dad and I talked to him afterwards and he confessed he didn't really understand all of what her (the other scientist's) research was about.

 

Maybe current scientific understanding has surpassed him by now. It's just sad, really.

[Pangloss]

Just as an amusing aside, something tells me that Dr. Watson won't be invited to speak at Columbia University any time soon.

 

That just wouldn't be... you know.

 

Floridians are not as smart as New Yorkers

 

Um, Phil, I hate to break it to you, but Floridians ARE New Yorkers.

 

 

"Yeah my parents just moved to Florida. They didn't want to, but, well, you know, they turned 65 and that's the law!"

 

-- Jerry Seinfeld

[john5746]

However, there's little evidence that "blacks" have lower IQ because of their genes, Watson, of all people, should know this. All the studies in which environmental factors were neutralized failed to prove any significant difference between the average IQ of "blacks" and "whites"l

 

Please share some sources, because I would like to see them. I have a gut feeling that there is truth to his assertion. I know that it is racist by definition, but if it is truth, so be it. I know America has the history of segregation and that the poor black community unfortunately has some serious social ills in the present. But, especially in math, I see so much evidence in school reports, SAT's etc that Asians > Whites > Blacks on Math scores. I know about social problems and I am aware of the study that shows stereotypes tend to be self fulfilling.

 

Sam Harris is fond of saying that there is no taboo like religion to stop discussion, but racial differences are worse, if it involves a disadvantaged race. If you even bring it up as a hypothesis, you are labeled a racist and out of your mind. But if you constantly hear about how there are too few blacks in this industry or that and it is all due to racism, you have to really question this thinking. Do we really expect to have equal representation of Asians in the NBA anytime soon? Is it because of racism that asians and whites can't jump? I know that race gets really blurry, etc. and that having this knowledge probably won't bring any desirable solution. But, at the very least, I don't attribute all racial and gender differences in occupations as only social in nature. That may be the main barrier presently, but that doesn't mean we need to have affirmitive action forever.

[john5746]

Looks like this guy is going to retire - that is good. My previous post was directed more to possible genetic differences between races that may influence IQ. His comments were racists - it is obvious that he would be reluctant to employ any black person.

 

Even if the IQ/race assertion were found true, there would be no way to know or no reason to treat individuals differently. If he simply made a statement that there might be a difference, then I would support him, but to then suggest ALL of them don't perform as well in the office - that's over the line.

[DrDNA]

To be clear, IQ is based on a culturally biased test. It is NOT the same thing as intelligence, though many people confuse the two terms and/or use them interchangably.

 

I was hoping and praying that Dr Watson used the term IQ, so when I first heard about this, I checked. Unfortunately, from what I read, he apparently used the term "intelligence".

[insane_alien]

umm how are IQ tests culturaly biased? last time i took one i didn't see anything that looked culture dependant, just putting shapes in the right order and other logical problems. don't remember any part that would be dependant on your ancestry.

[iNow]

umm how are IQ tests culturaly biased? last time i took one i didn't see anything that looked culture dependant, just putting shapes in the right order and other logical problems. don't remember any part that would be dependant on your ancestry.

 

It's been a controversy for quite some time. What the test measures is not applicable to global populations, and is biased toward certain skills and backgrounds.

 

 

http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Controversy-1200.html

The controversy over intelligence quotient (IQ) tests (also called cognitive ability tests), what they measure, and what this means for society has not abated since their initial development by Alfred Binet.

 

IQ tests rely largely upon Symbolic Logic (etc.) as a means to scoring, and as Symbolic Logic is not inherently synonymous with intelligence, the question remains as to exactly what is being measured via such tests. For instance, it is feasible that someone could possess a prodigious wealth of emotional intelligence while being simultaneously unable to comprehend the significance of sequentially arranged shapes. Additionally, someone who cannot read would be at a significant disadvantage on an IQ test, though illiteracy is not indicative of unintelligence. Measurements of other forms of "intelligence" have been proposed to augment the current IQ Testing Methodology, though such alternative measurements may also be a subject of debate.

 

Some key issues in the debate include defining intelligence itself (see general intelligence factor) and the political ramification of findings.

 

Some proponents of IQ testing argue that lower scores by certain groups justify cutting back on welfare and programs like Head Start and New Deal. Many proponents believe different IQ scores demonstrate that power and wealth will always be distributed unequally. Critics claim that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, but rather a specific skill set valued by those who create IQ tests.

 

Various statistical studies have reported that income level, education level, nutrition level, race, and sex all correlate with IQ scores, but what this means is debated.

 

Some researchers have concluded from twin studies and adoption studies that IQ has high heritability, and this is often interpreted by the general public as meaning that there is an immutable genetic factor affecting or determining intelligence. This hereditarian interpretation fuels much of the controversy over books such as The Bell Curve, which claimed that various racial groups have lower or higher group intelligence than other racial and ethnic groups (East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, according to The Bell Curve, are slightly more intelligent than generic whites, whereas blacks have slightly lower IQs) and suggested changing public policy as a result of these findings.

 

The degree to which nature versus nurture influences the development of human traits (especially intelligence) is one of the most intractable scholarly controversies of modern times.

[DrDNA]

Nicely put iNow.

I also found this which I thought was interesting:

 

Quote:

"What is I.Q.?

I.Q. is a largely effective method of ranking people according to their analytic, or "academic," intelligence. I.Q. scores are highly predictive of how well children will do throughout their school career, and how they will score on other academic tests. The scores also correlate moderately well with future social status and income (Jencks, 1979; APA, 1995).

 

What do I.Q. tests measure?

I.Q. tests measure a collection of abilities collectively known as "symbolic logic." The most well known test, Stanford-Binet 5, specifically measures Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. All I.Q. tests are restricted to pencil-and-paper and do not measure creativity, or what some psychologists call "emotional intelligence" or "practical intelligence."

..............

.............................

What do I.Q. tests miss?

(How much time do you have?)

 

Harvard's Howard Gardner: "The tasks featured in the I.Q. test are decidedly microscopic, are often unrelated to one another, and . . . are remote, in many cases, from everyday life. They rely heavily upon language and upon a person's skill in defining words, in knowing fact about the world, in finding connections (and differences) among verbal concepts . . . . An individual can lose his entire frontal lobes, in the process becoming a radically different person, unable to display any initiative or to solve new problems -- and yet may continue to exhibit an I.Q. close to genius level. Moreover, the intelligence test reveals little about an indivdual's potential for further growth." (Frames of Mind, p. 18).

 

Yale's Robert Sternberg, on the domain of "practical intelligence" not measured by intelligence tests: I.Q. tests "tend to (a) have been formulated by other people, (b) be clearly defined, © come with all the information needed to solve them, (d) have only a single right answer, which can be reached by only a single method, (e) be disembodied from ordinary experience, and (f) have little or no intrinsic interest. Practical problems, in contrast, tend to (a) require problem recognition and formulation, (b) be poorly defined, © require information seeking, (d) have various acceptable solutions, (e) be embedded in and require prior everyday experience, and (f) require motivation and personal involvement." (1995 APA report).

 

Also:

- I.Q. scores have a weak correlation with nonacademic intelligence and with performance in everyday tasks in other cultures. (Miller, p. 292).

- I.Q. scores do not identify the most successful and creative artists or scientists (Taylor, 1975, pp.1-36).

- Brazilian street children who have failed math in school can still be savvy in street trades -- they use methods altogether different from pencil-and-paper math. (Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann, 1985). (Similar results with California shoppers (Lave, 1988) and harness race wagerers (Ceci and Liker, 1986)

- I.Q. does not distinguish the best chess players from others... (Doll & Mayr, 1987)

 

***

 

In his op-ed, Murray equates "I.Q." with "intelligence," which is strongly misleading. He then asserts:

- "Our ability to improve the academic accomplishment of students in the lower half of the distribution of intelligence is severely limited. It is a matter of ceilings."

- "We can hope to raise [the grade of a boy with an I.Q. slightly below 100]. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity...[he is] not smart enough."

- "Even the best schools under the best conditions cannot repeal the limits on achievement set by limits on intelligence."

 

Each of these statements is demonstrably false and spreads a dramatically simplified and distorted view of human intelligence. Policy goals aside, it is critical that we present as complete a picture as the current evidence allows."

End Quote.

http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2007/01/what_is_iq.html

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it is fair to say that most of our intelligence is due to genetics. If you disagree with that, feel free to show me a monkey with even close to the intelligence of an average human. It is therefore likely that at least some of the difference in intelligence between humans is due to genetics, but it is not clear how much.

[iNow]

I guess that depends on how you define "intelligence."