Nobel Winner Called Racist

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

Well said. People are trying to say, despite the fact that one group has less of a foundation in modern thoughts and socio-economic aptitude, they should perform the same as others. When they don't then they label them as stupid. I don't understand why people even discuss these things when they know their "evidence" is incredibly unscientific and laced with prejudices. Could it be a sense of insecurity? I can't think of any other reason.

Be very careful. To extend down that line of reasoning very far will take you to the realization that some people hate themselves and that can lead to the disastrous realization that what is true of some people is true for all, and that will, of course, also mean you. Don't let that happen because nobody wants to know that salvation requires finding out how you feel. Horror of horrors, no no no, don't make me remember.

 

[Narmer]

Racist scientist suspended from his lab.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

Well said. People are trying to say, despite the fact that one group has less of a foundation in modern thoughts and socio-economic aptitude, they should perform the same as others. When they don't then they label them as stupid. I don't understand why people even discuss these things when they know their "evidence" is incredibly unscientific and laced with prejudices. Could it be a sense of insecurity? I can't think of any other reason.

Be very careful. To extend down that line of reasoning very far will take you to the realization that some people hate themselves and that can lead to the disastrous realization that what is true of some people is true for all, and that will, of course, also mean you. Don't let that happen because nobody wants to know that salvation requires finding out how you feel. Horror of horrors, no no no, don't make me remember.

:laugh: Aside from insecurity, we also have the usage of semantics. When Europeans kills one group of tribes in order to promote another, Europeans call it holocaust or simply war. When Africans or others do it, it's called tribal warfare. The irony of all this is that "more intelligent" men have found better and better way to kill themselves and their environment while seeking materialistic things to justify their hallow lives. I wrote a paper on this last year in which man's natural enemy is himself.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

Pure white supremacist bullshit! First of all, The creators of Ancient Egypt were black. here you can see many images of how they viewed themselves. But some those are only stylized. Egypt was probably the first multicultural nation, you can look at as many statues and pictures your want and for every "white egyptian" you will get about literally about 500-1000 black ones. I have been there. A Black face on a Lion in Africa doesn't represent Mediterranean people. The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa. Whites folks are not indigenous to Africa. Any respectable historian shows their origin of south of the sahara (THe place where they claimed they were from) Then you have DMT, and ancient Ethiopia, later Axum. Further south you have Ancient Zimbabwe, to the west your had Timbuktu, Ancient Ghana, the Dogon, ancient Mali etc. What you speak of is NOT truth. Just because you dont know about African cultures and Ancient cities dont meant they never existed. How arrogant authority you say "Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas." All false, what complete and utter garbage. Your knowledge of world history is garbage. Like "NARMER" stated the knowledge of Africans ran laps around pretty much they entire globe while Europe specifically was "labeled as Barbarians" Read what the Ancient peoples though of the Egyptians and the "Ethiopians."

And i dont know If anyone read it but here is the truth in so called "black and white"

According to the London Daily Times ?Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.?[15] In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologists including John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the U.S., including whites and Asians.

The same is true of other countries in Europe. And it has been like this for the last few years in the US. Why are African Americans at a lower level than their african brothers? What are the different histories between a African Immigrant and an African Americans in the US? IQ tests are borderline garbage. I read a study only yesterday that showed 60 different IQ testers rating the SAME test with a span of mid 70's to about 115.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I think you should read up on African history.

I really love how people try to be some expert on history and then point to factors that really don't matter in the general scheme of things.

Then, you have another group of people who seem to think that physical attributes are the same as intellectual ones and that the analogies apply.

Finally, both of those groups seem to think that natural born talents will manifest themselves despite the lack of training. They seem to think that if you take a Cheetah, put it, from birth, into a 2'x2' box and not let it run, that it will run the *same* speed as an uncaged cheetah.

Just the same, they seem to think that if you take the brightest person in the world, not expose them to anything but a 5'x5' wood shack in a desert where their only training is plowing a simple field and trying to survive day to day, that they will be able to use their natural talent.

Really, if you go to Africa and try to interview some poor person who doesn't even understand the concept of a box and try to get them to take a test involving boxes, how the hell do you think they will do?

Plain and simple, you guys are not intelligent. You are, on average, stupid. That's because you lack the basic ability to understand that nuture plays an equally, if not more important roll in developing natural talent than the mere existence of natural talent. As I mentioned before, let me know your physical attributes and your familial lines and I will label them wholesale, as stupid people.

From reading your replies to CycloWizard's posts, I'd say you have a severe problem with reading comprehension, or lack thereof.

Genes affect our physiology, that much we can agree on, yes?
Why wouldn't they affect our intelligence as well?
That's not denying that nurture(yes, there are two r's in nurture) plays a more important role, it's simply a very reasonable assumption.
Much like Cyclo, I have no idea if there are any genetic differences in intelligence(nor do I care), and if there are, in whose favour they are, but I think it's very reasonable to suspect there might be.

You're being way too emotional about this.

I have no problems with reading comprehension, thank you. Somehow I made it through various levels of education and job experience with my apparently limited skills.

Genes affect all attributes of an individual. However, without the social structure the development of the natural attributes will inhibit exibition of those attrivutes. This is the key, you can take the smartest people. The fastest, strongest, most agile and remove *all* ability to train those talents and those talents will be completely wasted.

Remove all of the social structure in this country, public schooling, secondary education, books, and turn *every* person into a poor, decentralized, Somalian, and then you think we will score high compared to England?

Finally, I love how you can somehow devine emotions based upon text. Isn't that just awesome, now you know what I am feeling by what I type. Perhaps you should be a bit more analytical and understand the differences between nature and nuture and understand that without nuture, nature is wasted. Without nature nuture doesn't matter.

Attributing *all* of Africa's IQ situations to nature is idiotic and lacks any foundation in psychology, sociology, or anthropology.

People sit around saying that these fields are "soft" sciences, thinking that "hard" sciences such as engineering or other math based studies are so much better. They try to analyze just based upon measurable variables without even looking at the qualitative factors that exist. They fail at looking at all variables, their multiple regression's overall R^2 sucks ass. Why? Because they cannot grasp something that isn't, as a whole, measurable. Nuture.

This is where I am a bit different. I have a BS in Psychology, a BS in history, and a minor in sociology. I also have an MBA in finance and I am a CFA charterholder. I work multi-variable regressions and other statistical quant. analysis all day. I have a good balance of qualitative and quantitative abilities.

Don't think I am emotional. If anything, I am being far more logical and rational than Cyclo because I am looking at all sides of the argument.

 

[Siddhartha]

What is the scientific data he is referring to?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It's been fun reading this thread.

Let's just suppose that we all agree that all people deserve the same basic human rights. That out of the way, we can suggest that looking at looking at racial differences has no nefarious purpose.

Any look at African history and development must almost look at it as 2 separate entities, Mediterranean Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.

We are all familiar with the accomplishments of the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, etc..

Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas. Why? Because most of the time they were isolated from outside influences, and there was no natural selection for intellectual talents as they provided little in the way of greater ability to propagate. A simple truth, not bigoted, not racist.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa today have many problems. Many people around the world suggest the rest of the world provide help. Yes, we have to consider cultural differences, level of education, and a host of other factors. If general intelligence is a factor, then it must be considered as well. If it is not a factor, then let's research it and rule it out.

Large scale planning and execution of aid programs require a general set of parameters defining the objectives, methods, and best outcome procedures if they are to be successful. Any valid information might be useful. An example is AIDS treatment/prevention. It has been a dismal failure in some areas. How do we change our approach to make the programs more effective?

Knowledge itself is never bad, evil, etc.. Seeking it does not make one bad either. One might seek it to use it maliciously, but that is another matter entirely, and still does not make it bad in itself.

And yes, I'm a white man. But I don't care if you propose a study that might show that my wang is shorter that the average sub-Saharan African's either. I certainly would not scream "racist" about it.

Pure white supremacist bullshit! First of all, The creators of Ancient Egypt were black. here you can see many images of how they viewed themselves. But some those are only stylized. Egypt was probably the first multicultural nation, you can look at as many statues and pictures your want and for every "white egyptian" you will get about literally about 500-1000 black ones. I have been there. A Black face on a Lion in Africa doesn't represent Mediterranean people. The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa. Whites folks are not indigenous to Africa. Any respectable historian shows their origin of south of the sahara (THe place where they claimed they were from) Then you have DMT, and ancient Ethiopia, later Axum. Further south you have Ancient Zimbabwe, to the west your had Timbuktu, Ancient Ghana, the Dogon, ancient Mali etc. What you speak of is NOT truth. Just because you dont know about African cultures and Ancient cities dont meant they never existed. How arrogant authority you say "Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, never had a Bronze Age, an Iron Age, never built cities, never sailed the seas." All false, what complete and utter garbage. Your knowledge of world history is garbage. Like "NARMER" stated the knowledge of Africans ran laps around pretty much they entire globe while Europe specifically was "labeled as Barbarians" Read what the Ancient peoples though of the Egyptians and the "Ethiopians."

And i dont know If anyone read it but here is the truth in so called "black and white"

According to the London Daily Times ?Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.?[15] In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologists including John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the U.S., including whites and Asians.

The same is true of other countries in Europe. And it has been like this for the last few years in the US. Why are African Americans at a lower level than their african brothers? What are the different histories between a African Immigrant and an African Americans in the US? IQ tests are borderline garbage. I read a study only yesterday that showed 60 different IQ testers rating the SAME test with a span of mid 70's to about 115.

Let's not forget this thread I started months ago:http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eyword1=african+origin

What people also fail to understand is that only until 300 or 400 years ago, all of Africa was called Ethiopia. Herodotus wrote about these people and had nothing but great things to say about them. There are countless books on African history and how Africans even settled in the Americas before Europeans. The books are out there but you have to want to know.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I have no problems with reading comprehension, thank you. Somehow I made it through various levels of education and job experience with my apparently limited skills.

Genes affect all attributes of an individual. However, without the social structure the development of the natural attributes will inhibit exibition of those attrivutes. This is the key, you can take the smartest people. The fastest, strongest, most agile and remove *all* ability to train those talents and those talents will be completely wasted.

Remove all of the social structure in this country, public schooling, secondary education, books, and turn *every* person into a poor, decentralized, Somalian, and then you think we will score high compared to England?

Finally, I love how you can somehow devine emotions based upon text. Isn't that just awesome, now you know what I am feeling by what I type. Perhaps you should be a bit more analytical and understand the differences between nature and nuture and understand that without nuture, nature is wasted. Without nature nuture doesn't matter.

Attributing *all* of Africa's IQ situations to nature is idiotic and lacks any foundation in psychology, sociology, or anthropology.

People sit around saying that these fields are "soft" sciences, thinking that "hard" sciences such as engineering or other math based studies are so much better. They try to analyze just based upon measurable variables without even looking at the qualitative factors that exist. They fail at looking at all variables, their multiple regression's overall R^2 sucks ass. Why? Because they cannot grasp something that isn't, as a whole, measurable. Nuture.

This is where I am a bit different. I have a BS in Psychology, a BS in history, and a minor in sociology. I also have an MBA in finance and I am a CFA charterholder. I work multi-variable regressions and other statistical quant. analysis all day. I have a good balance of qualitative and quantitative abilities.

Don't think I am emotional. If anything, I am being far more logical and rational than Cyclo because I am looking at all sides of the argument.

It's still spelled "nurture"(no, I'm not using that as an argument, I'm merely pointing it out).
And while I didn't read all of CW's posts, nowhere in the ones I did read did he say that nurture had nothing to do with intelligence, nor did I, this is where your reading comprehension fails.

Let's say we make the "Base IQ" 100, this is a "raw human", think those embryo like things in the 6'th Day(the movie with Arnold, not the biblical thing).
Let's say nurture can sway this by +/- 25.
That doesn't mean that genes can't sway it by +/- 5.
That would make the genetical difference largely insignificant in the end, but it's still there.
A very rudimentary example for sure, but I'm hoping you get my point.

As for your state of mind, you do seem rather upset, and considering what a controversial subject this is, that's to be expected, so I can't really say I blame you.
It's like discussing rapes and causality, someone is bound to be upset about it.
Judging an emotional state from what someone writes is hardly anything new in either case.
If I wrote a message to you, saying "YOU FUCKING SUCK, GO DIE!!!!!", you could probably be reasonably sure that I'm fairly angry at you, for example.

 

[Siddhartha]

Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments About Blacks

James D. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel prize for deciphering the double-helix of DNA, apologized ?unreservedly? yesterday for comments reported this week suggesting that black people, over all, are not as intelligent as whites.

Skip to next paragraph

Graham Barclay/Bloomberg News
James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, in London this year.
In an interview published Sunday in The Times of London, Dr. Watson is quoted as saying that while ?there are many people of color who are very talented,? he is ?inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.?

?All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours ? whereas all the testing says not really,? the newspaper quoted him as saying.

In a statement given to The Associated Press yesterday, Dr. Watson said, ?I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.?

But his publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not say whether Dr. Watson believed he had been misquoted. ?You have the statement,? she said. ?That?s it, I am afraid.?

Late yesterday, the board of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a research institution in New York, issued a statement saying it was suspending the administrative responsibilities of Dr. Watson as chancellor ?pending further deliberation.?

On Wednesday, Bruce Stillman, president of the laboratory, had issued a statement saying the laboratory?s trustees, administration and faculty ?vehemently disagree? with the sentiments of Dr. Watson, who has served as director and president of the laboratory, whose school of biological sciences is named for him.

Scientists at Cold Spring Harbor study plant and animal genetics, cancer and other diseases. Dr. Stillman said they did not ?engage in any research that could even form the basis of the statements attributed to Dr. Watson.?

Dr. Watson is in England to promote his new book, ?Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science? (Knopf). In a statement, Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, said only that it was ?understandable that his comments have caused upset throughout the world.?

There is wide agreement among researchers on intelligence that genetic inheritance influences mental acuity, but there is also wide agreement that life experiences, even in the womb, exert a powerful influence on brain structure. Further, there is wide disagreement about what intelligence consists of and how ? or even if ? it can be measured in the abstract.

For example, in ?The Mismeasure of Man,? Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist, dismissed ?the I.Q. industry? as little more than an effort by men of European descent to maintain their prominence in the world.

Nevertheless, Dr. Watson, 79, is hardly the first eminent researcher to assert that inherited characteristics like skin color are correlated to intelligence and that people of African descent fall short. For example, William B. Shockley, a Nobel laureate for his work with transistors, in later life developed ideas of eugenics based on the supposed intellectual inferiority of blacks.

His ideas were greeted with scorn, and Dr. Watson is encountering a similar reaction. According to the BBC, the Science Museum of London canceled a speech Dr. Watson was to have given there today, saying that much as it supports robust discussion of controversial ideas, Dr. Watson?s assertions on race and intelligence are ?beyond the point of acceptable debate.?

Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, a private group that works to bring science to policy making, said it was ?tragic that one of the icons of modern science has cast such dishonor on the profession.?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Which is a legitimate because it can be argued that sports in general in the US is much more popular in African American culture than it is in white culture, at least from the standpoint of wanting to pursue professinal sports. It's not because blacks are superior or inferior by nature IMO, I think it's purely a social phenomena.

I wasn't simply referring to the US, nor blacks. But, since you brought out the "jump to conclusions mat" I would take a random assortment of 20 blacks from ANY country over whites from ANY country for a sports team.

To say that there isn't a difference in races on a genetic level is just silly (because it's not true). IMO, part of that genetic difference in blacks shows itself as a greater aptitude for athleticism.

Read what I wrote, I didn't jump to any conclusions you hadn't already drawn. And now, of course, you've drawn a genetic conclusion about blacks being more athletic, which actually supports my original divergent point about there not being any evidence for sports aptitude being genetic. That's ironic.

Of course there's a genetic component to certain aspects (such as sprinting) of athletic performance. Here's a list of the 200 best times in the 100m sprint, worldwide:Link. What stands out? Notice that the countries represented are divergent (a testiment to the relative ease of migration these days), but the races represented are not.

 

[piasabird]

This guy is sounding nutty as a mad hatter.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Link

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."

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing."

My question is not whether or not Watson is right, nor do I really care whether or not he is right. My question is: what if different races and genders are inherently different? Should we never acknowledge these differences and insist on trying to bin everyone in the same group, despite existing differences that will always cause this to be less than optimal? If I am not as intelligent as Einstein, should I pretend that I am? Moreover, should I coerce you into telling me that I am because otherwise you're racist/sexist/whatever? If such differences are real, at what point will members of our society develop the intellectual integrity and maturity to accept that without discarding that information as racist/sexist?

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources. I am all for everyone having equal opportunities and rights, but you can't enforce this equality using tools like affirmative action that set up a quota. If I look objectively at the science and it tells me that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, should I avoid saying so because that makes me breed-ist? Should we set up a quota system at dog tracks that says dachsunds must make up a certain percentage of the racing dogs? Or should we acknowledge that differences most certainly exist and proceed accordingly?

You call yourself a scientist.

Show evidence to substantiate Watson's assertion, or write him off as a mad hatter.

Your political musing is drivel.

 

[jackschmittusa]

beyoku

Got to love it.

Not that I am ill informed, or don't have all of the facts, or just plain stupid, but the cry of "Pure white supremacist bullshit!".

Who said anything about "white Egyptians"? Lost me there.

The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa.

Considering that Egypt invaded and occupied Nubia for some time, one might assume that Egypt injected Egyptian culture, religion, and technology into Nubia.

Some of the old cities in Africa were more of a "Fort Knox" for the wealthy. Build a fortress, build a nice house for yourself, build a secure structure for your treasure, build a temple to show that you are affiliated with the gods, and some modest quarters for the peons that serve your everyday needs, and you have a city.

But all of that is beside the point. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was isolated and did not develop along these lines.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
beyoku

Got to love it.

Not that I am ill informed, or don't have all of the facts, or just plain stupid, but the cry of "Pure white supremacist bullshit!".

Who said anything about "white Egyptians"? Lost me there.

The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa.

Considering that Egypt invaded and occupied Nubia for some time, one might assume that Egypt injected Egyptian culture, religion, and technology into Nubia.

Some of the old cities in Africa were more of a "Fort Knox" for the wealthy. Build a fortress, build a nice house for yourself, build a secure structure for your treasure, build a temple to show that you are affiliated with the gods, and some modest quarters for the peons that serve your everyday needs, and you have a city.

But all of that is beside the point. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was isolated and did not develop along these lines.

What on earth are you talking about? Some Egyptian kings came from Nubia after Nubians conquered Egypt. In fact, the ancestor of both nations were the Ethiopians. Considering that All these nations fought each other and shared many things, your idea that conquering was one dimensional is nonsense. Where do you get your history of Africa from?

EDIT: Considering that in ancient time, Ethiopia was the generalized term for south-saharan africa, it would be logical to conclude that all these countries were black. On another note, Africans are the only maternal society on earth. Everywhere else, people are paternal. That's why in ancient egypt, as well as in many other parts of Africa, power passed through the mother's lineage, not the fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
beyoku

Got to love it.

Not that I am ill informed, or don't have all of the facts, or just plain stupid, but the cry of "Pure white supremacist bullshit!".

Who said anything about "white Egyptians"? Lost me there.

The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa.

Considering that Egypt invaded and occupied Nubia for some time, one might assume that Egypt injected Egyptian culture, religion, and technology into Nubia.

Some of the old cities in Africa were more of a "Fort Knox" for the wealthy. Build a fortress, build a nice house for yourself, build a secure structure for your treasure, build a temple to show that you are affiliated with the gods, and some modest quarters for the peons that serve your everyday needs, and you have a city.

But all of that is beside the point. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was isolated and did not develop along these lines.

What on earth are you talking about? Some Egyptian kings came from Nubia after Nubians conquered Egypt. In fact, the ancestor of both nations were the Ethiopians. Considering that All these nations fought each other and shared many things, your idea that conquering was one dimensional is nonsense. Where do you get your history of Africa from?

EDIT: Considering that in ancient time, Ethiopia was the generalized term for south-saharan africa, it would be logical to conclude that all these countries were black. On another note, Africans are the only maternal society on earth. Everywhere else, people are paternal. That's why in ancient egypt, as well as in many other parts of Africa, power passed through the mother's lineage, not the fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia.

Damn jackschmittusa I think it's time for you to stop. Your getting owned all over the place.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Sunner

It's still spelled "nurture"(no, I'm not using that as an argument, I'm merely pointing it out).
And while I didn't read all of CW's posts, nowhere in the ones I did read did he say that nurture had nothing to do with intelligence, nor did I, this is where your reading comprehension fails.

Let's say we make the "Base IQ" 100, this is a "raw human", think those embryo like things in the 6'th Day(the movie with Arnold, not the biblical thing).
Let's say nurture can sway this by +/- 25.
That doesn't mean that genes can't sway it by +/- 5.
That would make the genetical difference largely insignificant in the end, but it's still there.
A very rudimentary example for sure, but I'm hoping you get my point.

As for your state of mind, you do seem rather upset, and considering what a controversial subject this is, that's to be expected, so I can't really say I blame you.
It's like discussing rapes and causality, someone is bound to be upset about it.
Judging an emotional state from what someone writes is hardly anything new in either case.
If I wrote a message to you, saying "YOU FUCKING SUCK, GO DIE!!!!!", you could probably be reasonably sure that I'm fairly angry at you, for example.[/quote]

Miss an "r" and get hung. lol.

Cyclo's and this other guy's whole perspective hinges upon Africa being somehow inferior due to genetics. This loon and Cyclo have never emphasized socio-economic factors that can influence nature significantly.

Fine, you can have your "base 100", but you have no way of proving that that's even the base, or that your deviations from the base have anything to do with genetics. This is where the loon, and cyclo, fail, because they fail to realize statistics and psychology.

Lets say that they are true and that Africans are not as intelligent. Their premise is that it's mostly, if not all, genetics. How can they decide that? There have been no studies that have regressed the data to come up with a highly correlated study, resulting in a statistically reliable R^2.

Additionally, even if there were such a study, can you, without having the study, say for certain that teh R^2 would be anywhere greater than 50%? That is, does genetics account for more than 50% of intelligence?

My premise is that it doesn't. Even if you had 100% smart people in Africa, they'd have no way to develop their intelligence if the basic social structure for developing such intelligence exists.

Cyclo's counter to that is that people are different. Animals are different. He uses something which he believes has a high R^2 and something that can be easily measured, as his proof.

The problem with his premise, and those of others here, is that physical variables, especially where phsical variables are needed, are much more easily measured. He pointed out a Daschund compared to a Greyhound. that's a great example, since selective breeding and training have lead to a superior running animal. Yet, he forgot the training *and* breeding (a eugenics program). There have been no selective breeding in Africa, nor in other areas, that would result in any major substantial advantage.

One could say that cultures outside of Africa value intelligence more, yet that isn't the case, especially outside of the last century, and it takes much longer than that to alter the genetic attributes of hundreds of millions of people.

Thus, we get back down to training. As I have repeatedly said, you can shove the most physical animal in a small cage and not let them run, and then compare them to a superiorly (is that a word?) trained animal and the one that is trained will win. They both have the same ability, but the difference is training. The same can be said of intelligence.

Naturally, the counter will be that IQ tests not upon knowledge of physics or multi-variate statistics, but upon basic knowledge and ability to reason. However, the ability to reason is based upon heuristics developed by "developed" societies. Thus, our measure of intelligence is based upon our own experiences and our own knowledge. This includes our public education and social structures.

Of course, Africa won't be like the US, Asia, or Europe, since the continent is rife with strife. Thus, the ability to develop western-leaning ideas and "basic knowledge" doesn't even exist. If Einstein were to have grown up in Zimbabwe and were a poverty striken boy, would he have had access to the same education? The same books? The same ideas? Would he have turned up as a Patent Clerk? Would he have known the ideas on how to think about different subjects? Those foundations of learning is key to organizing thoughts and deducing new ideas.

If Einstein had been born in Africa he would have sat in a hut, or plowed a field, or maybe even worked in a diamond mine run by money grubbing europeans. He wouldn't have been reading about physics. Naturally, he'd have to be "black", which would make him inferior, all because his mind was never allowed to develop.

This is where people like this ass are the epitome of racist bigots. They had all of the access, all of the knowledge, all of the parental guidance for education, yet they think that they are somehow superior because they have had all of this. Ironically, they are dolts in the very field they claim to be smart, because they themselves do not have access to this information. Their minds never developed around these ideas.

That is why I merely point back to Cyclo in saying, by way of comparison, his mind is not nearly as developed as mine in these areas. He is the intellectual equivalent to an African in this area compared to me (by his reasoning). Thus, any physical attribute that he has, that I can use to be racist against him, should be used to say that anybody of the same physical attribute shouldn't be educated in my obviously superior system. In essence, he is judging himself and his "race" by his own lack of development.

What's funny is that the loon "scientist" cannot even see what he is proposing. What's even worse is that despite repeated evidence, Cyclo can't see it either.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
beyoku

Got to love it.

Not that I am ill informed, or don't have all of the facts, or just plain stupid, but the cry of "Pure white supremacist bullshit!".

Who said anything about "white Egyptians"? Lost me there.

The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa.

Considering that Egypt invaded and occupied Nubia for some time, one might assume that Egypt injected Egyptian culture, religion, and technology into Nubia.

Some of the old cities in Africa were more of a "Fort Knox" for the wealthy. Build a fortress, build a nice house for yourself, build a secure structure for your treasure, build a temple to show that you are affiliated with the gods, and some modest quarters for the peons that serve your everyday needs, and you have a city.

But all of that is beside the point. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was isolated and did not develop along these lines.

What on earth are you talking about? Some Egyptian kings came from Nubia after Nubians conquered Egypt. In fact, the ancestor of both nations were the Ethiopians. Considering that All these nations fought each other and shared many things, your idea that conquering was one dimensional is nonsense. Where do you get your history of Africa from?

EDIT: Considering that in ancient time, Ethiopia was the generalized term for south-saharan africa, it would be logical to conclude that all these countries were black. On another note, Africans are the only maternal society on earth. Everywhere else, people are paternal. That's why in ancient egypt, as well as in many other parts of Africa, power passed through the mother's lineage, not the fathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia.

I want a Nubian goddess. What a nice ring to it.

 

[The Green Bean]

interesting article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._the_Wealth_of_Nations

As far as I understand it based on my learnings; IQ wil depend on both nature and nurture so while Africans may not be as intelligent as the Chinese; given the proper education and nurture their IQ will increase.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
beyoku

Got to love it.

Not that I am ill informed, or don't have all of the facts, or just plain stupid, but the cry of "Pure white supremacist bullshit!".

Who said anything about "white Egyptians"? Lost me there.

The closest and oldest civilization next to Egypt would be that of the Nubians. Hmm, they have the Same Gods too, also they have Pyramids, they are also black, both peoples and cultures are indigenous to Africa.

Considering that Egypt invaded and occupied Nubia for some time, one might assume that Egypt injected Egyptian culture, religion, and technology into Nubia.

Some of the old cities in Africa were more of a "Fort Knox" for the wealthy. Build a fortress, build a nice house for yourself, build a secure structure for your treasure, build a temple to show that you are affiliated with the gods, and some modest quarters for the peons that serve your everyday needs, and you have a city.

But all of that is beside the point. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was isolated and did not develop along these lines.

1 - "Mediterranean Africa" is a term that you made up to include Egypt. Mediterranean people would mostly be classified as "White" If you placed Egypt into this category i can only conclude you are one who thinks Egyptians were white (see hollywood). Why remove Egypt from Africa at all? Ancient Egypt was an African people who spoke an African language with an African culture. This culture and history cannot be taken out of African accomplishments. Both Ancient Egyptians and Nubians claim they are from the people of modern day Ethiopia. The self proclaimed homland of Egypt named "Punt" is said to be located in the Ethiopian highlands/Eritrea .....All other Ancient historians also said that the egyptians were only a colony of Ethiopia, and got practices such as circumcision from the Ethiopians. Not surprisingly even after multiple waves of foreign rule and invasions of Egypt that last being the Arabs since 700's , modern day Egyptians DNA is a mixture with one of the largest amounts being that of modern day Ethiopians. - All that beings said. If want to make an argument where the culture came from; Egypt, or from Nubia (Sudan) it doesnt matter because it was the sharing of a culture between two similar African people. These Ethiopians were mentions in the Christian bible over 40 times.

2 - YOU Name some "Old Cities in Africa" Nubia goes back to the 3rd Millennium BC, this is in "Sub Sahara", Axumite kingdom goes back to the 4 centruy BC and they controlled parts of Arabia. Timbuktu in western Africa is so legendary people dont even think it exists and its a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

3 - Isolated? Isolated from WHO? Ourselves? How did you think Ethiopians got to Arabia? How did Egyptians get to Australia or other Africans get to the Americas? It is purely a white supremacist myth that we didn't have boats and culture.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
interesting article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._the_Wealth_of_Nations

As far as I understand it based on my learnings; IQ wil depend on both nature and nurture so while Africans may not be as intelligent as the Chinese; given the proper education and nurture their IQ will increase.

IQ may depend on nature and nurture, in fact it almost certainly does, but there is little evidence to suggest a component of "nature" is race.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Then why didn't you just start a thread without referencing the news story about Watson?

The white elephant is Dr. Watson's story and you're trying to argue from some abstract POV. You're not fooling anyone so just come out and say you agree with what he's saying (or don't agree with him). With that we can have a real argument about race and intelligent.

See the second quote in my sig. I'm not interested in arguing about race and intelligence as that is a matter of science, not debate. I'm interested in whether we should try to cram everyone, square or round, into the same hole just to avoid offending someone's sensibilities. I submit that people should be treated differently if they are different. Note that I am not saying (as Moonbeam pointed out) that certain people should have different rights based on being different. Rather, I am all for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. However, we cannot succeed in trying to make everyone achieve equally in all areas when they are intrinsically unequal. Instead, we would do better to acknowledge some differences and use that to our mutual advantage.

Sorry for bailing on my thread, but I have to drive about 1400 miles this weekend. I'll get back to it as I am able.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Narmer
Then why didn't you just start a thread without referencing the news story about Watson?

The white elephant is Dr. Watson's story and you're trying to argue from some abstract POV. You're not fooling anyone so just come out and say you agree with what he's saying (or don't agree with him). With that we can have a real argument about race and intelligent.

See the second quote in my sig. I'm not interested in arguing about race and intelligence as that is a matter of science, not debate. I'm interested in whether we should try to cram everyone, square or round, into the same hole just to avoid offending someone's sensibilities. I submit that people should be treated differently if they are different. Note that I am not saying (as Moonbeam pointed out) that certain people should have different rights based on being different. Rather, I am all for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. However, we cannot succeed in trying to make everyone achieve equally in all areas when they are intrinsically unequal. Instead, we would do better to acknowledge some differences and use that to our mutual advantage.

Sorry for bailing on my thread, but I have to drive about 1400 miles this weekend. I'll get back to it as I am able.

If you believe in your quote so much then you should've started this thread WITHOUT reference to Dr. Watson. To do so would imply that you agree with him. Your insistence that you have no opinion on the matter is akin to a Klansman saying he's not racist (I've heard it before). You're not fooling anybody with your assertion that you are independent on this matter but simply trying to argue it from a theoretical POV. Besides, what's the point of theory when it can't be applied to anything? And what's the point of speculation when there is no reason behind it? Stop being shy about this loaded thread you started and admit where you stand.

As for your trip, I hope you have a friend because that's a lot of mileage. Also, considering the price of gas nowadays, it's simply cheaper, faster, and more convenient to take the bus, train, or even fly.

 

[jonks]

I can't believe people are still debating this. My friend had it all figured out when we were 14.

"See, the Japs are really smart, but they have small dicks and their women got no tits. White people are mostly average intelligence, and have average dick size, and white chicks have nice size tits. Blacks are dumb but hung like horses and cows."

He should have written a book. Instead he wound up in jail for embezzlement. Oh well.

BTW, that's a fairly accurate quote of what he said those many years ago, but please don't attribute the rationale to me. I'm hung like a giraffe ;-D

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Narmer
Then why didn't you just start a thread without referencing the news story about Watson?

The white elephant is Dr. Watson's story and you're trying to argue from some abstract POV. You're not fooling anyone so just come out and say you agree with what he's saying (or don't agree with him). With that we can have a real argument about race and intelligent.

See the second quote in my sig. I'm not interested in arguing about race and intelligence as that is a matter of science, not debate. I'm interested in whether we should try to cram everyone, square or round, into the same hole just to avoid offending someone's sensibilities. I submit that people should be treated differently if they are different. Note that I am not saying (as Moonbeam pointed out) that certain people should have different rights based on being different. Rather, I am all for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. However, we cannot succeed in trying to make everyone achieve equally in all areas when they are intrinsically unequal. Instead, we would do better to acknowledge some differences and use that to our mutual advantage.

Sorry for bailing on my thread, but I have to drive about 1400 miles this weekend. I'll get back to it as I am able.

How about an example of what you're talking about? Watson clearly says western policies don't work for blacks because they're stupid, and your position seems to be "different policies need to be target to people of different abilities". But how does that exactly translate to the real world? IE, which are these policies that Watson is referring to?


Also, why can't we apply this logic internally to society? IE, if I have a higher IQ, should my tax rate be lower because people with higher IQs tend to do better and consume less government services? If I am suspected of a crime, should I be treated more leniently because statistically people of high IQ don't commit many crimes?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Czar
A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Maybe we should be conducting university entrance exams, employment, etc., based on head size. It'd really simplify things a lot. Want this job? Try this hat on. :laugh:

It brings to mind Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man -- a good read on this topic.