SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
James Watson: Scientist loses titles after claims over race
Nobel Prize-winning American scientist James Watson has been stripped of his honorary titles after repeating comments about race and intelligence.
In a TV programme, the pioneer in DNA studies made a reference to a view that genes cause a difference on average between blacks and whites on IQ tests. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said the 90-year-old scientist's remarks were "unsubstantiated and reckless". Dr Watson had made similar claims in 2007 and subsequently apologised.
He shared the Nobel in 1962 with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick for their 1953 discovery of the DNA's double helix structure.
Dr Watson sold his gold medal in 2014, saying he had been ostracised by the scientific community after his remarks about race. He is currently in a nursing home recovering from a car accident and is said to have "very minimal" awareness of his surroundings.
Previously: Disgraced Scientist is Selling his Nobel Prize
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:19PM (69 children)
No one says it is heresy. However saying that intelligence is a racial thing is not supported by evidence. Here is the salient point you racist twits never seem to retain:
Try engaging that wet pile of noodles you call a brain sometime instead of your "common sense" stupidity. It has long been known that the world is complicated and common sense is a bad thing to rely on in science. Go learn the science first, and not the white supremacy garbage stuff, that shit is riddled with things that SOUND good but someone who knows the subject will instantly recognize as bullshit.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:31PM (39 children)
The IQ statistics show a median average, they say nothing about individuals. If African Americans make up 12% of the population and commit around 50% of crime, we can do some estimates. Crime is disproportionately committed by young (6%) males (3%). So 3% of the US population commits 50% of the crime. How exactly do you propose we solve that problem if we're not even allowed to discuss it or the correlation between poor impulse control and low IQ? [sciencedirect.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:23PM (36 children)
What about if you find that poor people are convicted of most of the crimes, and a disproportionately large percentage of the poor people are black?
Environment has a very complex relation to genetics in final behavior.
P.S.: Lead poisoning, and various other poisonings, are known to be associated with both being poor and having a low IQ. It's not just genetics.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:34PM (17 children)
Finally a voice of reason. The racists around here need to learn that these systems are intertwined and complex, and worrying about which race is "better" is a stupid waste of time and energy that is objectively wrong.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:41PM (16 children)
Discrimination (like affirmative action) is racist, looking for solutions to evident underlying problems is not. The left [politifact.com] has now lost the fucking plot [psychologytoday.com]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (15 children)
Hey this is policy now you can't object to it
The next person hired cannot be white. Must be black or minority.
Must be male. Must be female.
Diversity is king!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:00AM (14 children)
That was the 8th movie with a white or Asian lead. The next movie must have a black lead.
Okay but we already have script and funding and author approval and distribution and
The lead must be black
But the character isn't black in the source material
Change it
People will notice
Just do it
What about the fans
If they complain they are racist
Its your money.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday January 14 2019, @05:22AM (13 children)
Except, historically, this seems to go the other way? I can only think of one counter example, where Dr. Martin King jr was being played by a caucasian man. It made made headlines, and always struck me as ironic as King had not wanted people to be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the quality of their character.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:25AM (12 children)
Unfortunately there are many who assert that being "colorblind" is a form of racial discrimination, and who strongly support being judged by skin color when it results in their being given preferential treatment.
One such example of this is affirmative action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:43AM
Hey I know one of them! Talking with her is life being in room 101.
Up is up so long as she agrees it is up. According to her hiring a less qualified minority is better than a more qualified person who is not a minority.
In a strange weird turnaround from what it looks like it seems that asians are treated as Caucasian around here now. This might very well be a local abnormality. One I know was pissed that a "minority" got the job she applied for in two applicants on the back of her 15+ years experience over the two years of the other. Watching her boil at the morning tea thrown for the new minority manager I considered how this hire could be called a minority when there are a billion of them on the planet. Just must be a new age terminology twist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Monday January 14 2019, @10:10AM (7 children)
I am personally dead-set against quotas and affirmative action. Nothing pisses me off more than someone assuming that I got a job or promotion "just because" I'm a woman. It harms companies by choosing weaker candidates, and it harms candidates by casting aspersions on their merit.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)
Management have been trumpeting that we now have over 55% females in leadership positions across the organization. That's Middlelevel management and higher.
You should see some of these managers in action. It's disgraceful. Aweful.
A long time ago we had strong, strategic, inspiring female managers. Less than 10% of management. In some ways it sucked to be them. They had to be everything a male manager was and more. Watching them, learning from them, working with them was inspiring.
Now we have people who can pass an MBA, maybe.
Hey, though. We have more than half the management positions filled by females. And that is what counts.
I miss the old days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:36PM
Especially for the competition!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:40PM
can someone explain why this was voted down?
i would like that everyone with talent is recognized and rewarded, without the need for an arbitrary playing field leveling system. that she expresses concern that people expect she's not talented and instead is part of an effort to level the playing field because of a quota, that doesn't seem trollish, but maybe im missing the context.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:07AM (2 children)
How the hell is this modded as a troll? This is something I've experienced first hand as a "diversity candidate".
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:23AM
It doesn't fit the SJW agenda?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:37AM
Rule 16: There are no women on the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:12PM
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm [abc.net.au]
have a read of this article, it's a real cack
they put ina policy to remove discrimination against women when hiring in the public service only to find that people generally discriminated *for* female candidates
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:30AM (2 children)
That's an oversimplification. "Colorblind" is a problem because it assumes a level playing field where there isn't one. Now, the answer may not be "reverse discrimination," but unless and until something is done to fix the underlying causes, what else is left? I have a friend who compares AA to aspirin for a cancer patient, but also opines "if it's aspirin or nothing I'd of course want the aspirin."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:13AM (1 child)
Interesting perspective, but what is the criteria to satisfy the conditions that a "level playing field" has been achieved? Such that affirmative action -- just another form of racial discrimination -- can be tossed aside completely?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:57PM
Yes. If we truly have equality of opportunity, we wouldn't need AA. I don't like it personally, but the only alternative in the present system--getting rid of it and replacing it with jack shit--is even worse.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:36PM (17 children)
Yes, all completely true. Given we're talking about IQ being inheritable, why are the parents poor? What can we do in terms of nutrition (also a factor in IQ) to help?
The problem is that the left (generally) don't want a solution, they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist. They disgust me. [miamiherald.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:22AM (12 children)
Socialist programs such as food stamps will help. Something like a UBI would be wonderful, because that could address the financial stress of the whole family (factors beyond nutrition). We must also replace lead pipes that may leech into potable water lines.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @05:18AM (11 children)
We have talked about this on soylent several times recently with results from different countries. The Norway and Denmark trials both found that it reduced peoples desire to seek out work, instead deciding to make due with what they have. There were studies done by universities in the States in the 70s and 80s that showed the same thing. A problem our society already has is people being able to vote for their own wages, additional forms of welfare are not going to help. Bread and circus' are good for keeping people fat and happy, but they do little so soothe the soul or advance the species. There are some among us (I imagine the vast majority of soylentels) who would see the UBI as a great extra bit of money and keep working and providing for continued society, but I presume we also tend to be smarter than the average person.
I am all for short term safety nets, but I am not going to pay for someone to do nothing when they are perfectly able to do something. WIC is nice for helping families out and helping with good child development and nutrition, food stamps are nice for making sure someone doesn't starve between jobs, unemployment insurance is good for making sure a family doesn't lose their house because they lost their jobs, but only for short periods of time.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Monday January 14 2019, @05:51AM (6 children)
I don't see UBI as a panacea for getting people into work. I rather see it as a solution to future social strife caused by automation. Consider this: as companies replace workers with automation, the costs of goods will decline, but so too will workers' ability to pay for them. The low cost of goods is meaningless if you have no money at all. This is further exacerbated when real estate cartel behaviour locks low-earners out of owning property. If your workers cannot gain employment because they are incapable of being retrained (either from being too poor or too old), then that person is basically cut out of the market for labour and thus have no way to support themselves. They cannot afford land, and thus cannot even subsistence farm. Desperate unemployed people - especially young ones - are a perfect formula for social strife.
The wealthy have their needs met by automated services and high-income technical professionals who can still demand a livable wage; they have no need or motivation to share the massive productivity of automated factories with people outside of the economic system. As a society, we have a choice: we can either share our productivity with people who cannot (and who maybe never will) contribute economically, or else let them starve/riot/etc until they die out. Just as with people too sick or injured to work, we use tax money to provide welfare to give them a means to live. A form of governmental charity. So too, when automation eventually renders people unable to work we will be obliged to provide for them. Hand-wringing moralising how "if we don't make them work, they'll be lazy" is puritan nonsense that only values someone because of their utility. We should help people not because they 'earned it', but because to do otherwise is monstrous. Otherwise, we are tacitly accepting that their own humanity is by itself no merit to live.
So, to me UBI is more about providing a means for non-wealthy people to be supported and have a fraction of the industrial output of society. An alternative approach, if you prefer, is to require that some minimum fraction of all corporations be publically owned and that fraction of productivity or dividends be used to support the population. There is no argument I can think of that can justify why, in an age of almost limitless production capacity, only a handful of humans should benefit at the expense of the rest of mankind.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @06:42AM (3 children)
Who automation thing is pretty terrible. In around a decade some 30 million truck drivers are going to need new jobs.
Me I'm trying to buy land so at least my kids can be dirt farmers.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 14 2019, @07:13AM (2 children)
"Fucking you, got mine" at the wannabe stage.
Good luck, eminent domain laws are there to make sure those who can pay more for that patch of dirt will get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday January 14 2019, @03:26PM
The way I see it, OP is allocating his resources based upon long term needs as opposed to short term gain. Your vitriol is unwarranted. Would you be happier if he had said, "fuck the future, I'm buying a new iPhone" instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @04:04PM
I always felt that using eminent domain for private sector things was a HUGE mistake. That precedent should have never been made.
I understand that the government must sometimes have a specific plot of land for a public works projects (discontinuities in roads are not great), but unless the land will become public, eminent domain should not be allowed to be invoked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:43PM (1 child)
What is the way out of a UBI if it doesn't work as advertised. As is the fate of so many good intentioned programs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:08AM
Are you suggesting that if people are given free money they will adjust their lifestyle to the lowest income bracket and never search for work or have a job and be on holiday for the rest of their lives just sitting at home watching Netflix or camping forever?
Nooooooooo
say it ain't so
surely humanity is better than that
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 14 2019, @09:04AM (3 children)
That sounds suspiciously like code for "people will only put up with so much shit unless they have no choice.
Let's face it, hold a gun to someone's head and many will clean the bathroom floor with their tongue. If instead you offer them an extra serving of ice cream after dinner they'll tell you to fuck off.
That doesn't make holding them at gunpoint the better option for society.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:36PM (2 children)
Instead you would rather hold someone else at gunpoint to take their money and pay for that "free lunch". Why should I be obligated to support someone who refuses to make any effort to support himself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:15PM
Seeing as how those same people would have no qualms about using those guns to prevent me growing my own food and building my own shelter the "wrong" way, yes, I have no problem taking some of their extra money to support others. And at this point in time, I'd be one of those whose money they'd be taking to support UBI.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:32PM
While talking about the government holding you at gunpoint, consider that the poor, once they become a large enough group, may well commit a somewhat chaotic armed rebellion, and the results of that will likely be as unpredictable as the outcomes of other revolutions, such as the Russian revolution now and the French revolution earlier. You may be one of many to die instead of merely having a predictable amount of takes taken away.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Bogsnoticus on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (3 children)
Given that it is the right wing of politics who fight tooth and nail against paying employees a wage they can live off without having to resort to a second (and possibly third) job, food stamps, charities or crowd-funding, you should be aiming your disgust in the opposite direction.
The "left" does not pretend the problem does not exist, they don't want the problem to exist in the first place.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:09AM
The right are responsible for this? [youtube.com] In the most progressive state in the union with one of the lowest IQ scores? [inc.com] Why is that? [lasentinel.net]
Basically, fuck you! Homeless black people living in abject poverty in the richest state is courtesy of the left. Own it!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @05:20AM (1 child)
Without immigration the birth rate in this country would be flat, yet the economy is growing. This would force employers to compete harder for the average employee, which would be increases in benefits and pay. Instead the Democrats flood us with low-skilled labor so the people who are already hurting just keep hurting, and the Republicans flood us with H1B that out-compete debt ridden students who were tricked into getting student loans.
The left pretends immigration doesn't hurt us, the right pretends that corporations can't find workers.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:48PM
It takes two people to be tricked.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:06AM (1 child)
"If African Americans make up 12% of the population and commit around 50% of crime, we can do some estimates. "
Indeed, we can estimate between 35-63% of cops are biased racist fuckwads. Remember there's plenty of evidence showing that black people get locked up for things a white person wouldn't even get a warning for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:34AM
The FBI has evidence for the numbers that you are complaining about, what evidence do you have for the numbers you are refuting it with? The cops that I have interacted with that grew up on the west coast or in a small town are entirely different officers than the ones that grew up in big crime ridden cities.
We cannot dismiss that excessive racism could be a cause, we also cannot dismiss that we are different people. The same medicine will work different based on the color of your skin because of the differences in the genes that cause it. We need to understand our differences to find the best ways to make everything level out.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-department-officer-demographics-minority-representation.html [governing.com]
You can select a police department here and see what their ethnic breakdown is. If you were correct than the number of black folks arrested would go down with the number of black officers, but this does not appear to be the case when you look at major cities.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:34PM (2 children)
"However saying that intelligence is a racial thing is not supported by evidence."
-
You poor thing.
You've led a sheltered life and you are so stupid you actually believe your worldview is the only correct worldview.
Anyone who has been around knows there are very real differences between races. It's not limited to intelligence. It also applies to a propensity to engage in violence which is hugely inappropriate to a situation.
I'm not going to waste much more time on your stupid ass, except to say that you don't have a fucking CLUE about the real world.
And you can take your attempt to tell the rest of us how things are and shove it up your stupid arrogant ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:12AM (1 child)
Serious question, since this is what TFA is all about anyway... Has any substantial evidence of racial biology playing a factor even been collected one way or the other?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Monday January 14 2019, @05:33PM
The studies I've read all seem to indicate that intelligence is an inherited trait, but not strongly inherited. You can poison it out of someone with lead, starve it out with poor nutrition, or dumb it out with insufficient social engagement, but breeding it in is hit or miss.
Part of that may be how subjectively we determine intelligence. If you separate a pair of twins at birth and spend years teaching one pattern recognition and the other underwater basketweaving there will be a dramatic difference in their test scores. A measuring stick that was less sensitive to a person's test taking ability would be very helpful in this area.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:46PM
...as if you could understand what they mean. Is this a racial thing, or are you the only moron in your family?
The evidence you keep yammering about is the percentages of PhDs, Nobel laureates, etc. etc. compared to general population. Stop with crazy talk already.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:01PM (19 children)
Your quote does not support your claimed lack of evidence. There is absolutely evidence for the median IQ having a significant racial correlation. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the variation within a racial group because it claims nothing whatsoever about said variation. Your math and science skills are sorely lacking to even make such a claim.
Let me splain it to in words you can understand. If you say "black people aren't as smart as $anyOtherRace", you can rest easy knowing science has your back because you're speaking of averages. If you say "that specific person is stupid because he's black", science has long since slapped your bitch ass down and you're left looking like an idiot yourself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:25PM (11 children)
While there is, indeed, a correlation between IQ and race, there's a stronger correlation between IQ and pollution in the environment in which you are raised. Which do you thing would be more likely to explain the other?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @12:40AM (9 children)
I wasn't trying to give a reason. I was informing him that his statement was scientifically unsound. If you really want to play the reason game though, there's an even stronger correlation between the amount of neanderthal DNA in a race and median IQ score increase above baseline, taking those with zero neanderthal DNA (most everyone in sub-saharan Africa and pretty much nobody else) as the baseline.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:25AM (7 children)
i can't even
i will attempt to even anyway
What about Denisovan DNA? Those Denisovans I am told will kick the asses of any Neanderthal at an IQ test!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @01:36AM (5 children)
Hasn't been studied that I'm aware of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:42AM (4 children)
Ah, true. The denisovans haven't generated as much hype as the neanderthals have. What is the cite for correlation of IQ score to presence of neanderthal DNA?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @02:18AM (3 children)
Been a while since I looked at the data and I'm fighting a shiny, new cold this evening. I'll leave this tab open and hunt it up in the morning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:13AM
Eat a clove of fresh garlic then and keep warm. Echinacea tea is also good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:42AM (1 child)
If we are looking just at averages, it seems that the less pure homo sapiens you are the higher your average goes. I thought there was an SN article a while back about the far east having more denisovan and europe more neanderthal. Maybe it was the extensive journey and continuous need to face new types of challenges that helped both of those two hominids. H. sapiens might fall behind a bit because the trail was already blazed, then benefited from being physically stronger and overcoming the two other hominids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @04:51PM
could just be fairer climate, more sedentary lifestyle(relatively speaking) and more breeding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:13AM
http://www.tmi-comic.com/comic/missingspace/ [tmi-comic.com]
They are called "Orions"
Don't beat yourself up for not knowing this. Luna only just worked it out a while ago
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:12PM
[citation needed], ya race-baiting fuckwit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:07AM
Are you saying Pollution raises IQ? Because if you wanna go the other way I give you Somalia, a country so industrialized that the pollution level forces the median IQ to hover under 70.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:43PM (2 children)
Ah, so you're attempting to be an intellectual but you're missing the required education and/or wisdom. Got it! HiThere already gave you a good piece to chew on, and that doesn't even get into the issues with IQ tests.
Your personal problem is your ego, you have way too much self-confidence for your actual abilities and knowledge. Maybe save your ego for tech related stuff where you actually have useful experience.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @12:41AM (1 child)
Did you have a rebuttal for anything I said or are you going strictly with ad-hom because you know you're wrong?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:27AM
Nope, that was the level of response warranted since you ignored the post you replied to and simply restated your opinion. You are making statements based on an incomplete model, like the guy who threw a snowball to prove global warming isn't real.
Reiteration and trolling for a reactionary insult does not validate your arguments. I only just recently found out that getting someone to mock you is regarded as a "win" in some circles. Thus why you admire Trump, he makes people angry therefore he "wins" and isn't that just amazeballs!? Poor comedy writers, reality is ruining their jokes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:19AM
You're absolutely WRONG buzzy.
Since you claim to have evidence, please point to it.
By my reckoning, even the concept of "race" is considered unscientific. Read this:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5712/1050.summary [sciencemag.org]
Next time you try and discern differences based on melanin content of skin cells, don't forget the other factors that could be influential: family history, income, education, neighborhood, family culture, national culture (bias against), medical history, and of course your own measurement bias.
My guess is you feel superior to women, right? And they have less melanin than you (if you're male).
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday January 14 2019, @10:15AM (1 child)
And this is the point I wanted to make, only I was on mobile, so tried to keep it (too) brief. There is plenty of evidence of a difference in the average intelligence of various groups. Of course there is a huge variation among individuals, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the average.
Look, I've worked in Africa. I have relatives who live in Africa. With some few and notable exceptions, most of Africa is a hot mess. If we sincerely want to help, it might be important to objectively examine the underlying problems. Marking certain topics off-limits, so that we aren't even allowed to consider them? Not helpful.
Intelligence is important, if you are going to maintain a civilization above a minimal technological level. Now, maybe the difference in average intelligence in black Africa will turn to be due to environment, or disease, or nutrition, or parasitism, or any of a host of other potential causes. Or maybe it is genetic. Denying that the difference exists means that we will never figure it out. Worse, it dooms any effort to help, you are ignoring a serious and fundamental problem.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:20PM
Riddle me this: which is worse? Ignoring/denying a problem exists or papering it over with facile/deceptive explanations? Decisions, decisions. Hmmmmm.
(Score: 1) by Michael on Monday January 14 2019, @03:03PM
Are you speaking of averages? The first statement doesn't actually contain any sense of that. I suppose a person might assume it if feeling generous in that regard.
Far as a sensible scholarly treatment of the subject goes, what's wrong with assuming it's a bit of both (genetics and environment) just to be on the safe side and getting some numbers to point in the direction of the relative importance of the two groups of effects.
What is your assumption of the magnitude of the two groups of effects, and what implications do you think this should have on how significant a factor the idea of race is.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:18PM
> Here is the salient point you racist twits never seem to retain: There is more
> variation within a single racial group than can be found between two different groups.
That's like denying global warming because the difference between day and night temperature is vastly greater than between average global temperatures between 1950 and today.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday January 14 2019, @01:38AM (3 children)
You seem to be unfamiliar with the field of statistics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:51AM
You must be new here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:49PM (1 child)
I understand the argument just fine, I simply disagree with IQ tests being good measures of genetic intelligence traits and only morons and racists make sweeping judgments about race based on IQ tests. If you can't realize the limits of your own knowledge then best not to join the argument.
Tell me, what is the point of discussing racial breakdowns of IQ tests? Are you an expert in genetics or psychology / neurology? Rhetorical questions, the only reason non-experts ever discuss this is because they are racist and looking for scientific reasons for their hatred.
I'm sure you will disagree, but it doesn't matter. Whether you are or not, bringing up the topic of race and IQ will pretty much guarantee that people will think you're racist. Continue forward as you see fit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:05PM
Depends on the type of test.
The Darwin test is a good start.