Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by chromas on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:00PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the race-to-disgrace dept.

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


Original Submission

Related Stories

Disgraced Scientist is Selling his Nobel Prize 64 comments

Nicholas St. Fleur writes at The Atlantic that in the sad final chapter to a career that traces back to racist remarks he made in 2007, James Watson, the famed molecular biologist and co-discoverer of DNA, is putting his Nobel Prize up for auction, the first Nobel laureate in history to do so. Watson, best known for his work deciphering the DNA double helix alongside Francis Crick in 1953, made an incendiary remark regarding the intelligence of black people that lost him the admiration of the scientific community in 2007 making him, in his own words, an "unperson". That year, The Sunday Times quoted Watson as saying that he felt “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.” Watson added that although some think that all humans are born equally intelligent, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Watson has a history of making racist and sexist declarations, according to Time. His insensitive off-the-cuff remarks include saying that sunlight and dark skin contribute to “Latin lover” libido, and that fat people lack ambition, which prevents them from being hired. At a science conference in 2012, Watson said of women in science, “I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective.” To many scientists his gravest offense was not crediting Rosalind Franklin with helping him deduce the structure of DNA.

Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago and Watson says the auction will also offer him the chance to “re-enter public life.” “I’ve had a unique life that’s allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part,” says Watson “All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are.”

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2 3
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:06PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:06PM (#786045)

    I don't know why he accepted all this praise from people whose opinions he holds in such low regard in the first place. He should have just politely declined them.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 14 2019, @05:02AM (1 child)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday January 14 2019, @05:02AM (#786271)

      so if someone were to give you a gold medal worth thousands of dollars you would say no thanks? heck, I'm quite well off, but if someone were to give me a $20 bill, why would I say no? see, this is why he is why he discovered that dna is a double helix, and you - well you're just an idiot.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:05PM (#786525)

        Because these prizes come with strings attached. There is an implicit approval of the prize-giving organization when accepting it. Personally I would have just said all the "offensive" stuff during the acceptance speech and offered to give it back right away Give them 10 days or something.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 14 2019, @04:46PM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Monday January 14 2019, @04:46PM (#786479) Journal

      It might well be that disagreements emerged afterwards.

      If an old scientist started claiming 2+2=7 people would laugh and conclude he is dodo.
      Because the claim is evidently wrong. So, is it any different in this case? Are the feelings if random people enough to strip a guy from a prize? Because in the past other people did bad things to other people? If so, shouldn't EU people be offended by the mere presence of the religion of the Moors? Should the north Africans mourn the loss of Carthage? Why not concentrate on crimes happening now?

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by qzm on Monday January 14 2019, @07:38PM (1 child)

        by qzm (3260) on Monday January 14 2019, @07:38PM (#786588)

        Does this mean we will also be punishing 'academics' who, with no evidence teach that male rape culture is real?
        What about white privilege?
        These are equally 'theories' to be kind.. And just as poisonous for exactly the same reasons..

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 18 2019, @09:29AM

          by Bot (3902) on Friday January 18 2019, @09:29AM (#788180) Journal

          Rape culture and white privilege are based on facts. The theories that wanted jews in ovens, and those who wanted the bourgeois stripped of property though, were based on facts too. All it matters is the weight you give to those facts and how you distribute the blame.
          Anybody who teach that should be held shared responsibility for the acts of people who carry out exactly what they preach.

          --
          Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:11PM (88 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:11PM (#786049) Homepage Journal

    Funny, most of the top runners are black. No ne is shocked, when one suspects that genetics might play a role. But suggesting that genetics affects intelligence is somehow heresy?

    Pathetic.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:19PM (69 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:19PM (#786055)

      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:

      There is more variation within a single racial group than can be found between two different groups.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:31PM (#786065)

        saying that intelligence is a racial thing is not supported by evidence. 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.

        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)

          by HiThere (866) on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:23PM (#786104) Journal

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:34PM (#786114)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:41PM (#786116)

              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.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (#786213)

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:00AM (#786216)

                  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)

                    by Kell (292) on Monday January 14 2019, @05:22AM (#786284)

                    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)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:25AM (#786357)

                      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.

                      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

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:43AM (#786363)

                        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)

                        by Kell (292) on Monday January 14 2019, @10:10AM (#786393)

                        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)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:33PM (#786429)

                          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

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:36PM (#786708)

                            And that is what counts.

                            Especially for the competition!

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:40PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:40PM (#786548)

                          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)

                          by Kell (292) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:07AM (#786719)

                          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

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:23AM (#786749)

                            It doesn't fit the SJW agenda?

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:37AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:37AM (#786797)

                            Rule 16: There are no women on the internet.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:12PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:12PM (#787075)

                          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)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:30AM (#786821) Journal

                        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)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:13AM (#786842)

                          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."

                          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

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:57PM (#787001) Journal

                            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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:36PM (#786115)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:22AM (#786183)

              What can we do in terms of nutrition (also a factor in IQ) to help?

              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)

                by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:18AM (#786281) Journal

                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)

                  by Kell (292) on Monday January 14 2019, @05:51AM (#786297)

                  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)

                    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @06:42AM (#786321) Journal

                    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)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @07:13AM (#786332) Journal

                      Me I'm trying to buy land so at least my kids can be dirt farmers.

                      "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
                      • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday January 14 2019, @03:26PM

                        by Oakenshield (4900) on Monday January 14 2019, @03:26PM (#786452)

                        "Fucking you, got mine" at the wannabe stage.

                        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

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @04:04PM (#786466)

                        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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:43PM (#786711)

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:08AM (#786742)

                      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)

                  by sjames (2882) on Monday January 14 2019, @09:04AM (#786370) Journal

                  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.

                  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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:36PM (#786455)

                    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.

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:15PM (#786601)

                      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

                      by hendrikboom (1125) on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:32PM (#787653) Homepage Journal

                      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)

              by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (#786211)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:09AM (#786219)

                Given that it is the right wing of politics

                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)

                by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:20AM (#786283) Journal

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:48PM (#786715)

                  It takes two people to be tricked.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:06AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:06AM (#786275)

          "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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:34AM (#786290)

            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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:34PM (#786068)

        "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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:12AM (#786220)

          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

            by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Monday January 14 2019, @05:33PM (#786508)

            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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:46PM (#786077)

        ...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)

          by HiThere (866) on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:25PM (#786107) Journal

          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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:25AM (#786187)

              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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:42AM (#786200)

                  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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:13AM (#786235)

                      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)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:42AM (#786294)

                      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

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @04:51PM (#786481)

                        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

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:13AM (#786745)

                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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:12PM (#786488)

              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.

              [citation needed], ya race-baiting fuckwit!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:07AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:07AM (#786277)

            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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:43PM (#786118)

          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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:27AM (#786241)

              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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:19AM (#786239)

          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)

          by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @10:15AM (#786394) Homepage Journal

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:20PM (#786498)

            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.

            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

          by Michael (7157) on Monday January 14 2019, @03:03PM (#786444)

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:18PM (#786102)

        > 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)

        by crafoo (6639) on Monday January 14 2019, @01:38AM (#786199)

        You seem to be unfamiliar with the field of statistics.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:51AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:51AM (#786365)

          You must be new here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:49PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:49PM (#786678)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:05PM (#787074)

            Depends on the type of test.
            The Darwin test is a good start.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:20PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:20PM (#786057)

      What's pathetic is the same clowns who fear a return of (pseudo-)scientific racism support affirmative action for college admissions.

      When scientists are silenced by colleagues, administrators, editors and funders who think that simply asking certain questions is inappropriate, the process begins to resemble religion rather than science. - Stephen Ceci & Wendy M. Williams 2009 [nature.com]

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:28PM (6 children)

        by HiThere (866) on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:28PM (#786110) Journal

        That's, unfortunately, a valid comment. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and doesn't make things better. A different way needs to be found, but the current approach alienates many of the people who would otherwise support finding it.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by RandomFactor on Monday January 14 2019, @01:38AM (5 children)

          by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @01:38AM (#786198) Journal

          Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and doesn't make things better.

          I hard an argument once that it actually made things worse from a purely practical perspective.
          The argument went approximately like this.
           
          If 10 non minorities and 1 minority apply for something and the minority gets it due to quota/set-aside/affirmative action, one (1) non minority was impacted (or 0 if gained fully on merit)
           
          However TEN non minorities now each believe they were deprived due to affirmative action and are angry at minorities.
           
          Affirmative Action breeds the very prejudice whose effects it is designed to offset.

          --
          В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @09:04AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @09:04AM (#786369)

            I have seen exactly that happen here. MLM positions don't come up very often but when they do Oh boy do you know who applied. The usual list of those waiting in the wings, those who had done the hard yards acting at the higher level, the pets, the ambitious, the mediocre and the others.

            Then a minority gets the position.

            Even worse when they give it to a female (to balance! the genders) who is just useless.

            Worse is when those overlooked just don't step up anymore. Why bother. Another substandard applicant will beat you out next time.

            I watched a guy flog himself silly for months doing his job and that of a person above him who should by all rights not even be allowed to lead a team. He damn near cried with relief when she left for her promotion. Yes. Promotion. The next person in the chair was hit full force the minute they started with next to no support. For that. Poor Bastard, he was a decent guy who happened to step into the pile of crap left behind. Eventually he managed to rally the managers under him but geez it was painful.

            If affirmative action leads to hiring the wrong people then it can backfire very badly.

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:03AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:03AM (#786718)

              I worked at a company where things got so bad that HR sent out a letter and apologized to the whole company. I'd quit before then. They were staffing jobs with people who had no (job) qualifications at all.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:26PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:26PM (#786502)

            If 10 non minorities and 1 minority apply for something and the minority gets it due to quota/set-aside/affirmative action, one (1) non minority was impacted (or 0 if gained fully on merit)

            However TEN non minorities now each believe they were deprived due to affirmative action and are angry at minorities.

            The obvious solution would appear to be to kill the minority and give the position to one of the other ten non-minorities. </sarcasm>

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:37AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:37AM (#787311)

              I applaud your solution while taking brevity with a contention that numbers of oppressed illegal immigrants in positions would hence fall giving us victim to not meeting arbitrary human quotas

              unless this conundrum can be resolved your proposal shall die in infancy like a white tweens virginity in rotherham

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:57PM (#787072)

            https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm [abc.net.au]

            Some bright spark came up with the idea that the reason less females and less minorities were getting into positions was due to bias.
            So, they came up with a plan. Strip race and gender from applications.
            The result was that less minorities and less females got in.

            The article talks about gender. The experiment was also a multiculturalism test to prove that the white workforce were discriminating against non-whites. They were wrong.

            They put this policy into place to make recruitment more fair. It worked.
            When they found that it didn't work like they wanted it to they removed it.

            That's the take away here. Political correctness is more important.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:41PM (#786075)

      Hey now, you need to cut that out.

      You're threatening the validity of the SJWs' double standards.

      See, the SJWs want to force you to believe everyone is equal. Of course anyone above the intelligence level of a cretin understands this is not true and never has been true and never will be true.

      But remember, reality doesn't concern the SJWs, because they operate on emotion and a herd mentality and don't actually engage in independent critical thought.

      Put simply, the SJWs are a mob. And we all know how mobs tend to exemplify wisdom and logic ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:43PM (#786117)

      Genetic differences are apparently only ok when they are of a non-mental-capacity-nature. Running fast, large chunks of the NBA is completely black etc are all fine (Still most of the NHL is very white ...). Mention the IQ thing and you'll have instant nazi-references inbound.

    • (Score: 1) by hellcat on Monday January 14 2019, @03:11AM

      by hellcat (2832) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @03:11AM (#786234) Homepage

      Africans were selected by their slave owners for strength for several hundred years.

      Of a large population, we're seeing a select few who are the best athletically.

      Give it time, and the population will normalize so that any characteristic will appear with no significant difference from any other population.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:18AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:18AM (#786314)

      It's got nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with the fact that running is an incredibly inexpensive sport to get involved with. Same goes for basketball. They're cheap to get involved in so the only real factor in terms of how far you go is genetics and your actual task commitment. These are also pursuits where only a small fraction of a percent of the people wind up getting good enough to be able to compete at that level.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:02PM (#786486)

        i've said something similar since the early 90's. i thought about it in high school as the nfl, boxing, etc. started to be dominated by blacks. there are multiple factors at play. one is genetic: in regards to previously existing inherited talents as well as subsequent slave breedings. the other is that poverty determines who is involved in what sport. most middle class people of any race will decide they have better things to do with their time than spending all of it on dangerous physical sports. you can see the demographics shift for any of these sports based on the populations exposed to it and who is poor at any given time in history. You can see similar trends in who joins the military, though you have to adjust for other factors like you do with sports.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday January 14 2019, @02:12PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday January 14 2019, @02:12PM (#786439)

      Genetics don't play half as much role as training. For instance, Kenyans on average have really good marathon times. It turns out a major reason for this is that they typically walk or run approximately 5 miles a day throughout their youth, have basically no junk food in their diets (which results in a really lean figure), and are often at relatively high altitudes which improves the efficiency of their red blood cells. If you took a European kid, had them grow up in Kenya living as the native Kenyan kids do, and put them to running marathons, odds are they'd do quite well.

      Another aspect of all this: African-Americans' advantages in height and muscle wasn't directly a product of their black-ness, and was much more a product of intentional breeding matches by slave masters trying to produce slaves who were stronger and thus were thought to be more valuable. There are quite a lot of West Africans that are considerably smaller than African-Americans, and slavery is a part of that story.

      But of course you want to believe that race has some sort of meaning as a genetic concept (it doesn't), and that the meaning in question is somehow tied to people's intelligence (it isn't), and thus "justify" your position of respecting Neil deGrasse Tyson's intelligence far less than you do a white Darwin Award winner.

      --
      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:05PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:05PM (#786487)

        "But of course you want to believe that race has some sort of meaning as a genetic concept (it doesn't), and that the meaning in question is somehow tied to people's intelligence (it isn't)"

        oh yeah. a few hundred years of breeding for size/strength affects african american size/strength but thousands of years of racial separation didn't effect anything like intelligence.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 14 2019, @07:24PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday January 14 2019, @07:24PM (#786580)

          "Thousands of years of racial separation" definitely didn't happen, and we know this because there's tons of shades of people in between white and black, and there always have been. For example, people who live in what is now Spain have been interacting and interbreeding with people who live in what is now Morocco for the entirety of recorded history. The Moroccans, in turn, have regularly interacted and interbred with people next door in what is now Algeria. The Algerians did the same thing with the Mali Empire to their south, routinely crossing the Sahara, and the Malians were getting into territory that's generally considered "black".

          You can see the same thing going north from Spain: Spaniards have constantly crossed the Pyrenees to hang out with and interbreed with the French. The French have always been interacting with the Germans and Brits. Who in turn have pretty much always been interacting with the Irish and Norwegians. And you're now solidly in "white" territory.

          And when you start getting into later periods, you have networks of trade and communication and interaction and interbreeding going pretty much everywhere within the Eastern Hemisphere. And there's a similar network in the Americas as well. And there even appear to have been occasional once-every-few-centuries visits across both the Atlantic and Pacific between the hemispheres before 1492. The idea that cultures were completely separated from each other bears absolutely no resemblance to history or archaeology. People moved around, shared information and sold stuff to each other, and while they were moving around they banged each other regularly. There ain't no such thing as a "pure" race, and never will be because of this.

          --
          The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @07:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @07:49PM (#786593)

        Kenya is a phenomenally interesting example. For instance it's not just Kenyans that are exceptional at marathons, but a small ethnic minority within Kenya making up fewer than 5 million people. And there's nothing environmentally unique about them. They just seem to have phenomenal genetics. Some 8% of Kenya's population is the group we know as 'The Kenyans', accounting for more than 75% of Kenya's medals in marathons.

        But it gets even more interesting. Two separate studies have taken individuals from this minority within Kenya who were not runners and decided to see what would happen if they start training. In as short as a few months of training these 'non-runners' were already able to outperform some professional western runners! Genetic features driving their phenomenal results included longer legs, shorter torsos, and other such things. These are not environmental factors to say the least.

        Also the environmental notions you mention, like Kenyans walking and running miles per day is simply untrue and based on prejudicial views rather than fact. It's certainly true that many of Kenya's runners do come from relatively high altitudes, yet living in high altitudes is something hardly unique to Kenya, though the results of our Kenyan minority in running certainly is!

        There was a surprisingly great article on all of this, and much more, from The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] some time back. Highly recommended.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:20PM (#786662)

        i am not afro american.
        i think they have superior mitochondria that excel at oxydizing ATP... or something along those lines.
        for a "black person" it might seem like the world of the whittys is passing by in slo-motion?
        anyways if society could get a black person to sit still long enough (snail teaching rabbit) to fill his/her
        head with useful stuff then sit this person in front of a black only class then maybe ... well ... they can learn at a uniform pace.
        just dont blame me if a "wakanda" pops up in the usa :)

        but you know if youlre "faster" then the overall population you dont have to be smart.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:13PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:13PM (#786053)

    Disgraced Nobel committee [bbc.co.uk] strips scientist [medium.com] of honorary prize.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:28PM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:28PM (#786062) Homepage Journal

      From your first link:

      Geir Lundestad told the AP news agency that the committee hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama.

      Well, no, faggotry is never well received, outside of Gay Bay. When the real "legacies" of the past few presidents are set down in the history books, Obama will merit a couple of sentences. In a hundred years or so, he'll be as memorable as - ohhhh - Madison. "Class, who was the first black president?" "Ohhh . . " "Uhhhmmmm" "Wasn't that Lincoln?" "No, Silly, it must have been Clinton, because it was real close to the millenium." "No, you're all wrong. Angela Merkel." "Hush Stupid, you answer Angela Merkel to all the questions!" "Class, let's settle down now, don't make me call the Resource Officer in to taser your asses again!"

      --
      The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:26AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:26AM (#786240)

        When the real "legacies" of the past few presidents are set down in the history books, Obama will merit a couple of sentences. In a hundred years or so, he'll be as memorable as - ohhhh - Madison.

        James Madison? One of the people along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay behind fellow pseudo-anon, Publius, who wrote the Federalist Papers?

        Please tell me you've read the Federalist Papers...

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 14 2019, @05:58AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:58AM (#786301) Homepage Journal

          We're talking about school children. James Madison is only remembered because his wife still lives at the museum, and still bakes delicious snacks that are delivered all around the nation for school children.

          --
          The only reason for not believing in it (Marxism) is that it doesn't work. - Thomas Sowell
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:36AM (#786362)

            James Madison is only remembered because his wife still lives at the museum, and still bakes delicious snacks that are delivered all around the nation for school children.

            His wife still "lives" at the museum today!?!? What is she, some kind of undead vampire?

            Has anyone ever informed Abraham Lincoln [imdb.com] about this?

(1) 2 3