0
   

Top scientist claims black people 'stupid'

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 02:09 pm
That's ridiculous Steve. I just hope you know it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 02:13 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
What motivates Watson to say what he does is not white racist supremacist views nor hatred of black people but simple observation of how nature is and not necessarily how armies of social scientists think it should be.


Well, he said as well that "stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured" - via genetic screening and genetic engineering. (Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer)

That's a bit more than nature.

I could imagine that there's not only provocation behind this, but the need of promotion for his just now starting book signing and lecture tour*.

Not senility, as many think.

Quote:
*Details of Dr James Watson's Public Engagements:

Friday, October 19

12.30-2pm Blackwell, Welcome Collection - book signing only

6.30-7.30pm Imax Cinema at the Science Museum - talk chaired by Professor Richard Morris

Sunday, October 21

12-1.30pm Barter Books, Alnwick - book signing

6pm Centre for Life, Newcastle - talk chaired by Robin McKie

Monday, October 22

PUBLICATION DAY

6pm Assembly Hall, 1 Mound Place, Edinburgh - event part of the Edinburgh University Enlightenment Series of Lectures with Ian Wilmut, chaired by David Porteous

Tuesday, October 23

7.30pm The Union Society Debating Chamber, Cambridge - in conversation with Simon Baron-Cohen, chaired by Matthew Jarvis

Wednesday, October 24

12.45-2.15pm Bristol 'Festival of Ideas' at St. George's - talk chaired by Professor Eric Thomas

7pm The Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford - talk chaired by Richard Dawkins
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 02:52 pm
Crick and Watson and the dark lady
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:32 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
And he made Yorkshiremen, for some reason that escapes me.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 04:15 pm
Sounds like a not so clever way to get a lot of free publicity about his book and tour.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 05:28 pm
It seems to be effective.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:15 pm
Anybody that has spent any real time with black folks knows how dumb that statement is. (blacks = stupid)
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:27 pm
The whole question of intelligence may just be a red herring? Considering we all have a finite lifespan, what might be more important is how boring one is. For that criterion, Caucasians might really win hands down, so to speak, on any standardized bellcurve of boorish behavior.

If there is a postive correlation between higher intelligence and higher boorish behavior, how many people would prefer less intelligent people, but more entertaining? Hear! Hear!

Anyone for the bunny hop? [Put your left foot in, put your left foot out...]
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 07:43 pm
Well, seems to me that Watson is driven by his ideas, hypotheses, missing an element of detachment.


I think of him as a buffoon, but of course you are welcome to think what you like.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 08:14 pm
Dr. Watson should meet with Dr. Condaleeza Rice on the mat to see who is the nastiest.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 08:29 pm
Responding to Watson's comments with the identification of highly intelligent blacks is an arrow well off the mark.Likewise is anecdotal evidence that one's personal experience with blacks is somehow deciding.

Watson, alas, does seem to be saying that, in general, blacks are stupid, but he is certainly not saying all blacks are stupid, and is not proven wrong by a litany of geniuses of color.

The notion that one has spent time with blacks and therefore one's experience is controlling, is silly. The same silly argument that Watson is making.

It is certainly a reasonable contention that two genetic lines developed in relative isolation may be distinct in the general expression of certain characteristics: lung capacity, aggression, extent of facial hair, intelligence, and skin color, to name a few.

The mere fact that there are blacks and whites indicates that there are differences among races. It is a bit silly to assume that these differences are limited to only the most superficial characteristics of a person.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there is a distinction between the races in terms of intelligence, simply that it is reasonably possible for there to be.

The best argument, it seems to me, is --- So What?

Unless the distinction between the races rise to the level of distinction between species, it has no meaning. If we accept that individuals within any given race can express a high level of intelligence (Which Watson does accept) any sort of analysis that might prove a general distinction is really meaningless.

He takes a reasonable hypothesis and makes a farce of it when he suggests that anyone who works with blacks will agree with him, or that Africans, as a whole, are incapble of benefiting from the assistance of whites.

He, of course, is not the only brilliant individual with idiotic notions: Chomsky, Krugman, Pauling, Oppenheimer, Sontag, among others come to mind.

And he (and the others) is the personification of the So What argument.

Unfortunately, Watson has indulged himself and traded on his stature by interpreting his personal experiences and bias as scientific evidence.

It is amusing what some latch upon as proof os his kookyness. For instance, the comment that woman should be allowed to have abortions if they discover their fetus bears a gene for homosexuality.

Are the pro-choice advocates now venturing into the realm of judging the basis of a woman's choice?

And what is kooky about thinking it may be desirable to engineer genes so that all women and men can enjoy the advantages of meeting the genetically formed profile of beauty, and not suffer the consequences of falling outside it. As long as the engineering is voluntary where is the harm?

Please, please, please: Liberals out there please argue that genetic engineering of an individual should not be the choice of the parent.

Watson remains a brilliant, important contributor to the body of human knowledge. It doesn't mean that everything he says is correct, but it should cause us to ponder.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:12 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It is certainly a reasonable contention that two genetic lines developed in relative isolation may be distinct in the general expression of certain characteristics: lung capacity, aggression, extent of facial hair, intelligence, and skin color, to name a few.

The mere fact that there are blacks and whites indicates that there are differences among races. It is a bit silly to assume that these differences are limited to only the most superficial characteristics of a person.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there is a distinction between the races in terms of intelligence, simply that it is reasonably possible for there to be.
A question that many people have asked. Not only asked but tested the hypothesis. And a great deal of data has been collected. And guess what, there is a statistically significant correlation between race and intelligence. But of course one shouldnt let the facts interfer with prejudice. People get upset.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:18 am
Oh forgot to say that Watson was banned from speaking last night. Not at a BNP rally. But at the Science Museum in London. Disgraceful.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:27 am
Quote:
Koku Adomdza, director of the black equality pressure group The 1990 Trust, labelled Dr Watson a "complete dinosaur" and pressed him to apologise to "Africa and all people of African origin".

He said: "Dr Watson is really a relic of the oldest stock and deserves to be made to account for his extremely offensive and ignorant remarks.

"His very poisonously racist opinions put students and the unsuspecting public at serious risk."

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, commented: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
ok fine lets see it they do.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:42 am
What criteria are being used to measure "intelligence"?

And what allowance is being made for conditioning factors in any particular environment?
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 03:54 am
I wonder if this might have some bearing on Watson's observations of African intelligence?
Quote:
Malnutrition and the Brain
Vitamin and mineral deficiencies can be caused by:

Starvation
Poor diet
Poor absorption of vitamins and minerals
Damage to the digestive system
Infection
Alcoholism

The brain of a human fetus grows rapidly from the 10th to 18th week of pregnancy, so it is important for the mother to eat nutritious foods during this time. The brain also grows rapidly just before and for about 2 years after birth. Malnutrition during these periods of rapid brain growth may have devastating effects on the nervous system and can affect not only neurons, but also glial cell development and growth. Effects on glial cells may change myelin development especially because myelin continues to form around axons for several years after birth.
Babies born to mothers who had poor diets may have some form of mental retardation or behavioral problems. Also, children who do not receive adequate nutrition in their first few years of life may develop problems later. Often the effects of malnutrition and environmental problems, such as emotional and physical abuse, can combine to create behavioral problems. Therefore, the exact causes of behavioral disorders are difficult to determine.

Some effects of malnutrition can be repaired by a proper diet, so not all of the effects of poor diets are permanent. Researchers believe that the timing of malnutrition is an important factor in determining if problems will occur. This means that missing out on a particular nutrient at the time when a part of the brain is growing and needs that nutrient will cause a specific problem there.


And for that matter, in terms of the the intelligence levels he says he's observed in African Americans: this is an interesting article that may shed some light on causation:http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=731&page=26

In terms of the bikini clad women being smarter- I was wondering if there was a correlation between exposure to and absorption of vitamin D via sunlight- but then that would counter what seems to be his assertion that people in the southern hemisphere are those he seems to find with less raw intelligence.
Although I think the effects of sustained famine, especially on developing fetuses, would override the effects of obtaining enough of one vitamin or mineral.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 04:12 am
spendius wrote:
What criteria are being used to measure "intelligence"?

And what allowance is being made for conditioning factors in any particular environment?
Intelligence is that which an intelligence test or IQ meausre measures. Its a bit like a ruler, you put it along side something and find it is 1ft 2in long. Carefully taking the same ruler you put it against something else and find it is 1ft 1in long. This is called measurement.

I'm surprised you ask that question Spendy, its a simple IQ test.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 04:14 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
And a great deal of data has been collected. And guess what, there is a statistically significant correlation between race and intelligence. But of course one shouldnt let the facts interfer with prejudice. People get upset.


Well, certainly Hiler's scientists "found" a lot about that.

To whom are you referring here exactly?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 04:49 am
The same people Watson refers to. Or would refer to if he was allowed to speak. I'm not a psychologist so I cant give their names off hand.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 04:56 am
Intelligence measurements Steve are generally designed in such a way that those supervising them have the capability to do well in them. I daresay Mr Watson is as dumb as a cluck at bushcraft or playing a fast, seaming delivery from Brett Lee into the narrow gap between cover and long off. His idea of intelligence will be one which supports his notion of his own capacities.

Your ruler analogy is woeful and betrays a singular lack of intelligence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 09:21:40