Shades of Bell Curve: DNA Pioneer Watson an Equality of Intelligence Skeptic?
By daveinboca Posted in Archived — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This diary has been closed to further comment. For why, go here.
-Thomas
James Watson has the temerity to tell the Emperor's Court that the Ruler's Wardrobe makes him look naked as a jaybird.
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
Mimicking the UN IRCC that just got a Nobel for fake science, there are surely many Committees the UN will establish to refute Nobel Prize winning-scientist Watson with fake science, as the IRCC did with its "consensus science" on Global Warming.
The Thought Police are beginning to swarm already:
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full".... Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Professor Rose really means "socially and politically" and should not let the word "scientific" sully his presentation. Of course, scientifically every kind of IQ test devised has over the last one hundred years has demonstrated roughly two standard deviations [30 points] between black-African and white-European ancestry test subjects. The deviations have been blamed on everything from diet to environment to nurture, but finally the messenger itself came under fire and the validity of the IQ test itself has been questioned, ironically keeping the bathwater while throwing out the baby.
Again ironically, Ashkenazi Jews & Japanese score half a standard deviation again above White Europeans [though Germans & Poles score close to those two high flying outliers], with no cries of "racism" or being "unscientific."
Usually, when scientists stray from the quasi-religious orthodoxy of nanny-state multiculturalism, a campaign of personal character assassination is quickly ginned up to excommunicate the maverick offender from what is laughably called the "scientific community."
The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
For "script," read canonical rubrics approved by the Illuminati and Cabalmeisters, AKA the Minders of Our Collectivity Currently Under Construction. Not a jot nor tittle may be strayed from, lest the dreaded "scientific method" be loosed from its cage.
Here is some twaddle from committee composed of members of what Watson himself might presume to be of below-average intelligence:
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
Besides the lawyers, the pitchfork-and-torches lumpenproletariat of academicides are gathering to storm the gates of heterodoxy one more time. Dr. Larry Summers must be thinking: "There they go again."
And of course, the politicians can't let such an utterance go unpunished.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "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.
Of course, political functionaries in Old Europe on the Left always have that WMD called "hate crimes" to punish heretical thoughts.
I am looking forward to reading Watson's book, aptly named "Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science."
I definitely hate people trying to legally punish something like this. Whatever happened to free speech? It doesn't mean free speech if you like it.
That said, I'm not totally convinced of his thesis. There are many factors in intelligence, the strongest being upbringing and experience. Intelligence based on IQ tests (which are largely aptitude tests) do show that whites score higher, but people with more income and education also score higher. People who live lives that tend to be intellectually stimulating because their parents are smart, their friends are smart, they have a good education, and they work in a field full of smart people are going to be much smarter than someone with equal natural intelligence.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible that there is an inherent difference in intelligence based on race, although I'm not going to buy it just yet. Based on this guys statments about anyone who "has had to work with black employees" agreeing with him it is very possible that he has a bias. I don't think it's particularly useful to compare a group that was slaves 150 years ago and just recently started to go to college in decent numbers with other groups. But I'm not the kind of person that believes this based on political correctness. I just haven't seen the data that compares a large sample of people with the same education and parental income levels. It's possible that a difference exists and real life experience may indicate that the average intelligence of different races are different, but that doesn't meant that it is inherent. The culture of hard work and study in Japan is in stark contrast to the culture of apathy towards studying and entrepreneurship in a large segment of the black population. I am inclined to believe that is the main reason for any difference.
I have always believed that there is scant separation in human intelligence but like animals on NatGeo and Discovery Channel, we are only as smart as we have to be to survive. IMO geographical considerations had a huge impact on how we used intelligence over the millennia. Why are Germans such good engineers? Is it because of the analytical thought processes required to live in cold weather for thousands of years? I don't know but I do know that with the mingling of the two races over the last several hundred years, we now have PHD's like Dr Sowell, Dr Rice and my own black daughter-in-law who has a Master's degree in Communications and a mind that races half again ahead of mine. How does Dr. Watson account for this?
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
Regarding male vs. female I think it is clear that women are more likely to be close to a 100 IQ and men are more likely to be either very dumb or very smart. Women probably have a better attention span and discipline on average, leading to higher numbers of women in college than men in a really short perdiod of time. But maybe I'm just making excuses and women really are smarter than men. :P In my experience men tend to obsess over one or two things at a time and become incredible experts in that one or two areas, which is a nice match with division of labor. Women usually divert their attention over more concerns. This can hurt men in many ways, but perhaps leads to more male geniuses.
But the issue about the top jobs and breakthrough discoveries in science, is one of those forest for the trees things. I think they said men are something like 9 to 1 in this area. It is a male dominated field, in a field that is based solely on merit. Now that does me no good as a man, I will stick to history and investing lol.
I do agree with you that the most difficult thing in science is figuring out why something is the way it is. The hardest part is deciding on the exact reason for a result and making all other factors irrelevant.
Having said this, some scientific findings simply make us uncomfortable. They go against what we have been taught and what we want to be the case. Also, no one will ever show that a hell of a lot of blacks, hispanics, women, and any other group are not smarter than I am. So in the end, we all still have to go with what we have and do the best we can.
The most successful people are not always the most classically intelligent. The most successful people are driven by something the average guy is not. I an beat most of them at Trivial Pursuit but they still have more money :) We all do have a chance, and the outcome will rest mostly on our own actions.
Molon Labe!
is indeed not afraid of causing offence. From your Independent link
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
this man is a scientist, a Nobel Laureate. The real issue is whether his scientific findings are correct or false. I am sure some will come out to dispute his findings, if all of this is based on science, we may learn something.
Molon Labe!
is that far too many people are too innumerate to interpret the data.
A few years ago a British police chief got into trouble for saying that 75% (from memory) of muggings in London are committed by Black people. As the debate unrolled, it turned out that no-one was disputing his figures, just whether or not he should have said it.
The problem is that most people are unable to distinguish between the sentences:
75% of muggings are committed by Black people
and
75% of Black people are muggers.
Interpreting data regarding means is also beyond a large proportion of the population. Let's move the discussion on to an area that is beyond controversy. No-one doubts that the average man is taller than the average woman. But this tells you almost nothing of value about whether I am taller than your sister. (Or indeed you, dear reader, if you happen to be female). We all know women who are taller than the average man and men who are shorter than the average woman.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Unfortunately, the problem with interpreting the data is part of our reality.
Regardless of the validity of the referenced data:
1) There are members of all genetic backgrounds with exceptional IQs.
2) There are other metrics which are far more relevent to the measure of an upstanding citizen, which are not going to correlate at all with IQ.
3) This is one more reason why we need to continually reinforce the incredible abstraction generated through western civilization, judeo-christianity, the enlightenment, and advanced in our decree of independence:
We hold these thruth to be self evident: All people are born equal before the creator. Individuals are endowed by creation with certain rights which are outside the purview of their fellow man to restrict, except when directly conflicting with others ability to attain the same. Those rights emerging from our natural state include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
To paraphrase the politically wrong but morally right Dr. King: In the domain of human affairs, with our limited capacity to perceive, the value of a man is found in his character, not his IQ or wallet.
While this thread should be about the ancient tradition of political correctness trumping scientific discussion, I have always been amused that IQ has never been allowed to be an inherited racial trait. Oh sure, we all accept "smart parents, smart kids" just as we accept "good looking parents, good looking kids" and, undeniably "white parents, white kids; black parents, black kids."
It is also pretty funny to watch the racial apologists try to explain the statistical disproportionate number of Asian student over-achievers in US universities and the disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA and NFL, by example.
If "on average" all physical racial traits and attributes are contained within a race's DNA, I can't see where certain mental attributes such as reasoning, spacial relationships, etc. that seem to be important in understanding and solving problems in our modern world and which can be tested, should be excluded.
On average should just be accepted for what it is, on average.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
even on a conservative blog, many will happily ignore your post. We are taught this is wrong, and it is best to avoid it. I made my beliefs clear above, but the lack of rec's for your diary alone will show how people simply do not like this type of talk.
Molon Labe!
It seems like everyone who has commented on Dobson's latest comments and he and other Christian leaders' possible foray into a 3rd party are looking at it from the perspective of the GOP. Would Rudy be good for America and good for the GOP or would he not? But let's look at it from the perspective of the Christian right for a moment.
The Christian right started getting involved in politics in the late 1970's and really first coalesed behind a candidate in 80 with Reagan. Their big issues when they first entered politics were abortion and school prayer. They also talked about bringing morality back into politics. I think under George W. Bush they became even more in bed with the Republican party because Republicans continued to stand for those three "issues" (I'm defining morality in politics as an "issue" and I think that the whole "family values" convention reflects that) as well as a new fourth issue -- support for traditional marriage.
There are many Republicans and evangelicals who feel that the alliance between them has been beneficial to both. However, there are also evangelicals who feel that religious people have become too involved in politics -- the world is a sordid place and they can't help but fear that their involvement in politics will in some way be harmful to their religious cause. I think many evangelicals have become more disillusioned with politics in the past few years with the various Republican scandals and with the fact that Roe is still the law of the land and other cultural problems haven't seemed to changed.
Now the front-runner for the GOP nomination is a man who fails on personal morality (at least in the eyes of evangelical leaders), who is pro-choice, and pro-Civil Unions.
If Dobson et all support Rudy they will be saying either that a.) issues originally seen as "peripheral" like economics and even foreign policy are now more important than values issues -- the reason they got involved in the first place or b.) that they care more about power than principles. They'll be saying that they're in bed with the Republicans no matter what happens and they'll have essentially simply become another partisan special interest group that is primarily concerned with winning elections.
Non-Christians will see evangelicals who wear their religion on their sleeve out campaigning for a man who is thrice married and a known adulterer, and who supports abortion and gay rights. What will they think? What can they think but that the evangelicals are acting like power-hungry hypocrits? That's not to say that an individual Christian can't decide to vote for Rudy based on a variety of factors -- but if Christian leaders publically endorse him I think it will seriously damage the credability of their movement.
How does one measure intellectual capacity while peeling away all biases derived from education, culture, and other experiences?
This idea that Africans aren't as smart is very suspicious to me.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Without intending any snark here, I ask the question. What makes a person smart? Is it the same everywhere in the world? Does an IQ test give you a good measure thereof?
I really don't know any of the above beyond hazarding a guess that smart people know what they need to know to survive and do well in a particular setting. Maybe, an IQ test measures your ability to acquire that knowledge rapidly, maybe it doesn't. I'm not too sure James Watson really has much of a point here.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
you had me in your first paragraph. I agreed with the idea that "smart" can be societal dependent. I often criticize lazy Americans by saying your society is too safe, it allows the stupid to thrive. For example, if an African tribesman is stupid, a lion could eat him. On the other hand, dumb people in America just sit, drink coke,and play Nintendo.
But you lost me when you criticized the scientist. Did not this guy when a Nobel prize in science? Did he not basically invent the science of DNA? And now you tell him lots of results are "culturally influenced"?
come on, you can do better. btw, you can not tell him jack squat. Sorry, I just decided to be real clear.
Molon Labe!
First off no, Watson didn't get a Nobel Prize in 'science.' They don't give generalist awards like that. He was awarded the prize in Medicine for his work molecular biochemistry.
And secondly no, he didn't invent the science of DNA. He and Crick were the first to successfully figure out the exact structure of DNA, beating out Linus Pauling (he of α-helix fame a few years earlier), yes. The science of DNA started before him and continued beyond him; he and Crick were one of several groups working on the subject, and if they didn't do it someone else would have, possibly as soon as the high-quality data they used was published for the whole world to see.
But even beyond that, knowing exactly what atom goes where in a three-dimensional model of a DNA molecule is a far cry from having any authority in the science of heredity, or specifically what inherited traits are measurably different between groups of people on the basis of what part of the world they live in.
And actually there are other examples of people who were good at molecular biochemistry who are spectacularly bad at medicine more generally. Linus Pauling himself was a nut about Vitamin C before he died. So if James Watson has his own eccentricities that are given undue attention because of his DNA fame, then that's just par for hte course.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
a couple of months ago titled "Dangerous Ideas". There do seem to be ideas that are off limits, or "too dangerous" to discuss. Should it be that way? Not in my opinion. I believe I posited a while back that Americans (and others, it seems) have absurdly thin skin.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I already addressed the evils of environment, nurture, diet as variables. Plus living in an advanced environment has moved AMERICAN blacks' IQs fifteen points or one standard deviation upward so the average US black's IQ is around 85 rather than Africa's 70. So intellectual culture does matter.
I just dislike "hate crimes" and politicization of thought, as I would have thought some commenters here might have picked up on that odious Orwellian Group Think thoughtcrime aspect rather than picking nits and play statistician [I have a relative who writes that "some women are taller than most men" observation" every comment.
Let's cut to the chase. Nurture has a lot to to with intelligence, IQ is a way, not the only way, to measure intelligence. But discussion should be on the merits of Watson's freedom as a distinguished scientist to make observations after sixty years of work without being threatened politically, legally, professionally, and also having one's character maligned in a concerted manner.
Larry Summers was the person I had in mind when I noticed Watson's remarks. Yes, his remarks may strike one as odious or unpleasant, but they should not be consigned, as the Bell Curve was, to some scientific Siberia. That is not science.
And any visitor to Africa, where I have been many times, does notice many very clever people in cities, but also great dearth of other qualities that might be overcome with a better and more stimulating intellectual environment.
Dave, the problem with this is that Watson's theories here are exactly in line with the race theory that is the basis of hate crimes laws in America, and all that bad stuff.
And yes, I agree that we shoudln't try to censor this stuff, but it doesn't mean we have to pretend it's right or worthy of close examination.
Watson has a right to pop off just like all the other people with weird theories.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
An IQ of 70 is considered mentally retarded; Forrest Gump supposedly had an IQ of 75. So these numbers would mean that most africans and a large number of american blacks are mentally retarded and that just doesn't seem to be the case.
I suspect the test isn't measuring what it supposed to be measuring.
I am only advocating looking into the very wide disparity in IQ scores. I didn't mention that Australian aborigines, who are of CAUCASIAN ancestry, have an average IQ of 52.
I guess Feynman was right about Cargo Cult Science.
I'm just a bit surprised to see it advocated at Redstate.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
to a conclusion? Which means that you don't know what I think it means, but I advocate getting around the PC Gestapos like the legal, scientific, cultural watchdogs who say that certain studies are beyond the pale of the "scientific method."
Is that what you thought I said? I nowhere supported Watson's statements, only a huge amount of research on ONE area of intelligence testing.
Or am I misinterpreting the pronoun "it" in your response?
Having been to Africa many times does make me want to know more about the epidemic of dysfunctional behaviors that lead to failed states or near-failed states.
I believe Feynman was right about science succumbing to the blandishments of money and power and PC, only an embryo during his years as a public figure, on promoting Cargo Cult Science as the chief hazard facing Big Science, then in its infancy.
...in jobs ranging from Mickey Dees to white collar real estate research: actually, Doctor Watson, on this matter I consider you so full of bullsh*t that it's a wonder that your eyes aren't brown. I bring this up only because you're presuming to speak for me, Doctor Watson, and I don't want you to.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Everyone I have ever worked with seemed to me to have been not as smart as I, regardless of their race.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Choose the correct answer: (a) "not as smart as I," or (b) "not as smart as me."
"I wonder what sort of tale we've fallen into."
I think he's right, since what he wrote is short for "not as smart as I am." "me" doesn't work there.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Though I can appreciate how "me" may sound better to the uneducated ear.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
it would absolutely pale in comparison to cultural and upbringing factors. On the other hand there might be some inherited factors that lead to a certain type of disposition or
personality type.
Sort of the way that people who are alcoholics or have other addictions tend to pass that on to children even when they do not raise the children. (I am speaking about some statistical stuff I read about but do not remember where).
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"it would absolutely pale in comparison to cultural and upbringing factors."
If there were, just like all genetic traits, cultural and upbringing factors would have no effect on them. You, in fact, disproved your contention with your own example.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I was not saying that cultural factors had an effect on genetic factors, I was merely saying that if there are any genetic factors the degree in which they effected intelligence would be minor compared to outside factors.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
without a PC Gestapo hounding scientific investigators with extraneous issues of political, legal, and other biases. Watson was doing the Socrates bit, making an outrageous statement to get heuristic discourse started on a taboo subject.
Or maybe he was trying to sell his book: "Avoiding Bores...."
The Athenians killed Socrates with hemlock for questioning orthodoxy, we just stone our mavericks with angry posts!
While I think you wanted "affected" the use of "effected" is probably the correct term.
You put a dumb kid in a smart environment and that is what you have. Most kids will fall somewhere between string popcorn and string theory. Anyone who has taught people know that basic intelligence, the ability to learn and problem solve, is nature, not nurture.
The question here is, is inherited intelligence a trait equally distributed amongst all humans like the ability of say, speech or walking upright, or, is it racially weighted like skin color, stature and facial structure.
Objective tests and performance seem to say its weighted. Political correctness demands it be equally distributed.
However, if you think intelligence is a result of nuture, I will blame your grandparents, you should blame your parents.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
There is natural cognitive ability, or, if you will a maximum in which a person might reach under the best of circumstances. However, a person might never get anywhere near their potential if they grew up in a bad environment.
Suppose a kid never had anyone read to them, went to terrible schools, never even learned to speak correctly. They might have street smarts but would always be thought of as stupid by society, and probably themselves.
The bell curve of human intellect is such that there is very little variance between most people. But many people never get anywhere near their full potential.
That is why our welfare policies which harmed the family are so pernicious. In the forties and fifties, even with institutionalized discrimination, blacks did far better in schools than they do now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
He stated a fact about the highest levels of science being almost all male, and he was drummed out of office.
I do not support or deny Wastson's science, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject. I am one of those liberal arts types lol.
I agree with your diary though, science that challenges our views on equality is rarely given a fair hearing. And since so many now, particularly in the area of climate change, realize they really do not need to back their views with science, it is a brave man who follows where the evidence leads, and ignores the personal consequences.
Molon Labe!