• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Watson: Blacks less intelligent than whites


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#31 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 October 2007 - 01:23 AM

Watson is far more intelligent than any of us in this area, so ultimately our opinions really don't hold much merit next to his...at all. He wouldn't be putting his personal reputation on the line if his findings didn't fully support what he's claiming.

I'm not so sure he is. Does he even do work in this field? How do we know that he isn't a bit senile at this point?

#32 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,888 posts
  • 679
  • Location:Lubbock, TX

Posted 19 October 2007 - 03:51 AM

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.

#33 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 19 October 2007 - 05:08 AM

So, does that mean we have to model AI's after white people's brains?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 stargazer

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 2

Posted 19 October 2007 - 09:14 AM

So, does that mean we have to model AI's after white people's brains?


No it means we have to model it from an asian's brain :)

#35 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 19 October 2007 - 01:07 PM

Defining race.

I think it is appropriate to step back from the debate and clarify a few things about the basic little four letter word we use called *race*.

The first is that many people (including Dr. Watson) are using it differently, as well as inconsistently. I have referenced this before but I will try again.

Let's start with the formal definition of race, at least the noun of intended use and not the verb or the noun that refers to things like a race of water or competition; the one derived of the Old Italian word: razza.

Mirriam Webster

    3race 
Function:
    noun
Etymology:
    Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date:
    1580

1: a breeding stock of animals

2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group
b: breed
c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

4: obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength


The most important point to pay close attention to is that for the most part in this discussion we are talking about numbers #1, #2, & #3 and these are NOT interchangeable. One usage cannot be casually supplemented for the other.

Even in the case of the three uses within number #3 one must be very careful to not slip between the definitions and ironically many of the common misuses of the word are actually inserting a fourth characteristic from the now generally obsolete usage of number #4 when referring to intelligence.

#36 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 19 October 2007 - 01:20 PM

Also since this threaded started there has been a far more important quote issued by Dr. Watson and it is one in which I am confident that some will assert was due to peer and political pressure but I think we should carefully weigh his words.

"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.

"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Scientist apologizes for hurtful remarks


This statement was just issued yesterday by Dr. Watson and I want to add that is why I removed this thread from the area of scientific discussion as inappropriate. Opinion by itself is not science and Dr. Watson would be the first to acknowledge that. In fact he just did.

The motives of those that jump to conclusions on all sides are subject to review but the history of racism and its continuing harm in today's world are no trifling matter and we need to be sensitive to the *sensibilities* of those concerned.

#37 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 20 October 2007 - 07:40 AM

There is no scientific or mathematical rationale for the classification of human populations according to the very limited number of cultural and phenotypic traits typically associated with "race". It describes nothing useful about the genetics of a population. (Although, for an evolutionary psychologist, I'm sure it is does say something about the development of human behavioral biases.) Labels typically associated with race say nothing meaningful about particular clusters and statistical distributions of observed traits within the population of human phenotypes.

#38 dangerousideas

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 20 October 2007 - 04:09 PM

Labels typically associated with race say nothing meaningful about particular clusters and statistical distributions of observed traits within the population of human phenotypes.


If only saying it often enough and loudly enough could make it true!

Sadly, your assertion that there is no statistical corrolation between observed traits within a population and racial labels (as they are understood scientifically) is simply wrong. I offer for your consideration - as one rather obvious example - the statistical corrolation which is near 1.0 for the cluster of genetic traits leading to blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin being associated with a particular subtype within the Caucasian population.

Far be it from me to say that we cannot occasionally make society more congenial or palatable for ourselves and our fellows by lying to ourselves or by ignoring awkward evidence; nevertheless reality endures without reference to our desires.

I would admonish you to remember that the first duty of the scientist is to see truth clearly. But I would also add that the beginning of wisdom is to understand where truth alone is not enough.

#39 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:28 PM

Intelligence is for the most part a matter of education, practice and culture. "Blacks" (you know, the ghetto variant of a brown-skinned man (or woman)) live in a culture in which stupidity, non-education and mob-thinking rule. The intelligence of a white human living in ghetto culture is on par with his brown counterpart, as it would be if they would live in a suburban thrash enviroment.


I agree. In my opinion if a population of a educationally disadvantaged area was studied, we would find that all ethnicities would have an equal average intelligence.
- Sezarus


Sure, a static sampling might in fact show this exactly. But, over the course of generations I think we would see the more intelligent group of individuals develop ways to better educate themselves, they would explore and make advances in their world, while the less intelligent group would stay stagnant, maybe even go backwards and succumb to civil war - even in a country full of natural resources.

#40 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 21 October 2007 - 12:12 AM

There is no scientific or mathematical rationale for the classification of human populations according to the very limited number of cultural and phenotypic traits typically associated with "race"...

Labels typically associated with race say nothing meaningful about particular clusters and statistical distributions of observed traits within the population of human phenotypes.

Sadly, your assertion that there is no statistical corrolation between observed traits within a population and racial labels (as they are understood scientifically) is simply wrong. I offer for your consideration - as one rather obvious example - the statistical corrolation which is near 1.0 for the cluster of genetic traits leading to blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin being associated with a particular subtype within the Caucasian population.


Ah yes, you are correct. There is certainly statistical correlations between visible traits and particular genomic sequences.

What I am trying to say is that the traditional race labels as used by the broad non-scientific community, based as they are on a very limited set of visible traits such as skin color and facial features, are too imprecise to be used in a meaningful way (i.e., the clusters are far from optimal). Partitioning of the population of human phenotypes into classes is certainly valid, but feature selection and the clustering criterion used are dependent on the particular area under investigation, and hence the groupings may vary considerably. There can be no "one size fits all" set of classes.

What do you think?
  • Good Point x 1

#41 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 October 2007 - 03:41 AM

What I am trying to say is that the traditional race labels as used by the broad non-scientific community, based as they are on a very limited set of visible traits such as skin color and facial features, are too imprecise to be used in a meaningful way (i.e., the clusters are far from optimal). Partitioning of the population of human phenotypes into classes is certainly valid, but feature selection and the clustering criterion used are dependent on the particular area under investigation, and hence the groupings may vary considerably. There can be no "one size fits all" set of classes.

Traditional race labels may be suboptimal phenotypic clusterings from some perspectives, but they are at least geographically based. Nevertheless, aside from the overtly visible features, there are numerous lower level biological features (e.g. expression of P450 subtypes) that cluster according to these definitions. To say that they are "too imprecise to be used in a meaningful way" strikes me as wishful thinking. Upon what evidence do you base such a statement?

#42 bob_d

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 October 2007 - 11:00 AM

BiDil - Prescription Drug for African Americans with Heart Disease
but normally race says only that a person has a higher probability for a biological feature.

#43 dannov

  • Guest
  • 317 posts
  • -1

Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:11 PM

There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


And who do you suggest gives handouts to those countries? The USA? We're almost 10 trillion in debt. Helping them would further decrease the value of our dollar, throwing money out of our country, causing the Fed Reserve to make more paper out of thin air, causing more massive inflation. That education I take for granted? That's all debt I'll be paying back for the next thirty years of my life, along with the eventual mortgage, and all of my other bills.

Asia has 65% of the world's wealth you know--they're doing quite fine. You may not like their governments, but that's not your or my concern. If the people dislike their governments enough, then they'll rise against them as we did. It is man's job to take responsibility for himself--no man can force another to follow his path through bribery and handouts. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day (what we're doing). Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime (By returning America to its roots and serving as a beacon of hope of what a great country can be).

The most powerful thing in the world is hope, and our country has never been so isolated and scorned by the world.

#44 kylyssa

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:06 AM

Did Watson specifically say black people or did he say Africans?

There's the factor of famine to consider when talking about "intelligence." Malnourished parents produce children of lower IQ's who then tragically don't live up to their potential due to being malnourished themselves.

His reasoning is faulty anyway - the difficulties in Africa have little to do with intelligence but to do with greed, power, and base motivations.
  • Good Point x 1

#45 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:49 AM

There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


And who do you suggest gives handouts to those countries? The USA? We're almost 10 trillion in debt. Helping them would further decrease the value of our dollar, throwing money out of our country, causing the Fed Reserve to make more paper out of thin air, causing more massive inflation. That education I take for granted? That's all debt I'll be paying back for the next thirty years of my life, along with the eventual mortgage, and all of my other bills.

Asia has 65% of the world's wealth you know--they're doing quite fine. You may not like their governments, but that's not your or my concern. If the people dislike their governments enough, then they'll rise against them as we did. It is man's job to take responsibility for himself--no man can force another to follow his path through bribery and handouts. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day (what we're doing). Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime (By returning America to its roots and serving as a beacon of hope of what a great country can be).

The most powerful thing in the world is hope, and our country has never been so isolated and scorned by the world.


"help" does not necessarily imply just "throwing money" at these people. For living standards to increase, wages must increase, and the costs of living must decrease thus creating more disposable income. These are largely administrative problems, and neither throwing money at the corrupt administrations nor undercutting them by giving it directly to the people will help in any substantial way.

#46 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 26 October 2007 - 12:48 AM

Seems like in some ways, Watson is guilty of thoughtcrime.

In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".

In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary:

“ Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death. ”

He also makes remarks to the effect that "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

In modern media the term thoughtcrime is used to refer to crimes (allegorical or legislative) whereby the alleged "criminal" commits a crime not by action but by expressing their thoughts in some way. Real world thoughtcrimes are punishable by measures as severe as death. For example apostasy (the "crime" of changing your religion) in Saudi Arabia is punishable by death by stoning. Even in "civilised" countries like the United Kingdom the "crime" of blasphemy (saying something bad about Christianity) remains on the statute book.

As a public persona his remarks were insensitive to be sure. However, where do you draw the line between preventing racism and supressing free speech? It seems like a tricky question, where if you move too far in either direction it could be dangerous. If every unpopular view is stomped out, does that mean no more freedoms?
Race doesn't exist because human categorization is ultimately murky. Most African-americans have a significant proportion of "white" genes. Conversely a large proportion of "white" americans have african ancestors, (not to mention we all have a common ancestor from africa). So its complicated (like pretty much everything else). Any grouping of race is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

#47 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:44 AM

http://news.yahoo.co...ial_scientist_2

well he's out for good.

#48 Mark A

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 18 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 October 2007 - 05:38 AM

Nigeria: I Agree With Dr. Watson

Daily Trust (Abuja)

OPINION
25 October 2007
Posted to the web 25 October 2007

Idang Alibi


A few days ago, the Nobel Laureate, Dr James Watson, made a remark that is now generating worldwide uproar, especially among the blacks.

He said what to me looks like a self-evident truth. He told The Sunday Times of London in an interview that in his humble opinion, black people are less intelligent than the White people.


Since then, some of us cannot hear anything else but the outrage of black people who feel demeaned by what Watson has said. So many people have called the man names. To be expected, some have said he is a racist. Some even wonder how a "foolish" man like Watson could have won the Nobel Prize. Even white people who, deep in their heart, agree with Watson want to be politically, correct so they condemn the man.

Why are we blacks becoming so reactive, so sensitive to any remarks, no matter how well-meaning, about our failure as a race? Why are we becoming like the Jews who see every accusation as a manifestation of anti-Semitism? I do not know what constitutes intelligence. I leave that to our so-called scholars. But I do know that in terms of organising society for the benefit of the people living in it, we blacks have not shown any intelligence in that direction at all. I am so ashamed of this and sometimes feel that I ought to have belonged to another race.

Nigeria my dear country is a prime example of the inferiority of the black race when compared to other races. Let somebody please tell me whether it is a manifestation of intelligence if a people cannot organise a free, fair and credible election to choose who will lead them. Is it intelligence that we cannot provide simple pipe-borne water for the people? Our public school system has virtually collapsed. Is that a sign of intelligence? Our roads are impassable. In spite of the numerous sources that nature has made available to us to tap for energy to run our industries and homes, we have no steady supply of electricity. Yet electricity is the bedrock of industrialisation. When you agree with the school of Watson, some say you are incorrect because all these failures are a result of poor leadership. Why must it be us blacks who must always suffer poor leadership? Is that not a manifestation of unintelligence?

In the name of international trade, bilateral co-operation, globalisation and other subterfuges, the norm in the world today is for smart people to appropriate the wealth of other people for themselves and their countries. But more among the blacks than any other race, the practice is to steal from their own country and salt away to other people's country. Is it intelligence that our leaders steal billions of naira and hide in other people's country?

Anywhere in the world today where you have a concentration of black people among other races, the poorest, the least educated, the least achieving, and the most violent group among those races will be the blacks. When indices of underdevelopment are given, black people and countries are sure to occupy the bottom of the ladder. If we are intelligent, why do we not carry first when statistics of development are given?

Look at the African continent. South Africa is the most developed country because of the presence of whites there. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many of us but it exists nevertheless. If the whites had been driven away after independence, we would have seen a steady decline of that country.

In terms of natural endowment, Africa ought to be the richest of the continents but see the mess we have made of the potential for greatness which God in his infinite wisdom has bestowed upon us. We have proved totally incapable of harnessing the abundant natural resources to become great. Today, there is a renewed scramble for the wealth of Africa. China, our new "friend", does not bother about the genocide against fellow blacks in the Sudan by the Arabs who control the affairs of that country. They say they do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. All they want is the oil in Sudan to run their industries. Yet, we blacks have not seen the Chinese action as an affront to our sensitivities. Every race takes us for granted because we are so weak and so foolish, if you permit me to say it.

I am really pained by our gross underachievement as a race. Instead of regarding bitter truths expressed by the likes of Watson as a wake-up call for us to engage in sober reflection, we take to the expression of woolly sentiment. For me, this type of reaction is a further evidence of our unintelligence. A man of intelligence recognises genuine criticism against him and takes steps to improve himself in order to prove his critics wrong. But for us blacks, our reaction is to abuse the man who expresses worries about our backwardness.

Other races are deeply worried about us because we are a problem to the world. We suffer from the five Ds: disorderliness, debts, diseases, deaths and disasters. Our disorderliness affects others or else they won't be too bothered about us. Many are afraid because our diseases could infect them. Polio has been eradicated all over the world yet it is still found in Nigeria here. When they give us money to help us eradicate it, our thieving officials will embezzle the money; the virus will spread and endanger the health of not only our people but other people as well.

Out of a shared sense of humanity, some cannot bear to see how we die in thousands almost every day from clearly preventable diseases and causes. For years now, our people die extremely painful but perfectly preventable deaths from buildings which collapse because they were poorly constructed. How can you tell me we are as intelligent as others when we set traps for ourselves in the name of houses and others do not do so? Some people are extremely frustrated about us. If they have a way of avoiding us, they will be too glad to do so because we are a problem.

As I write this, I do so with great pains in my heart because I know that God has given intelligence in equal measure to all his children irrespective of the colour of their skin. The problem with us black people is that we have refused to use our intelligence to organise ourselves socially and politically.

It should worry us that we do not invent things. We do not go to the moon. Our societies are not well-organised. We have the shortest lifespan of all the races. Something must be wrong with us. Why are we not like others? Our scholars will be quick to say that these are not the only ways of measuring intelligence. They will quote other scholars to adumbrate their point, but the fact remains that we are not showing intelligence. Others are showing it more than we're doing. If they are not more intelligent than we are, let someone tell me how to put it. God himself must be frustrated with his black children. They must be an embarrassment to him. He has given us everything he has given to other of his children; why are his black children not manifesting their own gift?

A few years ago, the whites used to contemptuously call the Japanese "little Japs". Today, the Japanese and other Asians have pulled themselves up by the bootstrap and have arrived. No one speaks of the Japanese or Asians with contempt anymore. When people like Watson speak about us in unedifying terms, we should take it as a challenge to prove them wrong by sitting down to plan how we can become world-beaters.

If our political leaders are the reason for our backwardness, we should resolve to get the kind of leaders who will be instrument for our rapid progress. I may not know how intelligence is measured but my limited knowledge of intelligence is that it can also be measured by the kind of leaders a people decide to have. If, for instance, our professors preside over the massive rigging of elections, it means that we do not have very intelligent professors. Such rigged elections will no doubt produce unintelligent leaders. Such unintelligent leaders will do stupid things which will prove that we are not as intelligent as other races. Do I sound confusing or intelligent?

I am ready for some of our 'patriotic' intellectuals who will write and abuse me for the 'outrage' I have expressed here but I stick to my guns: we lack intelligence and as stated in the Bible, anyone who lacks intelligence should cry unto God who is the custodian of wisdom to bestow some upon him. We should go on our knees today and ask God why we do not appear as intelligent as our other brothers. I am confident God will reveal to us what we must do, and urgently too, to change our terribly unflattering circumstances.

http://allafrica.com...0710250639.html

#49 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:56 AM

Yep, as elrond said, he is being forced to retire because of his comments:
http://www.nytimes.c...-watson.html?hp
http://news.aol.com/...gnation-letter/

#50 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,358 posts
  • 69

Posted 29 October 2007 - 02:10 AM

Nigeria: I Agree With Dr. Watson

Daily Trust (Abuja)

OPINION
25 October 2007
Posted to the web 25 October 2007

Idang Alibi


A few days ago, the Nobel Laureate, Dr James Watson, made a remark that is now generating worldwide uproar, especially among the blacks.

He said what to me looks like a self-evident truth. He told The Sunday Times of London in an interview that in his humble opinion, black people are less intelligent than the White people.


Since then, some of us cannot hear anything else but the outrage of black people who feel demeaned by what Watson has said. So many people have called the man names. To be expected, some have said he is a racist. Some even wonder how a "foolish" man like Watson could have won the Nobel Prize. Even white people who, deep in their heart, agree with Watson want to be politically, correct so they condemn the man.

Why are we blacks becoming so reactive, so sensitive to any remarks, no matter how well-meaning, about our failure as a race? Why are we becoming like the Jews who see every accusation as a manifestation of anti-Semitism? I do not know what constitutes intelligence. I leave that to our so-called scholars. But I do know that in terms of organising society for the benefit of the people living in it, we blacks have not shown any intelligence in that direction at all. I am so ashamed of this and sometimes feel that I ought to have belonged to another race.

Nigeria my dear country is a prime example of the inferiority of the black race when compared to other races. Let somebody please tell me whether it is a manifestation of intelligence if a people cannot organise a free, fair and credible election to choose who will lead them. Is it intelligence that we cannot provide simple pipe-borne water for the people? Our public school system has virtually collapsed. Is that a sign of intelligence? Our roads are impassable. In spite of the numerous sources that nature has made available to us to tap for energy to run our industries and homes, we have no steady supply of electricity. Yet electricity is the bedrock of industrialisation. When you agree with the school of Watson, some say you are incorrect because all these failures are a result of poor leadership. Why must it be us blacks who must always suffer poor leadership? Is that not a manifestation of unintelligence?

In the name of international trade, bilateral co-operation, globalisation and other subterfuges, the norm in the world today is for smart people to appropriate the wealth of other people for themselves and their countries. But more among the blacks than any other race, the practice is to steal from their own country and salt away to other people's country. Is it intelligence that our leaders steal billions of naira and hide in other people's country?

Anywhere in the world today where you have a concentration of black people among other races, the poorest, the least educated, the least achieving, and the most violent group among those races will be the blacks. When indices of underdevelopment are given, black people and countries are sure to occupy the bottom of the ladder. If we are intelligent, why do we not carry first when statistics of development are given?

Look at the African continent. South Africa is the most developed country because of the presence of whites there. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many of us but it exists nevertheless. If the whites had been driven away after independence, we would have seen a steady decline of that country.

In terms of natural endowment, Africa ought to be the richest of the continents but see the mess we have made of the potential for greatness which God in his infinite wisdom has bestowed upon us. We have proved totally incapable of harnessing the abundant natural resources to become great. Today, there is a renewed scramble for the wealth of Africa. China, our new "friend", does not bother about the genocide against fellow blacks in the Sudan by the Arabs who control the affairs of that country. They say they do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. All they want is the oil in Sudan to run their industries. Yet, we blacks have not seen the Chinese action as an affront to our sensitivities. Every race takes us for granted because we are so weak and so foolish, if you permit me to say it.

I am really pained by our gross underachievement as a race. Instead of regarding bitter truths expressed by the likes of Watson as a wake-up call for us to engage in sober reflection, we take to the expression of woolly sentiment. For me, this type of reaction is a further evidence of our unintelligence. A man of intelligence recognises genuine criticism against him and takes steps to improve himself in order to prove his critics wrong. But for us blacks, our reaction is to abuse the man who expresses worries about our backwardness.

Other races are deeply worried about us because we are a problem to the world. We suffer from the five Ds: disorderliness, debts, diseases, deaths and disasters. Our disorderliness affects others or else they won't be too bothered about us. Many are afraid because our diseases could infect them. Polio has been eradicated all over the world yet it is still found in Nigeria here. When they give us money to help us eradicate it, our thieving officials will embezzle the money; the virus will spread and endanger the health of not only our people but other people as well.

Out of a shared sense of humanity, some cannot bear to see how we die in thousands almost every day from clearly preventable diseases and causes. For years now, our people die extremely painful but perfectly preventable deaths from buildings which collapse because they were poorly constructed. How can you tell me we are as intelligent as others when we set traps for ourselves in the name of houses and others do not do so? Some people are extremely frustrated about us. If they have a way of avoiding us, they will be too glad to do so because we are a problem.

As I write this, I do so with great pains in my heart because I know that God has given intelligence in equal measure to all his children irrespective of the colour of their skin. The problem with us black people is that we have refused to use our intelligence to organise ourselves socially and politically.

It should worry us that we do not invent things. We do not go to the moon. Our societies are not well-organised. We have the shortest lifespan of all the races. Something must be wrong with us. Why are we not like others? Our scholars will be quick to say that these are not the only ways of measuring intelligence. They will quote other scholars to adumbrate their point, but the fact remains that we are not showing intelligence. Others are showing it more than we're doing. If they are not more intelligent than we are, let someone tell me how to put it. God himself must be frustrated with his black children. They must be an embarrassment to him. He has given us everything he has given to other of his children; why are his black children not manifesting their own gift?

A few years ago, the whites used to contemptuously call the Japanese "little Japs". Today, the Japanese and other Asians have pulled themselves up by the bootstrap and have arrived. No one speaks of the Japanese or Asians with contempt anymore. When people like Watson speak about us in unedifying terms, we should take it as a challenge to prove them wrong by sitting down to plan how we can become world-beaters.

If our political leaders are the reason for our backwardness, we should resolve to get the kind of leaders who will be instrument for our rapid progress. I may not know how intelligence is measured but my limited knowledge of intelligence is that it can also be measured by the kind of leaders a people decide to have. If, for instance, our professors preside over the massive rigging of elections, it means that we do not have very intelligent professors. Such rigged elections will no doubt produce unintelligent leaders. Such unintelligent leaders will do stupid things which will prove that we are not as intelligent as other races. Do I sound confusing or intelligent?

I am ready for some of our 'patriotic' intellectuals who will write and abuse me for the 'outrage' I have expressed here but I stick to my guns: we lack intelligence and as stated in the Bible, anyone who lacks intelligence should cry unto God who is the custodian of wisdom to bestow some upon him. We should go on our knees today and ask God why we do not appear as intelligent as our other brothers. I am confident God will reveal to us what we must do, and urgently too, to change our terribly unflattering circumstances.

http://allafrica.com...0710250639.html



The guy who wrote this text does have a point, doesn't he? I wish to see some arguments against his point that black people don't seem to be able to organize themselves in societies very well.

#51 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 29 October 2007 - 12:08 PM

When people like Watson speak about us in unedifying terms, we should take it as a challenge to prove them wrong by sitting down to plan how we can become world-beaters.

I like that advice. Work together with the goal of achieving great things in the world.

#52 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:42 AM

Here's some ironic news, assuming its true.
Watson has black genes

NEW YORK, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- A U.S. scientist who was fired in New York after suggesting blacks are less intelligent than whites likely had a black ancestor, a genome analysis has found.

A genome analysis performed on the DNA of James Watson, a 1962 Nobel Prize winner in medicine who was fired from a New York research laboratory after suggesting black Africans are not as intelligent as whites, found that 16 percent of the scientist's genes likely came from a black ancestor of African descent, The Independent reported Monday.

The company that performed the analysis, deCODE Genetics, said people of European descent would be expected to have no more than 1 percent of genes that suggest African ancestry.

"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."

The test indicated that an additional 9 percent of Watson's genes appear to come from an ancestor of Asian descent.

Watson, who allowed his gene analysis to be published on the Internet, was not available for comment, The Times reported in London.



#53 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 12 December 2007 - 04:39 AM

Here's some ironic news, assuming its true.
Watson has black genes

NEW YORK, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- A U.S. scientist who was fired in New York after suggesting blacks are less intelligent than whites likely had a black ancestor, a genome analysis has found.

A genome analysis performed on the DNA of James Watson, a 1962 Nobel Prize winner in medicine who was fired from a New York research laboratory after suggesting black Africans are not as intelligent as whites, found that 16 percent of the scientist's genes likely came from a black ancestor of African descent, The Independent reported Monday.

The company that performed the analysis, deCODE Genetics, said people of European descent would be expected to have no more than 1 percent of genes that suggest African ancestry.

"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."

The test indicated that an additional 9 percent of Watson's genes appear to come from an ancestor of Asian descent.

Watson, who allowed his gene analysis to be published on the Internet, was not available for comment, The Times reported in London.


And on that note of irony, let's not forget that Hitler had a grandparent that was Jewish.
Maybe the problem is one of self-hatred, and the need to look down on others to feel better about oneself.


#54 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 December 2007 - 04:45 AM

And on that note of irony, let's not forget that Hitler had a grandparent that was Jewish.
Maybe the problem is one of self-hatred, and the need to look down on others to feel better about oneself.

And gashinshotan is part Chinese. So yeah, there ya go. Curious, eh? The Watson thing is hilarious.

#55

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:12 AM

When you have scientific studies to support this claim they can be posted in the genetics section but they must be from responsible sources.


Here's one:

http://psychology.uw...npdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.

#56

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:46 AM

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.

#57 modelcadet

  • Guest
  • 443 posts
  • 7

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:28 AM

This topic is such a slippery slope. Everyone needs to remember that evolution is morally neutral, and that while organisms tend to adapt to their environments, there are no sure bets in biology. Today's cockroaches are as 'highly evolved' as humans, whatever the fuck that means.

So if a particular genetic group is, on average, more adept at a particular rubric, it's particular difference is as much a benefit as it is a flaw. Tolerance is paramount in a marketplace of genetics and memetics. Let's quit our imperialist imperative; what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. I think that was Watson's (rather clumsily stated) point.

#58 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:07 PM

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.


The IQ difference between racial groups has nothing to do with race and everything to do with economics, politics and culture.
What you present as fact is nothing more than your very flawed personal opinion


#59 stargazer

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 2

Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:34 PM

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.


The IQ difference between racial groups has nothing to do with race and everything to do with economics, politics and culture.
What you present as fact is nothing more than your very flawed personal opinion


Missminni, what YOU present is also a personal opinion and may very well be flawed. You do not know with absolute certainty the answer, yet you respond in such a manner. Perhaps your problem is that to you intelligence is connected with worth and if black people are less intelligent they would be worth less (not worthless). The idea probably repulses you and that's why you are responding in such a black and white fashion.

What does hitler got to do with anything? I'm not even gonna respond to that. You make it seem like that a person who comes from a certain group can't possibly know anything about the group. Watson clearly couldn't have said what he did without actually hating blacks, right? I'm sure his statement was a product of a freudian esque psychological trauma *sarcasm*. Sometimes the world isn't nice, fair or forgiving but you just have to accept the way it is, even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs.

Perhaps different races have different average iq's. Perhaps it's genetically bound or only enviromental driven, you honestly don't know. You don't know because NOONE truly knows yet. However, the research we have today shows us that's it's more probable that there is an intelligence variation amongst the different races that's not dependent on enviromental variations. That's life, deal with it.

#60 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,948 posts
  • 1,624
  • Location:New York

Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:39 PM

When 'Bell Curve' came out, I read it. I've always followed the field... but there is no real evidence of across the board racial differences-- in every race there are those that top the intelligence quotient charts. It is sad, to see these thoughts being said in 2007 by an eminent scientist. There is much that is needed to help Africa, India, Asia... to bring up living standards in many parts of the world--and part of that is brining up education levels, people in poverty simply don't have the same educational opportunities that many of us here at ImmInst, and in wealthy nations take for granted.


The idea that all ethnic groups have the same distribution of IQs or even the same average IQ is nonsense. If that did indeed turn out to be the case then it would essentially amount to the proof of the existence of God - a politically correct god and who was concerned with the politics of race. The notion of equality of average IQs across ethnic groups is the equivalent of "Intelligent Design" for the secular Left. Pure fantasy and nothing more. The fact is that one group is going to be on top in terms of average IQ and one is going to be on the bottom. That is the only logical and rational position. So the real question isn't whether there are any differences in average IQ between racial groups - we already know the answer: yes. The question is whether such differences are significant enough to have a noticeable impact at a societal level, and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.


The IQ difference between racial groups has nothing to do with race and everything to do with economics, politics and culture.
What you present as fact is nothing more than your very flawed personal opinion


How do theories of racial differences in IQ deal with the Flynn effect? Are the rising scores the result of epigenetic inheritance? Whatever they are due to, it implies that "racial" differences in IQ are mutable over time.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users