See other Health, Science & Technology (OLD) Articles
Title: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer [James Watson]
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
Published: Oct 17, 2007
Author: By Cahal Milmo
Post Date: 2007-10-16 21:52:48 by Doug Huffman
Comments: 60
Fury at James Watson's theory: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" By Cahal Milmo Published: 17 October 2007 One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London. The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, saidit was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". 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". His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism". Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism. 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. "These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highestprofessional levels." The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. 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." 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." The Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks. 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." 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."
[Thread Locked]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
What if he is right? Does that make a black an inferior person? Of course not. Could an individual black be above average? Duh. Of course. So what's the outcry about? Find out if it is true or not and then deal with it according to scientific proof. Telling comment about holding their breath when dr. Watson "veers from the script". What script?
Post-modern practitioners of cultural studies has science as a narrative or script.
Affirmative action, lowered standards, and race quotas actually are based on the assumption that their intelligence is not the same. It's never been proven either way -- never have all the other factors been ruled out. It comes down to whatever race you are -- if you're IQ is 120 or if it's 80 -- that's what it is.
Technically, race classifications are racist since these distinctions are based entirely on differences. Thus it would be impossible for anyone to not be racist.
There is God's view of superiority... And then there is man's /lucifer's... All men,according to God,are sinful..deceitfully wicked...reprobate...without hope...and essentially dead... The ultimate end of all men apart from the salvation afforded them by the free gift of Christ...is the same.. And regardless of how successful..how high an IQ...how big a bank account.. all of the trappings that make for a successful human being in this present world system...are as filthy rags to God... Matthew 16:24-27 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."
Actually there has never been any scientific doubt that Blacks are less intellingent than Whites or Orientals. All the facts say one thing but because of political and social pressures no one will admit it and if anyone does they can expect to be attacked in the most brutal way by academia, the media etc. American Blacks consistently and persistently score 10 points below the average on IQ tests, and don't come out with that cultural bias nonsense. IQ tests have made allowance for any kind of cultural differences for many many years. African Blacks score 20 points below average. Of course that doesn't mean that individuals will fall way out of the average. For instance Walter Williams is obiviously highly intelligent and George Washington Carver was a true genius.
Thank you. I really do appreciate that. The really important things in life are not dependent on IQ levels. Before God we are all equal. And all equally in need of a Savior. Some of us seem to need him more than others but that's not reality. It just seems that way. And I speak of myself.
Perhaps it is Mr Watson is less intelligent than he convinced himself to be?
What a bunch of nonsense. Sure IQ is different among people, but it sure hasn't anything to do with race!
The ultimate end of all men apart from the salvation afforded them by the free gift of Christ...is the same.. And regardless of how successful..how high an IQ...how big a bank account.. all of the trappings that make for a successful human being in this present world system...are as filthy rags to God... Matthew 16:24-27 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Yup.
Really? You have scientific proof to back that up I presume?
You have scientific data that proves him wrong or are you just knee-jerking?
Same finding by those who have to ride the subway with them.
You: You have scientific data that proves him wrong or are you just knee-jerking? Does he? Duh
Just so we're clear.
That's why they continue to vote democratic even after the Republican Party has proven that they can take care of them better. The next study should look at the intelligence of Ron Paul voters.
OK, let's separate this into two parts. 1. Proof that blacks are less intelligent than Europeans. 2. Proof that this can be tracked through specific genes. The doctor is saying that number one exists, and he expects number 2 to be proven within 10 years. You obviously disagree with number 2 and that is fine. But what about number 1. And what do you base your answer on?
While I agree with your opinion of Walter Williams. George Washington Carver was small man of little intellectual importance made larger than life by a kind and generous media that always greatly exaggerated his accomplishments of which there were very few. For the historical facts on Carver I would highly suggest you read the following: 'How Legends are Created: The Counterfeit Glory of George Washington Carver' http://www.amren.com/ar/1994/04/index.html
Definitely the case. Why anyone would even listen to Watson is disturbing.
I wonder if it would be considered "racist" to strongly suggest Africans are physically superior? Different ethicities and races have different strengths and weaknesses that transcend culture. THAT is obvious. For instance, Muslim-Arabs seem to have a genetic disposition to close-mindedness and hostility. There is some truth to the "hot-headed" emotional Latins... Germanic tribes are more prone to stoicism which helps with engineering... Asians work well on tiny items and details... Italians are blessed with artisan and love-making skills...;-) Of course there are exceptions to the general rule.
Different ethicities and races have different strengths and weaknesses that transcend culture. THAT is obvious. Nobody wants to talk about it but evolution didn't stop when the first Homo sapiens sapiens evolved. The different races of humans if isolated for a longer period would have become their own species. It isn't just random that northern Europeans have whitish skin, and Africans have black. We evolved that way. So a difference in intelligence shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone. A difference in habitat has caused differences in traits. Maybe intelligence is one, maybe it isn't.
A difference in habitat has caused differences in traits. Maybe intelligence is one, maybe it isn't. No, intelligence differentials shouldn't "shock" people, but admitting it in public IS. Sure the difference in habit and environment played a HUGE part in racial traits. People in colder, northern climates had to think, devise and improvise in order to cope with food and shelter in the different seasons...The stronger AND smarter survived and passed on their genes... Warmer weather people relied more on the physical skills and honed those traits. Now if one assesses all the inventions and innovation of the world, it is the Western European who wins the "intelligence" contest hands-down.
Race is so biologically real that even blood type prevalence varies drastically by race. A popular current biology text for prenursing courses, Human Biology by Sylvia Mader, even has tables of both blood-type linkage to race and a whole list of genetic diseases linked to race. Blacks in general have proven to be less intelligent than whites, yellow or latinos.That doesn't mean that all blacks are.
Average IQ for African-Americans consistently tests at 85, while that for Latinos is around 92. Schooling does not improve IQ, which remains fairly constant during one's life ...
"Oriental" is a derogatory and racist term though I don't think you knew that. Orientalism is a sociologist study that was meant to degrade Asians. You better not use the term.
Euro-americans' average IQ is lower than East Asians' average IQ that is 105 as opposed to Euro-americans' 100. Then, aren't East Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan supposed to overpower the West if we follow Dr.Watson's theory? But, we see East Asian countries still immitating Western financial institutions to catch up the economic disparity between the two. What does it tell us? No matter what, we don't let a man with an average intelligence run an institution such as the Federal Reserves. Africa has its own smart people though it may be true that their average IQ is lower than East Asians' or whites'. It's mainly social/political problems in Africa which makes Africa still poor. East Asians' average IQ is significantly higher than whites' but they're still learning the West in some areas because they haven't achieved a collective achievement as good as the Western in those areas.
No society can survive the onslaught of decisions made, or culture devised, at the 85 IQ level. Intelligent civilization survival is barely possible at the 100 IQ level.
I read The Bell Curve. The evidence was overwhelming that blacks have an average IQ one standard deviation (15 points) below whites. There are a number of genetic differences between the races. IQ is just one of the differences. Ultimately with interbreeding since most white women are attracted to black men, at least in the USA, the races will merge.
If you're smarter than they are, how come you have to ride the subway with them?
That's the first time I've heard this. Who else, besides you, knows that "Oriental" is a racist term? I do not question the fact that there are differences between races, ethnic groups, social classes etc ... in average scores in solving IQ tests. Same way as there are even LARGER differences in ability to solve IQ puzzles between siblings and close relatives. Same way as there differences in height, weight, personality etc ... Yet the distribution of these properties in the various groups measured in less or more artificial way do overlap (the ends of normal curve that do not overlap are small minorities). For that reason IQ can drift - since to a large extent it is inherited - it is enough that people with high IQ have fewer children that people with law IQ to move average IQ down in few generation. (Or low IQ faction can decrease resulting in upward shift). You can have also segregatory drift. You can bet that groups which come to a country as a result of being destitute or enslaved in their homeland will have lower scores that those who were privileged and flee revolution. (You can expect ethnic Russian emigrees from time of Revolution score higher than descendants of slaves and landless peasants) BTW, the average IQ in EVERY population is quite low (falling well inside interpopulation overlap) - this shows that being on further away from the Gaussian center is biologically not adventagous. Interesting example are head hunters from New Guinea and Eskimos - they have superior IQ compared to other races as their survival was like a constant IQ tests. After several generation of civilized life one can assume their scores go lower. Also high IQ score does not preclude one from being a fool - Mr Watson is a good example.
It is quite possible that human beings had higher IQ before rise of agriculture and civilization. In our times high IQ corelates positively with getting PhD and NEGATIVELY with having children. IE it is a LETAL trait in terms of natural selection.
Yet 100 IQ average is optimal. You do not need more leaders than couple percent, more will lead to strife and chaos. Very likely this "85 IQ level" was optimal AVERAGE for survivor among members of lower/enslaved class in primitive agricultiral setting (upper class there was rather doing selling than being sold). Move such group to other setting and the 100 IQs will start to proliferate faster. Extreme IQs above 130 are doomed to extintion and they reappear through the random drift from below. Same with those below 70.
I doubt all the Asians were tested. For one -- China seems to have a lot of lead -- there's no way they have an overall higher IQ. Japan is a developed country and likely they do have a high IQ but -- China, Cambodia? I doubt it.
Maybe not for the cultural differences that really matter. Middle class blacks get lumped in with the lower class - the inner city welfare class and the higher rate of drug use, poor nutritional habits, single motherhood and so on, early childhood influences. I would guess if you compare Jerry Springer whites with the inner city blacks you'd see a similar kind of IQ. Compare middle class types with other middle class types -- and there would be a similar range between them. Cultural differences that they try to accomodate on these standardized tests are usually silly. For example the Texas standardized tests for public schools will ask questions like -- if you have $2.00 and buy a taco for $1.00, how much change will you get back -- and then they wonder why the kids from English speaking families do so much better on those answers.
Hello Sir Fist off, I got to tell you that I am African from the Nile valley living in Australia. I am shocked to read your views and similar views by others. I believe that racism and nationalism is in the rise in America though I have no way to confirm this because I have never been to America before. Sir, most conflicts and wars between the human races were direct result of superiority-complex of one ethnic group against the other. If you claim that you are racially superior to me, then one day somebody else will claim to be racially superior to you. What goes around comes around. Hitler thought the Aryan race was superior to the other European races and that was the main reason for WWII. Read the history my friend. Where will it ever end? I am NOT going to accuse Dr Watson of racism because I am an open minded guy; I am going to ask him for his hard scientific data that backs allegations of this magnitude. I am prepared to set down and go through his scientific data and accept them if proven to be correct beyond doubts, otherwise he would be a racist in my view if he failed to produce the data. I Think the ancestors of the majority of the white folks in Americans came from England and Ireland (Correct me if I am wrong), if that so, then I would like to ask you: Where were the English and the Irish folks 600 years ago (before the industrial revolution)? Let me answer my question: they were drinking and pissing over themselves and living in primitive conditions with no civilization. During that time there was Islamic Black African civilization in West Africa in a place called Tompokto where Europeans used to go to learn about science and medicine. I was born on the banks of the river Nile. There were great Black ancient civilizations on the Nile valley such as the Nubian civilizations (Go to Google and check photos), ancient Nubians built magnificent temples and pyramids along the valley 2500 years ago and invaded Egypt and ruled ancient Egypt for 100 years. These were my ancestors; they were pioneers in chemistry, astronomy and mathematics; during that time the white man was drinking and pissing over himself and knew nothing about civilization. Sir, haven’t you heard about the cycle of civilizations? Don’t you know that the modern European civilization is 600 years old and will die one day just like the rest of previous civilizations to be replaced with another emerging civilization? As a matter of fact the modern European civilization has started to die already because of aging population, breaking families and decadence.
Uggh. What a thought. So much for diversity. Soon we'll all be a uniform sickly gray, wear gray overalls, sandals and be required to shuffle lest we break into a goosestep. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP KMA$$
The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray (Free Press, 1994) will do nicely and it has a primer on statistics. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
Of course this statement is true. There is no gene in the entire genome whose variants have the same frequencies across populations - they are enormously variable. People misuse science all the time to make political points - the old "were all 99.9% identical" statement is a good example - of course we are - we all have two legs, hair, two eyes, etc etc etc, and we are all so identical that it is obvious none of us are cats or trees! But within the realm of our species, it is the 0.1% where we vary that is the essence of human variation. That is, one might remember millions of variant sites in the genome! And those are clearly clustered geographically. So, if one accepts the assumption that a given trait has some genetic component, that component must vary between any pair of populations, and accordingly the trait distribution itself would likewise differ. Height differs, blood pressure differs, vital capacity differs, weight of the liver differs, etc etc etc. Why would one expect intelligence (however one wishes to define it) not to differ as well, since clearly there is a genetic component to it - otherwise why would one imagine humans to have higher intelligence than chimpanzees, since the differences between us and them are genetically determined (and are not enormous differences at all!). It is naive and misguided to try and legislate things to be what we wish they were for social reasons - as Henry Harpending of the University of Utah Department of Anthropology said in a book chapter in the recent book "Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Practice and Applications", "Groups, whether they be by sex or race or class, certainly do not have equal potentials in all things, yet in the United States our educational system is facing a law (the No Child Left Behind act) that mandates that they all must achieve equal performance. Something has to break soon, and with the breakage will come drastic redefinitions of our shared public notions of fairness and social justice." (p. 464) Dr Watson is only the most public of people making such statements, whereas in private virtually any serious physical anthropologist or human geneticist would acknowledge these statements to be most probably accurate, as there is no reason to believe there should be a lack of variation between groups in any phenotype whatsoever, irrespective of political and social utopian ideals!
Comments (41 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: 22rifle (#1)
#3. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
#4. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
"It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way.
#5. To: 22rifle (#1)
#6. To: 22rifle (#1)
#7. To: JoeSnuffy (#5)
#8. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
#9. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence.
#10. To: JoeSnuffy (#5)
All men,according to God,are sinful..deceitfully wicked...reprobate...without hope...and essentially dead...
#11. To: Sweetjustusnow (#9)
#12. To: A Pole (#8)
#13. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
#14. To: 22rifle (#12)
The Article: "He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
#15. To: All (#14)
could be found within a decade."
#16. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
#17. To: Sweetjustusnow (#14)
#18. To: Yarddog (#6)
"For instance Walter Williams is obiviously highly intelligent and George Washington Carver was a true genius."
#19. To: A Pole (#8)
Perhaps it is Mr Watson is less intelligent than he convinced himself to be?
#20. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
#21. To: liberator (#20)
I wonder if it would be considered "racist" to strongly suggest Africans are physically superior?
#22. To: Rhino (#21)
A difference in intelligence shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone.
#23. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
Similarly, why do we "need" reverse discrimination after two generations of it if its beneficiaries really were "equal" to European-Americans?
#24. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
#25. To: thekid (#13)
#26. To: Yarddog (#6)
Actually there has never been any scientific doubt that Blacks are less intellingent than Whites or Orientals.
#27. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
#28. To: exxon (#25)
Average IQ for African-Americans consistently tests at 85, while that for Latinos is around 92. Schooling does not improve IQ, which remains fairly constant during one's life ...
#29. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
#30. To: thekid (#13)
Same finding by those who have to ride the subway with them.
#31. To: sg7007 (#26)
"Oriental" is a derogatory and racist term though I don't think you knew that.
#32. To: 22rifle (#12)
You have scientific data that proves him wrong or are you just knee-jerking?
#33. To: Rhino (#21)
Nobody wants to talk about it but evolution didn't stop when the first Homo sapiens sapiens evolved.
#34. To: RLKK (#28)
No society can survive the onslaught of decisions made, or culture devised, at the 85 IQ level. Intelligent civilization survival is barely possible at the 100 IQ level.
#35. To: sg7007 (#27)
Euro-americans' average IQ is lower than East Asians' average IQ that is 105 as opposed to Euro-americans' 100.
#36. To: Yarddog (#6)
IQ tests have made allowance for any kind of cultural differences for many many years.
#37. To: Yarddog (#6)
Actually there has never been any scientific doubt that Blacks are less intellingent than Whites or Orientals. All the facts say one thing but because of political and social pressures no one will admit it and if anyone does they can expect to be attacked in the most brutal way by academia, the media etc.
#38. To: dwornock (#29)
Ultimately with interbreeding since most white women are attracted to black men, at least in the USA, the races will merge.
#39. To: sam (#37)
I am going to ask him for his hard scientific data that backs allegations of this magnitude.
#40. To: Doug Huffman (#0)
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
.
.
.