egafd.com

I think Watson's comments need to be taken in the context of the many other disagreeable and unscientific pronouncements he's made over the years. This is, after all, the same man who claims that skin colour determines how high your sex-drive is!

There is NO scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to support the contention that people of recent African descent are neurologically inferior. This is a fact. Watson expressed an opinion. There's the difference. As a scientist he knows better. The problem is a lot of people don't.

When you look back in history at many African countries, what you see is the systematic plunder of their people and assets for three centuries, accompanied by the careful cultivation of 'tribal' animosities by colonialist powers. Chuck in some of the most extreme landscapes, diseases and temperatures in the world, and I think it's fair to say that the continent's development has been slightly hindered. Still, far easier to say that African nations are a mess because their people are inherently stupid, or uncivilised, or have a predisposition towards violence.

Watson is a bigot and a racist. He just happens to be a scientist. Unfortunately this seems, to some people, to lend credibility to his drivel.

chatterji wrote:
> I think Watson's comments need to be taken in the context of
> the many other disagreeable and unscientific pronouncements
> he's made over the years. This is, after all, the same man who
> claims that skin colour determines how high your sex-drive is!>
> There is NO scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to support the
> contention that people of recent African descent are
> neurologically inferior. This is a fact.
You're almost certainly right, but's it's probably a mistake for you to be as
judgmental as you accuse him of being.


Watson expressed an
> opinion. There's the difference. As a scientist he knows
> better. The problem is a lot of people don't.
IS he a scientist? He doesn't sound like one. How do you know this?



> When you look back in history at many African countries, what
> you see is the systematic plunder of their people and assets
> for three centuries, accompanied by the careful cultivation of
> 'tribal' animosities by colonialist powers. Chuck in some of
> the most extreme landscapes, diseases and temperatures in the
> world, and I think it's fair to say that the continent's
> development has been slightly hindered. Still, far easier to
> say that African nations are a mess because their people are
> inherently stupid, or uncivilised, or have a predisposition
> towards violence.
Please; this is a tired and trite argument. Stop blaming DWEMs for the
many failed states in Africa. In what way am I, or Tony Blair- or even Heath
or Heath's grandma, responsible for, say, Zimbabwe's current rape by Mugabe's thugs?

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book was broadcast on PBS in July 2005, produced by the National Geographic Society.

According to the author, an alternative title would be A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years. But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather originate in environmental differences powerfully amplified by various positive feedback loops. He also, most explicitly in the epilogue, argues that societies with food surpluses and high-to-moderate degrees of interaction with outsiders are more likely to encourage great people to realize their full potential and to adopt new inventions.

From Wikipedia.

Mart

Judgemental? As far as possible I'm trying to state facts. That's the point of my previous post. You can't direct me to ANY peer-reviewed scientific papers that demonstrate the neurological inferiority of those of African-descent. Why? Because there are none.

Is Watson a scientist???? Again, that's the point of my previous post. He states an opinion as a fact. Of course he's a scientist. He's simply chosen to forego all of his training due to personal bias. If he'd said 'I feel that black people are inferior' it would be a different case. He would simply be seen as a racist. His scientific reputation makes it appear that there is credible science behind his feeling. There isn't.

The Africa argument is neither tired nor trite. It doesn't absolve anyone from responsibility; it simply highlights roots of causation. Citing Mugabe as an illustration of the clean hands of the UK is frankly bizarre. Do you know his history and training?

Probably.
As a 50-y-0 who has read something like 20 000 scientific papers, as soon
as I see the word 'fact' I tend to get the shudders. If you have any real
pretensions to the same title, I'm sure you've encountered Karl Popper.

The 'Watson thing'.
To my mind a scientist is someone who relies SOLELY on the evidence. If, as you imply, he would rather advance his personal predilections and fly in the face of the available evidence, then he's not. I haven't read his papers [and I'm pretty sure you haven't either], so I think it's better to wait until
either us have done so rather than rely on some rag-sheet's over-emotional
'interpretation'. This sort of ignorance is what mob-rule develops from.


"he Africa argument is neither tired nor trite. It doesn't absolve anyone from responsibility; it simply highlights roots of causation.
The way to truth, yes.

Citing Mugabe as an illustration of the clean hands of the UK is frankly bizarre.
Which I didn't do- I didn't mention the UK at all. I merely pointed out that M's criminality is entirely endogenous. Or are you contending that his policies are somehow related to the UK's misguided African policies of 50-or-so years ago?

o you know his history and training?"
Of course. And that doesn't explain or excuse the fact that he's now become
an evil murdering bastard, does it?

mrmcfister wrote:



Clickable.

Wiki?
So it must be true, then.

One simple test:
Place 'blacks' and 'whites' on a level playing-field, and see how they get on.

Oh, and BTW, according to the quoted 'logic' Asians are easily superior to
whites, as they consistently score higher in both SATs and earning-tables.

Firstly, he has a right to express his opinion. Secondly, any idiot can deem him racist for that opinion......that doesn't make what he says less, or more true.

He may have a point, but he's over generalised.

We DO know, that genes determine physical characteristics, and, to a degree, behavioural tendencies. Anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks all races are equal as WRONG. We are different in so many ways; not just in skin colour, but anatomically as well. Since genes control superficial, and anatomical characteristics, and we know they have a big say in behavioural tendencies, then surely those behavioural tendencies have an impact on intellect? (note: behavioural tendencies impact on intellect, meaning genetic differences impact upon intelligence levels indirectly.)

It's almost definite that the oldest sibling of a family has a higher IQ then the younger siblings. Where the older sibling has died, and the second oldest sibling is reared as the oldest, then the second oldest sibling's IQ level looks as though it is the older sibling. This means genetics isn't directly responsible for IQ, but social conditions My personal theory is that the oldest sibling evolves two mindsets - it has authority figures, but evolves into being an authority figure itself. The middle and youngest siblings just see authority. It's widely accepted that the growth of any brain is directly related to the sociality and communication skills of an individual. The bigger the social group, the bigger the brain; the bigger the brain, the better at communicating.

Most of the pre-frontal lobes isn't used for thinking, but working out another's thoughts. Working out another's thoughts gives you a predetermination of that persons actions, and in a social group, that could save your life. Humans excel in this skill, and we use it everyday. An eldest sibling would have to develop this skill far more if that sibling not only had to predetermine authority figures, but skills in predetermining though thoughts of siblings under his/her control.

There you have it. Genes lines may determine a basic intelligence, but the final IQ of an individual is mainly determined by social pressures at the time the brains elasticity is at the stage where it learns the most.

Where Dr James Watson is way off the mark, is the word 'black'. Genetically, a black Somalian can be nearly as different from another 'black' person from Gambia, as he/she is different from a Scandinavian.

I'll give an example: No person on earth has ever, ever ran 100m in less than 10 seconds, that isn't of West African descent. FACT. East African peoples have been trained in America, and had the best facilities available, but genetically, West Africans are just built better for speed. In fact, generally, white Europeans are faster runners than East Africans under short distances. In our ancient past, a 'fast runner' genes spread through the gene pool and survived, giving the individual some sort of advantage, where as in the East African gene pool, it didn't. Some East Africans may have had that gene, but it didn't spread through the gene pool as widely, and so cannot have been much of an advantage for survival in that environment. You could say the landscape in East Africa is more arid, and there is less food around. The 'fast runner' gene may have a downside of a slightly bigger lean muscle mass, and with that comes a faster metabolism. A faster metabolism would be a distinct disadvantage in an environment that's scarce in food. In such an environment, an 'endurance gene' may be more advantageous? We all know who dominates long distance running don't we? Just like no East African has ever run 100m in under 10 seconds; no West African has ever won an Olympic gold medal for a marathon.

There is no 'black' and 'white'; only genes.

What Dr Watson could have said, was that there are certain genetic differences in the European population that favoured intelligence for survival. In a colder environment, social groups that worked together better, and planned for the harsh winters had a better chance of survival than groups that did not.

Intelligence, then, is based on both genetic, and social pressures. What should be said is that 'it seems that a certain genes dominate more in European gene pools than the gene pools in Africa.

There are whites, and blacks, but there are different whites, and different blacks. To say Dr Watson was generalising is an understatement; to say he's wrong is a little harsh as it's not as simple as it sounds; to say he's racist is ignorant.........unless you know him personally.

Wtf are you on jj?
Are you suggesting that the Wiki entry is false? That the book doesn't exist?

Mart

Do you have an opinion mart? I got excited earlier when you posted, but it was just from a wiki page, so hardly your personal opinion.

Oh go on;