Top Democrat Scientist says blacks not as smart as whites

MrVicchio · 10-17-07, 04:23 PM

Quote:

One of the world's most eminent scientists has created a racial firestorm in Britain.

James D. Watson, 79, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine, told the Sunday Times of London 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 recognized that the prevailing belief was that all human groups are equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

Acknowledging that the issue was a "hot potato," the lifelong Democrat and avowed secular humanist nonetheless said his beliefs were not an excuse to discriminate against blacks.

"There are many people of color who are very talented," said Watson, "but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302836,00.html

I bet he believes in AGW too... man will Jesse Jackson start a march?

The silenced majority · 10-17-07, 07:46 PM

What makes it so difficult for people like Dr. Watson to break from their proclivity to categorize & indict people and put them in groups, and not be able to see people as the actual "individuals" they are?

He almost had it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson

"There are many people of color who are very talented,"

...then he lost it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson

"but don't promote them (as a race?) when they haven't succeeded at the lower level."

:SIGH:

MrVicchio · 10-18-07, 12:33 AM

Just imagine if someone on the RIGHT had said this.

CaptainCourtesy · 10-18-07, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Just imagine if someone on the RIGHT had said this.

I would be as appalled as I am that this jerk said it.

SFLRN · 10-18-07, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I would be as appalled as I am that this jerk said it.

What is there to be appalled about? He stated something he had found through empirical research. Would it be wrong to assume someone is stupid based off of skin color, yes. Would it be incorrect to say that under current intelligence testing methods, Africans tend to score lower? No. The issue should not be what he said as much as the reasons he gives for his conclusion. I would argue that this disparity is at least partially due to flawed testing methods for intelligence. Displaying intelligence in countries where there is limited access to education will be much harder because those individuals may have a harder time comprehending the test. Moreover, some of these tests do a poor job of controlling for confounding variables (socioeconomic status and education). Therefore, we would be better served by critiquing the merit of his argument rather than dismissing it as simply racist.

CaptainCourtesy · 10-18-07, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

What is there to be appalled about? He stated something he had found through empirical research. Would it be wrong to assume someone is stupid based off of skin color, yes. Would it be incorrect to say that under current intelligence testing methods, Africans tend to score lower? No. The issue should not be what he said as much as the reasons he gives for his conclusion. I would argue that this disparity is at least partially due to flawed testing methods for intelligence. Displaying intelligence in countries where there is limited access to education will be much harder because those individuals may have a harder time comprehending the test. Moreover, some of these tests do a poor job of controlling for confounding variables (socioeconomic status and education). Therefore, we would be better served by critiquing the merit of his argument rather than dismissing it as simply racist.

I never said he was racist. I am questioning his research methodology and am appalled that he would make such a statement based on his poor research. Please don't make assumptions about my post.

SFLRN · 10-18-07, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I never said he was racist. I am questioning his research methodology and am appalled that he would make such a statement based on his poor research. Please don't make assumptions about my post.

Where exactly do you take issue with his research methods within the post I was responding to? If you had just said you were appalled then perhaps one could have doubt as to what you were appalled about. However, you then called the individual a jerk. This strongly suggests, to any disinterested observer, that one was appalled more on the basis of character than merit. Simply put, an insult like "jerk" is more of an attack on one's character rather than one's skills of analysis. A statement that was appalled based off of merit would more likely have said that he was a fool, a dolt, or something in a similar vein. Moreover, the word appalled is generally connotative of some strong reaction of disgust, which is usually related more to character than empirical statements. I apologize, yet you can understand that I cannot know the different connotations of a word to you personally.

CaptainCourtesy · 10-18-07, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

Where exactly do you take issue with his research methods within the post I was responding to? If you had just said you were appalled then perhaps one could have doubt as to what you were appalled about. However, you then called the individual a jerk. This strongly suggests, to any disinterested observer, that one was appalled more on the basis of character than merit. Simply put, an insult like "jerk" is more of an attack on one's character rather than one's skills of analysis. A statement that was appalled based off of merit would more likely have said that he was a fool, a dolt, or something in a similar vein. Moreover, the word appalled is generally connotative of some strong reaction of disgust, which is usually related more to character than empirical statements. I apologize, yet you can understand that I cannot know the different connotations of a word to you personally.

Perhaps my statement was hastily written. My response was based on this statement from the OP, and attributed to Watson in the article:

Quote:

He recognized that the prevailing belief was that all human groups are equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

I am appalled that a researcher of his magnitude would make a clearly subjective statement, not based on empirical evidence, and associate it with fact. People listen to those held in esteem, and the co-DNA discoverer would be held in high esteem. His statement was 'unfortunate'.

Dolt is perhaps a better word, though jerk seemed appropriate at the time. Irregardless, thanks for asking, rather than assuming.

Voidwar · 10-18-07, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I am appalled that a researcher of his magnitude would make a clearly subjective statement, not based on empirical evidence, and associate it with fact.

hmmmmmmmmm

Quote:

told the Sunday Times of London 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."

MrVicchio · 10-18-07, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I would be as appalled as I am that this jerk said it.

I was thinking from a Media Reaction angle.