Science and Society

I can't for the life of me determine how one can determine intelligence by DNA? It's another case where one person's scientific findings might be indeed biased by something else.

I am no scientist but I bet you one thing, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will have their tongues flapping to the reporters soon denouncing this man as a racist. If he had said that all races were the same intellectually, then the left wing progressives would hail him to the top. There is no room in the world for truth unless it is politically correct-thereby phony.

Watson is just taking evolution to it's logical conclusion which, Darwin refused to do. Like it or not, evolution demands that the races must've evolved. The climactic influence theory of race development got around that but, scientists reject that now. Their only recourse is to say what Watson is saying. Evolution is racist by it's very nature. This is the main reason why godless evolution shouldn't be accepted.

I'm sorry Getalife, where does it say in this article that the intelligence was determined by DNA? It doesn't. This scientist won the Nobel Prize for noting the structure of DNA back in '62. That's it for DNA's mention. They're talking about evolution and maybe Darwinism. I agree with you in that I couldn't understand how DNA could determine intelligence, but this article doesn't mention anything of the like.

Sure maybe his comments are offensive. Maybe a lot of people will feel bad. Maybe he's right. If he's right, should he be silent on the issue simply because it's offensive?

Dr. Watson's conclusions are contrary to my experience. Africans are mentally equal to any race I have encountered.

Watson's claim is something I and many others hope is not true. But keep looking around, and you lose hope. I live near Oakland, California. That's nearly enough to erase my hope Watson is wrong.

his findings isn't unheard of. Anyone who has done any kind of studying of the subject can easily see the findings for themselves. Or, they could just go to a neighborhood of said individuals.

I always find it interesting that when people are talking about any race other than the majority, whatever it is that they see becomes the "standard". Yet there are many ignorant people in the majority but no one says that's the way they "all" act.

There will always be people who believe what this scientist says. There will always be "statistics" to prove any kind of findings. I think that in a case like this, we need to ask exactly what is he trying to prove? Apparently this is not his first time making statements like this. So... why? Why is this so important to him? I question his intentions.

It's time for delusional liberals to face facts.

I am sure that he is backing up his opinions on scientific studies and statistical analysis. I would like to see another person scientifically disproving his findings.

Let's face it. Men (and women) are not created equal. Some groups excel more than others in different areas: Blacks excel in sports, artistic talent, physical prowess, etc.; Whites excel in business, finance, sales etc. etc; Asians excel in engineering, academia, etc. etc). Isn't that why we always stereotype people?

I've been searching for test scores divided by races countering Watson. Anyone have links?

Crystal, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Thank you!

It wouldn't surprise me if research showed that Asians were as a race more intelligent than all others. There are obviously visual differences and differences in susceptibility to different diseases between races, so why not differences in intelligence? Blacks can turn this into something positive to get difference educational opportunities.

In response to Jamie, what you fail to realize, or refuse to accept, is that the color of a person, being that for this instance black and white, are not 2 separate races, but are in fact THE SAME RACE. Human beings. Homo-sapiens. There is nothing accepted that the the color of your skin render you biologically different in terms of race. Just socially structured to make it seem like it.

I'm sure Condi Rice, Colin Powel, Dr. Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Washington Carver, Ralph Ellison, Jean Toomer, Chinua Achebe, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Toni Morrison, William Julius Wilson, Thomas Sowell, Derrick Bell, John Hope Franklin, Manning Marable and millions of other black intellectuals would tend to disagree with the notion that their race is less evolved. Or is the fact that so many black intellectuals exist just an inconvenient truth?

I would like to read more on this. The person that spoke about evolution has it right, there have to be differences. I think most stereotypes are basically factual, but there are other factors.

Okay...So then...is it logical to conclude Asians are by far superior to All in terms of intelligence. I mean you can conclude this by their academic achievements in the past 30 years....Sorry Mr. Watson, but you may be missing something here...something akin to "life experience."

"thomas" asks " Isn't that why we always stereotype people?"

Easy answer: no. It takes real thought and intellectual depth to cast off the crutch of generalizations and stereotyping. Imagine having to judge people based on their individual merits... that would take real work, wouldn't it? For those of you who are satisfied with ignorance and racism, you deserve the God's back hand.

HA! Well done Appease This.

I believe the comment regarding physical differences, talent and disease succeptability between races does support the theory that intelligence could be a factor of race on the average. You can find brilliance and stupidity within any race of people. But on the average it does appear that some races are smarter than others, while other races appear to be more artistic or athletic. If you set aside emotion and think it through, there may be something to it, on the average....

It is easy for an ignorant and arrogant person to fall down a path were they think they can define intelligence. I wonder what Watson defines as "intelligence." One can use genetics, lumps on a head, birth order, etc. to limit someones potential. I would imagine Africa is a tough place were its hard to attend school for a long time. I guarantee if one moves people of Africa to a new environment they perform as well as anyone. I wouldn't use the USA to gauge this because of the strong history of segregation and racism. Dark skinned people still are not treated as equals by majority of the population. A quick look at the social and economic structure of city should confirm this.

Firstly, this thread is replete with evidence of the isolated nature of life as an American. You can't judge the progress of an entire race simply by looking at an biased empirical evidence from one neighborhood or country. Secondly, material gain and industrial progress is not the only yardstick of intelligence. In some ways these achievements are indicative of a lack of long term intelligence IMO.
Thirdly, Watson is not an anthropologist, sociologist, ethnologist, or cultural anthropologist. He'd be better served leaving such a comprehensive analysis to someone more qualified.

Well, it just goes to show you intelligence can always be defined from a certain vantage point, and not necessarily realized that it can also be turned around from the other side as well. People gotta remember there is no one absolute way for one way or the other - one time something will be up, the next it'll be down.

It's ludicrous to believe that during some 100,000 years of separate evolution the intellect of different races, living scattered across the globe, has developed either absolute identically or not at all.

It depends on the definition of "reason" and intelligence.. if one said intelligence means enslaving and killing others, and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, destroying the environment, and using high technology to spy on ordinary people, then I don't think Africans will be proud to claim this kind of evolution.. on the other hand, if intelligence and means the knowledge like "It takes a village to raise a child" then ask pres. Clinton, who once said that he has learned this wisdom from his travel in Africa.

"...there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level...." Another ruse by an old white man trying to reserve the best jobs for white men (and their women, via the convenience of affirmative action). How many geniuses have you run into in a work setting? How much intellect does it take really to be a banker? Or an accountant? Or a manager? By his reasoning, the Asians are the most intelligent. They should then displace all white men running companies, should they not? There were plenty of men like this old man at the start of the 20th Century. At that time they were proclaiming the physical superiority of whites over blacks.

There is No Doubt the man knows what he is talking about. It is sad but the politically correct idiots will be mounting a full frontal assault against Mr. Watson within the week.

In response to marc, the reason for such low scores, income, and social status, is simply because it was structured for that for many, many, many years by those in power, to ensure that those of color are not given the equal education, hiring practices, social status and many other aspects, it is not the fact of evolution of man, it's the fact of decadence of man, and how they structure the system where equality was just a word, not a practice.

I can see from comments following my posting that liberals will never face facts. Therefore their ideas are not to be taken seriously. They have been indoctrinated into BS and that is where they will stay. They are not to be taken seriously in any kind of discussion concerning reality.

I know many people of both the white and black race; there are stupid, ignorant and unintelligent individuals in both groups. I will admit, however, that on many issues these races see things differently for the same issue because of their culture and environment. DNA may help to establish developmentally the human brain and how adaptive it can be to stimuli. I also agree, sadly, that too much accommodation for the benefit of political correctness has led to an across-the-board of lowering the overall standards for intellectual and even behavioral achievment so as to be inclusive and diverse and not offend or insult. Those who struggle invariably will continue to struggle, because they have sadly been misled into believing that they're either average or even above average and therefore have no incentive to seek betterment. In most school systems, including colleges and universities, test standards have been lowered to accommodate poorer performing individuals, who generally fall into minority groups. Colleges and universities graduate students who aren't performing at high standards, with many of them going into school systems as teachers, ill-equipped to teach. The US is losing solid ground on many fronts of intellectualism all in the name of political correctness. It's a shame that Dr. Watson will be villified for his honest body of work

There could be something to this evolutionary position on intelligence based on the very fact that we are an animal by our very make up. If all animals had equal IQ's it would not matter that some are more adept to certain training than others for specific tasks. Hounds are bread for tracking and dobermans for security yet they both are breeds of canines. This does not relegate the intelligence or importance of each to the animal kingdom.

It's really sad to see him age this way. One would have hoped he'd have found some humility or grace near his end. Well, let's face it--he's always been portrayed as a schmuck. And, it seems true. He's been rumored to be a sexist pig since his shenanigans with Rosalind Franklin's data. Any student of molecular biology alternately admires and abhors this poor man. One can only hope he can reconcile his misdeeds. What arrogance a man can show and yet be so fundamentally ugly.

This is just another reason why people who believe this evolution crap are idiots. When will people learn that intelligence doesn't come from DNA. Its just a gift people have, a talent. I am white, though my school is 75% black. And believe me, most of them are a whole lot smarter than me. Africans in my fiancee's class at NC State are top students in the Organic Chemistry class! This guy is saying we have "evolved" unevenly! *hyperventilates* ughhh, PEOPLE!

ALL present-day humans are directly descended from the anatomically modern humans that developed in Africa and migrated in one or more waves over the past 75,000 years or so. In addition, every analysis of genetic patterns in humans detects extensive DNA variety in people in sub-Saharan Africa but relatively few differences among those elsewhere. This is because it was only a relatively small group of Africans that left the ancestral population and populated Asia, Europe and the Americas. Kenneth Kidd, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, has found that because of this bottleneck exodus, the DNA of black Africans contains more genetic variation than is present in the peoples of ALL OTHER CONTINENTS COMBINED. He suggests that the extremes of human characteristics are more likely to be evident in the original human population of the earth (the black African poulation). Therefore, it is possible the most athletic humans (and least athletic) would be African. In addition, as far as intelligence is determined by DNA, the most intelligent (and least intelligent) would presumably be African as well.

it doesn't matter! who is smarter? Oprah or Ms. Spears? Brit doesn't represent the intelligence of all whites, and Oprah doesn't represent the intelligence of all blacks.

when it comes down to it, you just have to take people for who they are and what each individual has to offer.

i'm an hispanic, and believe me, some of my white clients have been well below average in intelligence, and i have some very intelligent black clients.

stupid, stupid man!

I'm really shocked by the ignorance here. Do you simply want this to be true so you can feel better about your own race, or do you honestly believe that genetics, not historical and cultural disadvantage, has the greater impact on a race?

Blacks in America have been done NO favors since we dragged them over here to do our fieldwork for us. We trample their culture and beliefs, then we ridicule them for not having such. I suppose it would be a logical next step to believe they are genetically inferior to whites, as well.

Unless you are a geneticist, you have only anecdotal evidence to support your claims. "I once met a stupid black guy" and "Most of my white friends are smart" are not scientifically sound data. You are observing very specific culture, NOT genetics.

ALL present-day humans are directly descended from the anatomically modern humans that developed in Africa and migrated in one or more waves over the past 75,000 years or so. In addition, every analysis of genetic patterns in humans detects extensive DNA variety in people in sub-Saharan Africa but relatively few differences among those elsewhere. This is because it was only a relatively small group of Africans that left the ancestral population and populated Asia, Europe and the Americas. Kenneth Kidd, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, has found that because of this bottleneck exodus, the DNA of black Africans contains more genetic variation than is present in the peoples of ALL OTHER CONTINENTS COMBINED. He suggests that the extremes of human characteristics are more likely to be evident in the original human population of the earth (the black African population). Therefore, it is possible the most athletic humans (and least athletic) would be African. In addition, as far as intelligence is determined by DNA, the most intelligent (and least intelligent) would presumably be African as well.

What does it matter? DNA, heredity, culture, race. It's all crap! None of us is nearly as intelligent as we would like to believe. We knowingly destroy ourselves, each other, and the only home we have, the Earth!

ALL present-day humans are directly descended from the anatomically modern humans that developed in Africa and migrated in one or more waves over the past 75,000 years or so. In addition, every analysis of genetic patterns in humans detects extensive DNA variety in people in sub-Saharan Africa but relatively few differences among those elsewhere. This is because it was only a relatively small group of Africans that left the ancestral population and populated Asia, Europe and the Americas. Kenneth Kidd, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, has found that because of this bottleneck exodus, the DNA of black Africans contains more genetic variation than is present in the peoples of ALL OTHER CONTINENTS COMBINED. He suggests that the extremes of human characteristics are more likely to be evident in the original human population of the earth (the black African population). Therefore, it is possible the most athletic humans (and least athletic) would be African. In addition, as far as intelligence is determined by DNA, the most intelligent (and least intelligent) would presumably be African as well.

This makes complete sense. People who evolved in different geographical regions evolved differently. Some had to rely more on intellect while others had to rely on physicality. Another taboo subject is the increasing dominance of black athletes in sports. They are, physically speaking, genetically superior. Not just superior to whites, but overwhelmingly superior to ALL other races. Is it really so hard to suppose that those who evolved with superior physical attributes, whose very evolution demanded this, might have evolved with a lesser used and evolutionary lowered mental capacity? A mental capacity, that was quite simply, not as important, not "unimportant", but less important to their survival than being able to negotiate their environment through physical prowess rather than mental dexterity. People want to cling to the belief that everybody is the same, that we all evolved exactly, precisely the same, but that very notion defies all logic and everything science has repeatedly demonstrated about the evolution of a species whose branches simultaneously evolve thousands of miles apart.

On a tv program some time ago, Dr Watson emphasized it was a social duty of scientists to eventually bring all human intelligence up to the level of geniuses now enjoyed by the top percent. Being a geneticist he proposed that stem cell modification might be the agent. Others, with a similar social goal, have proposed that artificial general intelligence , will augment individual human talent
within the next 50 years.

The trouble with this science is, even if true, it will be the catalyst for a level of racism we have yet to experience in humanity. This is a dangerous, dangerous subject of study. The minute something concrete is established scientifically and irrefutably, that one race of people is genetically inferior, or lesser advanced, than another, it will turn the greatest ideals of humanity on its head. The idea that all men are created equal is no longer true, and every political policy and value of humanity we've developed over the decades (based on the premise of equality) is now subject to debate. This is a science that should be banned for the absolutely negative ramifications that may come about. Not all science, even if true, should be brought into mainstream consciousness.

Ya know, I cant for the life of me figure out why they even ran this article. Not because of the racial undertone of the article, but this article does nothing to explain his "So Called" findings.....

Well, it's like I've been told there is no exact definition of intelligence that has yet ever been verified across the board to all humans in whatever respective physical setting they're from - we only connect in universal ideas where it's communicated respectively.

There is a difference between intelligence, and capacity for intelligence. The difference between, say, a squid and a chimpanzee is clear, the chimpanzee can reason to a degree, while the squid is merely an instinctive creature. The two are from separate species, in a different phylum altogether so its to be expected.

Now take that same chimpanzee and compare it to a more closer relative, the subfamily gorilla. Here we begin to see closer relationships between the two, with the gorilla displaying signs of marked intelligence, yet there remains an evolutionary difference, though not as far from the squid. The gorilla has evolved to reason more quickly than the squid, though not as fast as the chimpanzee.

Now take the chimpanzee again and compare it to others in the same family. The Bonobo and Common chimpanzee are both from the same genus, yet each displays slight differences in cultural and mating behavior, and reasoning ability. While one type may fashion simple tools to perform tasks, another might simply use their hands. One type tends to walk upright more than the other, they do not exhibit the same behavior. So it is probable that one may be evolving faster or slower than the other.

From this one can conclude that, yes, it IS possible for creatures within the same genus to have evolved differently, and at different rates. Whether this may be the case in humans remains to be seen: whose to say that blacks are not more evolved than whites? They may very well be. But really there are so many different races of humans, whites, blacks, filipinos, japanese.. whose to say that one race is more evolved than the other?

The extraction of this story from the scientific realm into the political realm has begun - this article was posted within the last couple hours...

"Science Museum cancels talk by Watson after 'racist' comments"

Yikes. I'm not gonna touch that one; not even with a 10 foot pole.

In the comments by Dave I would like to ask him since he is hispanic one question. The government of Mexico has been in existence much longer than that of the United States and even though they have ample natural resources equal to and in some cases (oil) better than the U.S. my question is this: why is Mexico stil a Third-World country and the U.S. a magnet for immigrants?

Impulsiveness may be one key here. As a general tendency, impulsiveness has been shown to have a genetic component. In certain situations, it is an advantage. In others, a disadvantage.

This is absurd. I don't know what's more absurd, his statement or the people actually positing that his statement has merit. There are some racist people wandering around. They are seeking legitimation for their prejudice. These racists are always seeking a way to attack the self-esteem of blacks, which is evidenced by this preposterous defamation of an entire race. This psychological conditioning of negative self-talk has been perpetuated for centuries.

James Watson got credit for "discovering" the double helix structure of DNA. Right, he "discovered" it from the x-ray photograph of DNA that a female Jewish scientist took, named, Rosalind Franklin. Watson's drew his "evidence" from "...people who have to deal with black employees..." leads me to believe that his observation is more personal than scientific. This article doesn't mention any scientific studies that Watson use to back his claim. For those of you who took what Watson said in casual to be incontrovertible proof that blacks are inferior intellectually only reveals your racial bias.

I believe that the reason why different races excel in different things is because they were brought up in different situation. Its all in what was instilled the majority of that race. Dancing and sports in Blacks, strict learning and work ethic in Asians, and strong business ethics in whites. This is why we stereotype, because we only believe what we see on the surface. If some races switched parents or cultures, we would see a huge change.

This seems pretty silly, especially coming from someone such as Watson, of all people. Where is the exact evidence for this theory?It would seem as though his message could have been misconstrued for sensational effects. As far back as I remember from pre med biology, race is not a biological entity.Race is a man- made "concept"! Isn't everyone linked to African ancestry? Why not tie it all together? If recent media reports have mentioned that people like Barack Obama & Dick Cheney have a common relative, and once I heard that Oprah & Elvis were related, then what does that say?

Well, as for Mexico that's our fault. We're the ones that invaded them in the past, and put them in that position - that is after breaking bread, and saying we had friendly intentions? As for the intelligence conversation, well it just goes to show you how strange it can continually be defined. I heard not too long ago by some people in a respective status quo position that our greatest contribution intellectually was to make things homogeneous. I guess they really get a kick out of staring down a factory line of processing a single product, huh? I always thought it was man's inventiveness that really said something for his or her intelligence, because that's what goes to show you there's always some new variance yet to be thought of for anything and everything.

I think that Dr. Watson is dead wrong. He confuses two simple things. Intelligence and lack of education. The brain is just a "hardrive" it still needs a "software" that comes through experiences(education), but nothing biological. I doubt that an african kid raised in the same environment as his counterpart from china, america, etc will be inferior. This kind of commentary makes me laugh, only. It is completely subjectivist and as nobel prize winner he should know that objectivity is needed. He just want to sell his book and need something to promote. All africans as I am should dismiss this baseless claim.

I get it, this is PR for the book.Man the extent people will go for PR.Even computer scientists ask the question, "What truly is intelligence"?We talk about "artificial intelligence" & that is basically a relative term.We say certain dogs are "intelligent", although they don"t speak.Our definition of their "intelligence" is that they are more "domesticated", meaning they have "conformed" more to the status quo in our "society".Now if our African ancestors terrorized the rest of the world and had their ways be the norm, whoever was more similar to this "norm" would then be seen as , more "evolved", hence, more "intelligent". Evolution from an anthropological standpoint is relative. One is to displace themselves from a biased viewpoint, that is difficult to do. It's funny because I remember in college taking a course in the anthropology of the scientific community & of course one of the books we read was about Watson & Crick.

unfortunately, at 79 years old, Dr Watson is a byproduct of the world views he was brought up in...he grew up in unenlightened times, where races were segregated, couldn't drink from the same water fountain...mixed-marriage was bitterly discouraged...it all reminds me of the Jimmy the Greek and Al Campanis statements from a generation ago...

In short, two cents is saying that Watson has not evolved intellectually since the 1960s. :)

And, the software can only be as good as those who honorably administer it. As for why a black reference is constantly referenced to should be the biggest red flag in and of itself, has anyone yet really still been left out of the conversation that we're headed on a global reference now more than ever? Hope this exposes the even more surplus of glaring rifts that exists about this.

ok let me get this straight... we oppress and enslave people for hundreds of years, continue to harbor prejudices against them even after we free them from slavery, expect them to recover for hundreds of years of oppression almost within one or two generations, and then say that because they haven't reached the same level of status the rest of white folks have is proof that they are inherently less intelligent??? god help us white folks, i'm beginning to think some of us are a few notches lower on the evolutionary scale...

i can't believe how many people are still in denial that evolution is a fact...

Well, white or whatever they still argue even amongst themselves on this subject. Once again like the other guy said, it's all these references we've got to explore then we'll make discoveries not more roadblocks still.

Although his comments are unorthodox and seem to be couched in a personal opinion and unfounded generalizations ("anyone who has had to deal with black employees..."), it generally does make some sense, and not in any way that has to fuel racism.

Let's decouple this from all of the charged words. Let's say we have a population, and we are interested in a widely varying characteristic X. Let's also assume that we have a good way to measure this trait. This population will have an average, but also may have a wide range of variation.

Now let's divide the population and separate them. They'll be exposed to different environments, and let them reproduce for many generations. Over time, environmental pressure may push changes in the populations which may indirectly affect characteristic X. Additionally, sometimes the population's traits can simply "drift" away from what they started with. So after thousands of generations, you reapply the test, and you may find that the average for the populations now differ; in addition, how widely the characteristic varies may differ as well, though they may overlap.

But just because one group's average may be slightly less than another group's average doesn't allow you to rightly claim that everyone in the one group is less than everyone in the other group; especially if the variation in the first group is much greater than the second group.

Certainly people could latch on to something like this and say "ah ha! racism is right!" Ironically, though, the fact that these people don't understand the difference between group averages and individuals relegates them to the lower end of their group's intelligence.

It is quite possible that on a standardized IQ tests Asians have a higher average score than Caucasians, and Caucasians have a higher average IQ score than Black Africans. I've heard that claimed. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Let assume for arguments sake that it is true. So what does that mean? Does that mean that all Asians are better qualified for a job or position in society than all whites? Simarily does it mean that all whites are more qualified than blacks? Of course not.

In other words, if you are armed with the information about average IQ differences between these three races, is that enough information to determine any given individuals intelligence, talent, or job qualification?

For example, if you have a job position to fill for a nuclear physicist and I hand you three resumes that have just the following information:

Resume #1 Steve Jackson, BLACK physicist
Resume #2 John Smith, WHITE physicist
Resume #3 Tim Lee, ASIAN physicist

could you determine which applicant was best qualified to fill the position as the nuclear physicist? I hope your answer would be a resounding NO. You would want to look at previous work experience relavent to the work they would be doing, academic achievement, research publications, management ability, etc. Physical appearance would be irrelevant (I mean look at Steven Hawking).

Now, if you are trying to hire an actor to play Martin Luther King in a movie and I hand you those same three resumes, you might be able to determine that Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith weren't qualified based simply on race since you would probably want to hire a black actor to play Dr. King. Of course, Mr. Jackson might turn out to be of African descent but with an albino condition in which case, you would probably not hire him either.

There is also another factor which people often ignore in these arguments. That is the Flynn effect. Flynn showed the average IQ can change greatly within a racial group over a relatively short period of time. This suggests the culture and environment play a significant role in determining average IQ of a given population.

In short, even if Watson is correct that there are some differences in the average IQ of different racial groups, there isn't any rational basis for using that information to discriminate soley on race. To do so would be foolish since you would eliminate all the best candidates from the racial groups with the lower average scores even though those candidates might be better qualified than the candidates from the racial group with the higher average IQ score.

The irrational/emotional nature of these arguments suggest that all of us, regardless of our racial makeup need to improve our IQ scores :-)

The so called "intelligence" is also a social construction defined with,often, biased methods. Thomas, what I meant by using the analogy with software was to say
that pigmentation argument is false. If any person from any "race" were left without the "social software" then they would be less "intelligent." If you want a test then isolate a child from society. You might figure out. The claim made by Dr. Watson is biological meaning that certain "races" are inherently more "intelligent" than others. If he is right then we don't see the need for education.

Well, black employees haven't been taught here, or encouraged to challenge misplaced conceptions about how a work place should optimally work. It's usually seen as an attempt to minimize those in higher positions. Seems those at the top need to quit attaching so much to the ego, then they could actually then be able to see just that so much further.

Does anyone actually believe what this uninformed scientist is saying just because he's a scientist? Are Kenyans superior runners than all other races of people? Or do they work harder? Is Tiger Woods a superior golfer because he has African American blood, or is it because he works harder? Is senator Barak Obama better looking and smarter than all the other candidates running for president because he's African American? Whoever thinks that White people are born more intelligent than Black people are just simply stupid.....Environment, systematic hatred and racism; foolishness and pride all contribute to an imbalance as it pertains to academic achievement. And the fact of the matter is this:

You dummies all know this to be true.....But you sit around with your arrogance and actually try and convince yourselves that White people are smarter than Blacks by virtue of test scores and GPAs. Are Blacks more criminal than Whites? I think not!!! The "majority people" in America will tend to do things to favor and accomodate their best interest......I tell you this, the arrogance of Satan lives in the hearts of those who still subscribe to the doctrine of Darwinism, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Adolf Hitler. Get a life small minded folks.....

What a person does with his/her intelligence matters more than the actual intelligence. Person 'A' with a 120 IQ might be helping hundreds of people survive and live a more fulfilling and comfortable lives than person 'B' with an IQ of 160 and only helping himself or his immediate family. Many barriers have broken by people that don't listen to what others say they can or cannot do. Often we limit ourselves by what others say but we are capable of much more if we put forth the effort. IQ test scores can vary by the individual's health, time of day, diet, region, environment, and other factors and are therefore biased and difficult to quantify. Usually you get a "ballpark" figure that is of questionable use to anyone except a few people that desire to segregate people. It is difficult to believe that "intelligent" people put so much effort into a project of dubious usefulness ... seems like the marginal utility of this study is way lower than say a cure for cancer or a blood disease.

Watson has simply stated that evolution across the globe has surely resulted in differences (that's a big part of the whole theory after all that people/animals change to adapt to their local environment), and surely intellect is no exception.

It's a fair comment to make within the framework of science/evolution. Such discussion of race should not be avoided in order to avoid offence. Polical correctness blows.

BUT problems do arise when people (or groups such as the nazis) try to manipulate such things to their own political agenda. What's frightening is that he (as a scientist) appears to have done just that.

I was taught essentially the same thing in an anthropology class in a major university in 1981 or so. But I don't think it's going to be easy to connect an IQ test to a gene, or set of genes. One important point made in the book The Bell Curve was that these conclusions apply generally, and say absolutely nothing about the intelligence of any single black person.

quote by tom : Satan lives in the hearts of those who still subscribe to the doctrine of Darwinism, ... Get a life small minded folks.....

Darwin himself admitted his personal belief in an overall designer but he was clever enough with open mind to realise that his theory didn't in any way enter into the whole God debate.. he was open minded enough to realise and respect a separation between science and religion.

Even the pope (the last one) admitted evolution is a well proven theory but that it doesn't address the creation of the soul.

So when it comes to small minded ... look at yourself Tom and your creationist buddies. Because even the Catholic church subscribes to the theory of evolution that stemmed from Darwin.

Watson is correct. If one wants to transfer a skill, the skill's articulation must be disassembled into minimal modules which must then be reassembled into substructure accessible to the target intellect. Accessibility is IQ related. Those refusing to be "racist" are in fact prejudice in their assumption that one explanation fits all. Their blind religious based regimented ignorance has destroyed the black intellectual infrastructure along with their once cohesive families. IQ bell shaped curves have offset centers, each has entries to the extremes. Knowing a few smart persons doesn't alter the reality of their masses. England is prejudice.

I consider myself fairly "liberal" on most issues. However, as bad as it sounds, he's absolutely correct. When you lower standards to include other races to be PC, you end up with substandard quality. I've seen it over and over. When aff. action was ramped in the 90's, before California changed its laws to eliminate it, professions such as nurses and docs were run either in a lottery mannor, or that a certain percentage of applicants were accepted merely on race, not academic quality. Because of this, people with C averages were accepted over straight A students and the quality of medical care went down the tubes. Anyone that wants to dispute this only needs to look at the incidents of malpractice suits and accidental surgery deaths during and immediately after that period.

Humans use such a small portion of their brain that any difference between the races has to be cultural and environmental. Statements like this just provide fuel for those that want to belief that they are superior because of their color. Overlooking that many of their own have done all they could to keep anyone different, down and minimized.

H. Davis: YOu are absolutely wrong. While environmental facts may play a SMALL role in intellectual development, brain scans have actually shown a difference in cognative abilities between races. Also, how can you dispute the fact that minorities got in because of aff. action, not merit, and the quality went down the tubes?

I wouldnt be surprised if there were differences but he really should be careful suggesting that it's an established fact without providing his data. Sure, blacks test poorly in the United States and Africa but iirc they tested well in England (where many affluent africans move). And it is possible that being socially disadvantaged generates most of the testing issues.

But if it is determined scientifically that blacks are better athletes for reasons x,y and z... wouldnt it make them the superior race if they were intellectually equal to whites as well? It seems like you have the makings of a "superior" race either way.