Science and Society

i feel bad for him. other scientist have also said that in genetic STUDIES they've done, for some reason the africa race hadn't advanced as much as say the norweigen or finnish or whatever and they were only going along actual data they had collected. i really don't think they were trying to be racist. but i'm also not african and would be offended if i were. so having said that, he did the right thing by just going away. he's also implied in the past that men were more intellectually advanced than women and could prove it so who knows.

The Watson incident shows that everyone should control their tongue, and never wander outside their expertise. Watson is an acknowledged genius, no doubts. But he forgot his boundary. A scientist of that order should have stayed in the lab or in the classroom. I do not think he is a racist. I wish him the very best.

I think a lot of the non-science types really do not understand the science of DNA. On the elementary level, students are taught by mixing certain kinds of DNA results in specific results. These results are often very observable. Dr. Watson was from an empirical scientific background, observing traits from probably as small as Nat Flies, right up to humans. I think based on what he saw of all the races, that were controlled by DNA (that being the basic building blocks of life), without a large background of Africans (the sub-Saharan type specifically), not necessarily of one compartmental skin color group, probably did not appear to evolve the same from what he was familiar with from westerns that he observed. Dr. Watson from what I read was always outspoken, highly-opinionated, and kind of eccentric, even back in his youth. Taken with being the father of the double helix DNA study, his generation, his age, it’s not surprising he finally out did himself, in his own way.

Watson is not God neither did he know how God made man. As educated as he is, he still doesn't know much. God created man from dust. Everything that he(Watson) think he did, he must have thought he did it because he is white. He is such a narrow minded man. I can be very sure that all his live he hasn't step out of this country (USA) for pleasure to see other places. So he is blind to his brain what Africans are doing. He probably did not know anything about HISTORY. Whatever bad things happening in Africa today happens because white started it. Whatever you whites thing you have achieve in life,you must have thought you did it by yourself. The origin of what you have that you are laying hold on today claiming to be yours,you must have believe you work for it without the AFRICANS. Watson think again.

To Emmarose,

Who are these "others" you speak of when you bring up these genetic tests? How was this data collected and measured? If this "scientific" observation were in fact true, people like Oprah, Clarence Thomas, Condeleeza Rice, Barack Obama, and the thousands of other peoples of "african" descent wouldn't be genetically capable of achieving the things they have. The African people and Africa as a continent haven't progressed or "advanced" as much as their European "counterparts" for a reason and it has nothing to do with genetics. The answer to your question is actually pretty simple if you take a look at history; the continent as a whole was/is exploited by the Europeans. Research such things as human zoos or the "Scramble for Africa" to get a little insight to what it is I am trying to convey. Its utterly amazing how people are so quick to pass off something as genetic to further their divisive agenda, than to look at the other possibilities. Africa wasn't as desolate or bleek as it is today, just as Native Americans weren't always in the condition they are in today. All these things can be explained and it has nothing to do with genetics. It has everything to do with the explotation of a people and their resources by Europeans.

"It has everything to do with the explotation of a people and their resources by Europeans."

Admitedly, this is historically true. My question is why? And why didn't Africans exploit Europeans? Is it the "nature" of Eurpoeans to exploitive and the Africans to be exploited? One other question: after a certain amount of time (thousand of years), does history, i.e., environmental factors morph into genetic?

It is really hard to think of Germans and Russians during the first half of last century as very wise and intelligent. Should we assume that the caucasian race is an intelligent killer race? Should finding efficient ways of killing 60 million people be considered smart? Also what impact is all this cleverness having on our environment? Mr. Watson may be clever but he is not wise. Let's judge each person based on his/her actions and not generalize.

what is 'intelligence', anyway?

free speech my butt,,,,

Yes "Bob", I agree with the implication in your question. Nurture verses nature is a somewhat false dichotomy. These two are symbiotic, not one the cause of the other.
.
missylou: "explotation [sic] of a people and their resources by Europeans"
.
Yes, there was and to a certain extent still is exploitation of African peoples by Europeans.
.
Yet if this bears repeating, it serves accuracy well to point out that African exploitation was also carried out by the many nations of the Ottoman Empire - specifically NOT European - and for an equally egregious length of time and religiously supported motivation. (Saudi Arabia only got around to outlawing slavery in 1962.)
.
Furthermore, in the interests of full accuracy, it bears pointing out that the exploitation of Africans was also carried out by Africans themselves who facilitated the trade in humans by attacking neighboring communities obtaining slaves there.
.
It should be further noted that modern Africa is replete with inter-tribal wars and genocidal events without, I might add, the help of or instigation by Europeans. Even the guns are typically purchased from China.
.
That aside, the issue of racially based intelligence is as much an issue of taxonomy as it is anything else. As pointed out in a previous comment, the definition of "race" is far from settled. I am "white" and share 96% of my genetic information with other "great apes". Further, I share an amazing amount of genetic material with the local fauna.
.
Lastly, there's the issue of defining and then measuring "intelligence" that is far from a settled "science". If I score high on an I.Q. test, it means nothing more than I'm good at taking I.Q. tests.

And is "efficiency" an indication of intelligence?
And again... why didn't Africans "exploit" Eurpoeans?

To Bob,

******My question is why?******
POWER.

******And why didn't Africans exploit Europeans?******

Why would Africans need to "exploit" Europeans? They had plenty of resources and the land in which they lived wasn't barren like the continent of Europe. Why would the want to go from paradise to hell?

******Is it the "nature" of Eurpoeans to exploitive and the Africans to be exploited?******

Some would argue that "whites" are naturally oppressive but I would disagree. Things of this type, I would say, is learned and when a group of people have been conditioned to think a certain way over a long period of time it could appear as if it is by nature they "are" inherently that way.

******One other question: after a certain amount of time (thousand of years), does history, i.e., environmental factors morph into genetic?******

NO! As I stated, people over generations can be told they are stupid and lazy, but it means nothing unless you give it power(or if the world you live in enables or promotes such oppression).

people get off your race kick and get on with your lives

Missylou...
after a certain amount of time (thousand of years), does history, i.e., environmental factors morph into genetic?******
Your response:
NO! As I stated, people over generations can be told they are stupid and lazy, but it means nothing unless you give it power(or if the world you live in enables or promotes such oppression).

So, according to your response Darwin was wrong. Look at the long view: (Note: I am not casting aspersions, just trying to arrive at some scientific understanding) gorillas (our forebearers) were "told" to stay in the trees; nevertheless some gorillas came down from the trees and started to walk on two legs instead of 4. Piltdown, Lucie, etc. Over the course of eons we evolved. So back to my question: at what point does environmental factors morph into genetics since today humans are not gorillas.

Admitedly, my reponse may be somewhat oblique but yours introduced "oppression" and thus left the world of science and entered the murky world of politics.

Dennis Fletcher

You make very valid points; however, you have failed to answer what was the driving force behind those mechanisms that mentioned.

******Yet if this bears repeating, it serves accuracy well to point out that African exploitation was also carried out by the many nations of the Ottoman Empire - specifically NOT European - and for an equally egregious length of time and religiously supported motivation. (Saudi Arabia only got around to outlawing slavery in 1962.)******

Ok, but to what extent has the Ottoman Empire played in the colonization and explotation of the people and resources of Africa in comparision to such nations as France, Belgium, and Britain? Like I said, check out the "Scramble for Africa" that occured in the late 19th century.

******Furthermore, in the interests of full accuracy, it bears pointing out that the exploitation of Africans was also carried out by Africans themselves who facilitated the trade in humans by attacking neighboring communities obtaining slaves there.
.*******

When you speak on the trafficking of humans, in what context or time frame are you speaking? In reference to the Slave Trade, the catalyst for this was the Americas need for slave labor, which was facilitated by European Powers at the time.

******It should be further noted that modern Africa is replete with inter-tribal wars and genocidal events without, I might add, the help of or instigation by Europeans. Even the guns are typically purchased from China.******

As previously stated, what or who brought about these attidudes? Alot of the destablizing conflicts seen in the "moderm" African culture today is a result of the European colonization of these areas. Just to make one thing clear, there are numerous factors that have contributed to what "Africa" is today and not all of it is the result of European interaction, but I am willing to say that a large portion of it was the result of the Europeans' explotation. But in that, none of those would involve genetics.

It is strange that people believe Watsons claims when he never presented any proof of his gene theory other than an invalid European IQ test with no cultural relevance to Africans. Secondly intelligence is always culturally relative. Thirdly Darwinism and evolution has no evidence to back it. Man was just as smart 9,000 years ago. Look at the pyramids. As far as African progress looking bleak to Watson. How about over 50 European instigated and funded Coupe's and assassinations in Africa in the last 60 years. How is that for evolution. Mr. Watson is just adding insult to injury and yes he is a racist.

Let's try this: From the year "zip" to
15th century:In Europe Gutenberg has invented movable type. No known exploitation of Africa by Europeans. China has invented a host of things (gunpowder, etc.) What was going on in Africa and why?

I believe Watson's references were regarding technical and analytical intelligence...not morals. Nazi Germany was evil, but technically superior to all African nations. Slavery is little more than glorified bullying...and intelligence always gains the upper hand, just as it does over poverty. Intelligence has nothing to do with morality.

Well said Dennis Fletcher!

There are just too many variables to link broad IQ testing with genetics at this point. The main ones being the differences in formal education, cultural upbringing and language. Anyone considering this from a purely scientific view will conclude that further research is needed.
Analysis of mixed / non-mixed half siblings would be my first subject of interest as they are usually brought up in a similar manner by their parents. Social impact still needs to be accounted for though. IE mixed child going to a white dominated school or identifying with similar appearing role models that glorify thug type lifestyles. Considering the vast swings in intellect in both groups on the individual level, identifying either european whites or african blacks as "superior" will likely result in social factors inhibiting all members of the group deemed lesser in intellect, thus harming society as a whole.

Ted Williams, seeing as you do not understand science maybe you should not debate it. There is plentiful evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, much of which has been seen wince Watson, Crick, and Francis' (yes, she needs to be included) discovery of DNA. When populations are separated, generally geographically, mutations in DNA continue. If these changes are advantageous to the individual in their environment they have a greater chance of reproducing and passing them on. So, no, there is no time line for when changes are made and an organism can only adapt to the current environment.

Until more people are well educated in science and truly understand evolution it would do them well to stop asserting incorrect assumptions. The word fitness does not mean the same thing in laymen's terms that it does in evolutionary science. Learning the difference between the two is a great starting point in your learnings on evolution.

Watson is and has been a phenomenal scientist over the course of his career. It's a shame that politics have forced him out of a field that needs him so badly.

Lillian...You make this statement "God created man from dust." But yet you call Dr. Watson narrow minded. Interesting.

As I see it. We, in this country have the right to say and print most everything with impunity. But this does not mean anything even slightly bad about Africa, Africans or Afro-Americans. Political correctness will not allow any deviation from the straight and narrow. Political correctness will take your job, your career, your reputation and anything else they wish to take.

There are no genetic studies proving the intelligence of one group over another.

You people need to read. Start with this: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. It is a good introduction into the history of human societies. That will introduce you to a more useful/grounded debate.

To change the subject and raise what I believe is a very important issue which is highlighted by this statement from Dr. Watson: "Cancer, then an intellectual black box, now, in part because of research at the Laboratory, is almost full lit. Though important facts remain undiscovered, there is no reason why they should not soon be found." In other words, the "cure" for cancer is just around the corner, primarily because we now know so much about the genetic and biomolecular nature of cancer. If this is true (this kind of remark has been made countless times in the past), then we should have the cure already. The medical/biological research community has spent over a hundred years and trillions of dollars on cancer research, the publications of which would probably reach to the moon and back. But most "cures" are in reality simply treatments based on chemical, radiological or surgical assaults on the body that either leave the patient with severe problems and/or forestall the inevitable a few months/years. The fallacy which the great Dr. Watson and most in academia embrace is that an understanding of the nature of cancer and cancerous cell biology/biochemistry will lead them to a cure. I would say that this is a very remote possibility. For example, if Fleming had not had been a fairly careless lab technician and that bit of mold had not landed in the Petri dish of bacteria, we would not have antibiotics! It is simply preposterous to believe that man could deduce the structure of any antibiotic from scratch, even considering all that we know now about the biology/chemistry of bacteria. Most discovery, contrary to what most believe, actually proceeds from observation and experiment (and mistakes) and not from theory. What we really need to find a cure for cancer is less theory and more brute force: simply trying whatever compounds we can find, natural and synthetic, for anti-tumor effects. Not very glamorous but people with cancer don't need glamor or theory or publications. They need a solution. We need more of a "Thomas Edison" approach to cancer research than a "Thomas Watson" approach. Theory has a place but it needs to take a back seat to experimentation and observation and trial and error!

if his studies are correct then I would have flunked 7th grade.It was a black friend who saved my sorry white no math butt.Yes,there are DIFFERENCES in the DNA of various races,that's obvious,but...Just my 2 cents worth

BillyBob,

Knowing more about genetics, molecular biology, immunology, and the mechanisms of cancer are what allow us to test all of these things. By knowing certain markers for anti-cancer effectiveness we can screen thousands of substances for those marker and test with more focused methods. There are too many drugs, supplements, plants, and other things to just throw at patients. Can you justify performing clinical trials on dying cancer patients using a substance that has no proven efficacy? Countless thousands would die through your method of "research."

And please do not get indignant about not yet having a cute. Hundreds of thousands of people are managing their cancers as a chronic disease and are not dead because of strides research, be it clinical, information, or translational, have made. Ask a cancer survivor whether they would rather be dead or have endured many surgeries, the affects of chemotherapy, and removal of body parts. There are a scant few who would rather be dead.

Everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. So what if group A is smarter in math than group B. That does not mean that everyone in group A is smarter than everyone in group B. Neither does it mean that the smartest person in group A is better at math than the smartest person in group B. Also, the difference between the two groups is probably only one half a percent difference. Big deal, who can't overcome one half a percent if they wanted to. And Math, just like IQ tests, are limited in what they test. Maybe the people in group B are three fifths a percent smarter than group A in language skills. The scientist should have not said anything because race is a hot topic. Also, I will wager the difference he detected was extremely small, leaves out important aspects of intelligence, and had a sample of people who do not represent each one of us, regardless of our skin color. Let's hope that the human race succeeds because it sees the great value of our diversity and not fail because we are easily distracted and enraged about insignificant details.

This is a good discussion. Not all agree but it is insightful and conversed with intelligence.

The lurking horns of a dilemna:
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

Actually he should have included "seeds" and east-west land mass, i.e, Europe/Asia vs. north-south, i.e., Africa and S. America in his title which actually were Diamond's determinative factors.

Even if one accepts all or most of his conclusions, they are confronted with the fact that the two east/west continents progressed SLOWER than the n/s continents.

Thus, we are back to the problem that Africa (its inhabitants - not the land mass) has progressed less than the east/west continents. If Diamond's analysis is correct (and he is anything but a racist) that leaves us confronting a scientific finding which is totally politically incorrect and dare not be espoused.

Oh, and intelligence is rarely if ever is synonoymous with morality but it sure do help to be smart.

What James Watson said was totally racist. This may have been his parting contribution to slow down the eventual death of the concept of "White Supremacy." Like so many others who possess all sorts of degrees, when it comes to acknowledging the accomplishments of people of color, these so called genuises become blabbering idiots when confronted with the obvious. Africans inferior to who? The oldest stone carving on the planet along the Nile River at Giza, "the Sphinx," isn't the face of Jerry Lewis you know. That monarch is an African. Even with his nose and lips gone, any one can see that. Inferior to who? An African people called Moors went into Europe in the 7th Century A.D.and occupied all of Spain, Portugal and parts of Italy and France for nearly 800 years. They brought with them all the sciences of ancient Africa and from the Halls the the Univeristy of Sankore at "Timbutu." It was only after their occupation that Europe began oceanonic travel (remember, they thought the world was flat), paved and lighted streets, universities, arts and other cultural advancements that they atributed to the "Renaissance." Why do you think Columbus was but a handfull of people in Europe who knew the world was round? Inferior to who? The Greeks traveled by the thousands from the 4th century B.C. to the 1st century B.C. to Africa to be educated by the Blacks and they stated it in their written works. Everything mentioned above can be proven. The James Watsons of the world know it but continue to hold on to the last vestages of white supremacy created to make white people feel good upon finding out about the great wall of China, the massive pyramids of Teotihucan, the stone City of Monomatopa and other technologies around the world when there was no Europe, no France, no Germany, etc. It is unfortunate that one has to break it down like this but it is necessary bcause you get tired of reading insensitive material most of which are in our schools highlighing the achievements of Europe and the Western World while writing that Africans, Indians, Aborigines, etc just sat on a rock for millions of years waiting for the white man to deliver them from their savagery. People, get a life and read history and prove me wrong!

Africans inferior to who?
Inferior to who?

s/b Africans inferior to WHOM?
Inferior to WHOM?

Sorry, I can't help it.

Dr. Watson is NOT a bigot, and he should never have given in to the sort of Political Correctness that lead to his resignation.

There are indeed differences in racial makeup which we can all see: darker or lighter skin, greater or lesser height, color of hair, strength of teeth, shape and color of eyes - the list goes on and on. Why then should we be surprised when it is pointed out that testing (even if flawed) and both experience and simple observation shows that there are differences in intellectual achievement between groups that have evolved in completely different environments?

Someone mentioned in a previous post the Europeans left their "barren lands" to come to Africa and conquer that "paradise". Ignoring for the moment the constant internecine warfare on the African continent, doesn't this comment by itself say something about the differences in intellectual achievement? One people evolved in a paradise and another in a much less favored land; why should we be surprised (or offended) when it is pointed out that those from the lesser endowed land, who had to work so much harder for their survival, would end up with more and better implements for coping with radical environments than those from the favored land? And if the answer to that seems obvious, as it must, why would we argue so fiercely that they intellectual achievements are not the greater? Just as Africans evolved a dark skin to cope with the harsh African sun, so those from the north evolved a higher intellect to deal with the challenges of an environment that rapidly changed from one extreme to the other?

It is no longer Politically Correct to mention some things in our country; there are subjects we are not supposed to mention, much less openly discuss. We have reached a sorry state when the learned opinion of someone who has spent his entire life in the study of biology, on a level that almost none of us (myself included) can comprehend, can be chased into hiding for noting in a public forum that he has seen a pattern in the development of intellect that favors those whose struggle to survive is more rigorous.

I will no doubt be castigated, or worse, by the majority of posters here. My hope is that at least one will look at the concepts so briefly presented here, and come away with both the desire and drive to prove me wrong. THAT person will have to do research to accomplish that, and in the process may just learn that there really are differences in the ENTIRE spectrum of human evolution. If that happens, any scorn heaped on me for this post have been worth it.

Guess the truth hurts. What a shame modern society's too PC for honesty. Best of luck to this learned man.

The funny thing is,until we get rid of this curse of political correctness,we shall never know the answer to this question.Most people are actually afraid of the answer,whatever it may be. Some say it is not something we need to know.I'd like to know.

Another way to look at it:

If Caucasians create intelligence tests with a hidden agenda of maintaining their own superiority, why do they continue to publish results that indicate that Asians do better on these tests?

This very topic, why did certain cultures live in a stone age while other european cultures had writing, reading, oraganized government, food production and machinery, is very aptly covered in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and it's not just about african nations. I highly reccommend it.

but to the person who said whites get everything they have due to some black person's work....not even close. The majority of white americans were not even here during the civil war and before, there was an explosion of immigration at the turn of the century long after the civil war was over, as was with my family. MOST whites came to this country poor immigrants and worked their way up to where they are, like it or not, studies have shown this.

Thank you Dr. Watson for once letting the world know the scientific truth.

Just as the right-wing denies the scientific evidence of evolution and global warming, the left-wing denies the scientific evidence of racial differences. Two peas in a pod. Selecting only those parts of scientific fact that support one's ideology is stupid and wrong whether done by the right wing or left wing. Both should see the facts and accept reality.

Here's some facts (taken from census bureau and Uniform Crime Reports):
Whites make up 73.9% of the total population in the United States. Blacks make up 12.4%. Of the 73.9% of whites, 3.24% (.92% of which were considered violent crimes) of them were arrested for something in 2006. Of the 12.4% of blacks, 7.78% (2.7% of which were considered violent crimes) of them were arrested for something in 2006. Now, everyone has an opinion when it comes to race, but when these kinds of numbers are in our face, how can we sit there and say this guy didn't have a point. Crime = stupidity

Question...
After reading the varied posts herein, has anyone-- ANYONE(!) changed their mindset from that which he or she may have had prior to reading the posts?

I for one, would love to hear from that person.

missylou

If we were able to fully discuss the issues, which in this forum is quite impossible, I should think we would find our positions to be remarkably similar.
.
You ended your last comment to me with the words "none of those would involve genetics." I couldn't agree more. Any link between genetics and behaviour is in my view fortuitous at best.
.
As the article on which our comments are ultimately based deals with a purported link between intelligence and "race", permit me to be clear. I am not convinced any such link can be scientifically asserted or maintained.
.
Further, I do not wish to be forced into the position of an apologist for Imperialism, European Ottoman or otherwise including that of Britain's Imperialist "son" the U.S.
.
>>
.
The traders of the Ottoman Empire (known at the time as the "Arab slave traders") certainly facilitated the European Empires' slave trade. The extent can be found in the records in Turkey. I have not personally done such a study, but can recommend the works of Dr. Samuel P. Huntington who has.
.
>>
.
My study indicates the European slave trade in Africa began in the late 15th and early 16th Century. The Ottoman slave trade began prior to this as the Ottoman Muslems made slaves of the European Christians it captured who either did not convert or were not executed.
.
As the Ottomans were in Northern Africa contemporaneously with their Middle East, it is reasonable to suppose their African slave trade began prior to that of the Europeans.
.
>>
.
There is some truth to this, though the European imperialist agenda took slave labor all over the world where ever there was perceived to be a need for "cheap" labor. That incidentally included the heart of Africa and the rubber plantations.
.
So we are again agreed except for my recognition that any full recitation of history must include the slave trade of the Ottomans and the African people themselves.
.
>>
.
Here we disagree. In my view, it cannot seriously be maintained that African tribal wars were the result of European influences.
.
There are no indigenous African historical written records. But there are written records going back as far as the Sumerians. These records clearly indicate people have been killing each other, enslaving each other and hating each other and waging "tribal" war on each other since the beginning of recorded history. There's no reason to believe it wasn't occurring before then.
.
Thus one can safely adduce slavery was happening in Africa as well - long before the Europeans or the Ottomans showed up.
.
>>
.
I am not.

My apologies for the quality of that last comment. My quoting of "missylou" was stripped out and lost.
d

Jessica,

It's too bad you have attacked my proposition with hyperbole rather than addressing the specific points. I did not say that I was opposed to using whatever tools are available to screen drugs. To the contrary, this would obviously enable the "brute force" approach. And I never said I was in favor of "throwing" drugs at patients. On the other hand, if someone is dying and the understand the risks, I think we should offer them the choice between a known conventional "cure" with 1 in 1000 odds or a few more months of "life" and something experimental. And by the way how many "countless thousands" (actually millions) have died soon after some conventional "cure"?

And I am quite indignant about not having a real cure! And why not? The real problem is that a cancer "bureaucracy" has evolved where no one has to actually make any real progress! Get a grant, publish yet another paper (on the stack to the moon) and pay the bills. Repeat the process...

As for your question: "Ask a cancer survivor whether they would rather be dead or have endured many surgeries, the affects of chemotherapy, and removal of body parts." I do suppose many would rather endure these assaults but some would not, BUT ALL would prefer a real CURE!!

And you did not respond at all to my example of Fleming and antibiotics?? Do you seriously believe that anyone today, given all the knowledge of bacterial infection mechanisms, cell biology, biochemistry,etc,etc could even propose a molecular structure for an antibiotic from "scratch" (much less make it) without the prior knowledge of Fleming's accidental discovery and all those that followed?

Its a shame that a man that is as intelligent as he seems to be only applies his genius to books and science and not to common sense.

Appreciate you correcting me Bob; "Whom," not "Who."
Regardless, why are Europeans and European Americans so obsessed with intelligence. It is as though they have to keep telling themselves less they forget. No people on the planet feels so compelled to keep comparing their intellect to other people. And it seems the brunt of those comparisons are always African people. African people acheived greast things in antiquity and this greatness was sustained for thousands of years. The last 500 years has been the greatest for Germans, English, French, etc. Why is it that Watson does not look at time-lines when assessing intellect because then, he would see that every culture/race had their day in the sun. Instead, he like many others take a look at one sampling and apply it to the whole. If Watson looked at Europe in its dark ages and commented on the intellect of the average person there, he would see a race of mental pymies eating maggots, dying of the squalor and filth they created called the "plauge" and chopping off each other's heads in the name of Christendom. On the contrary, these researchers won't study Africans during their heyday (i.e. pyramid building, Mali, Ghana and Songhai Empires) because these periods conflict with the inferior theory. These researchers instead wlll pick on a specific tragic aspect of the African experience (Colonial and Post Colonial Africa) when Africans endured centuries of devastating invasions. When they reach the result they seek, they lock in on it and make it law. One thing I am glad of is that most informed scientists know that no race has a monopoly on intellect and that history can show, all have shown great feats of human acheivement at some point in time. Its just that some people just can't get past that intelligence thing. Fact, by 1911 in the US 60% of the inventions in America were invented by Black men and women. This at a time when they were discriminated against in every aspect of society. Check out the U.S. Patent Office for the facts. We are all brothers and sisters on this planet. Why some find it satifying to think themselves better, smarter than others because of their race/color baffle me.

Michelle...
What is your definition of "common sense"?

I repeat that these tests only evaluate a few aspects of intelligence. Given a different types of tests would probably give a different ranking. Why do we argue over "intelligence" when no one is able to test all aspects of it. And it seems that almost everyone agrees that your social background makes a difference. So there is no way to know if race is the factor that makes the scores different. Use some common sense! There is no perfect test for measuring intelligence!

He was just a scientist who reported on his findings, and the rest of the world didn't like it. Kudos to Dr. Watson for being honest. I don't like the finding either, but at least we now know. This is a classic case of "shooting the messenger". He didn't invent the data, he just reported it. I guess being politically correct is more important than digging for truths. What are we going to do now? Just stick our collective head in the sand and ignore the facts? Try looking on the bright side, maybe this data can be used to help balance the intelligence levels of Europeans and Africans. Anyone ever think of that? I hope that the remaining years he has are spent very comfortably, and doing what he loves to do. God bless him, and his studies.

blahblah, You obviously have read crime statistics, but you need to study the causes of crime. Did you know that our founding fathers had a higher criminal rate than the British loyalists? Did you know that white Christians in most Arabic countries have a higher criminal rate than Arabic Moslems?

To Bob -- I think you asked why didn't Africans exploit Europeans. Different societies evolved differently largely because of the evolutionary history and resources of the continents (and islands) they lived on. Check out a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It lays the foundation for a good understanding of this very phenomenon.

well if u ask me i think when you said that i think it was a little critizeing