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.