Watson: Blacks less intelligent than Whites?

[Sam988]

Here's the source of the controversy, Watson's statement:

Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: On the James Watson Black IQ controversy


Some will say he's full of BS, others will say that it might be but hasn't been proven yet. My position is the second. It may be, but hasn't been proven yet. But here's a very interesting article i found and i would like to see some comments on it. More interestingly, it is written by a nigerian black person criticizing his own race:

allAfrica.com: Nigeria: I Agree With Dr Watson (Page 1 of 1)

[Angela]

Dr. Watson has also stated that thin people are more ambitious, and has spoken of the desirability of genetic screening for homosexuality.

He's the Anne Coulter of his generation.

[NotesMaeve]

Hate to pull a Godwin, but it illustrates a point: When I was in school, I was taught Hitler was a bad man for oppressing and harming individuals, not because he hated the wrong group.

Anytime you start judging individuals by the groups they associate with, you are simply screwing yourself. Are people affected by the cultures and subcultures they're involved with? Sure, but the second you catch yourself believing an individual is stupid because of curly hair or big lips or dark skin, you better recheck who the idiot is, because you might just intellectually get your butt stomped, or worse.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Hate to pull a Godwin, but it illustrates a point: When I was in school, I was taught Hitler was a bad man for oppressing and harming individuals, not because he hated the wrong group.

Anytime you start judging individuals by the groups they associate with, you are simply screwing yourself. Are people affected by the cultures and subcultures they're involved with? Sure, but the second you catch yourself believing an individual is stupid because of curly hair or big lips or dark skin, you better recheck who the idiot is, because you might just intellectually get your butt stomped, or worse.

This is not about judging a single individual based on stereotypes. Of course a black individual can be smarter than a white one. What Watson and the second text i displayed is talking about is the average black population's intelligence compared to the average white population's intelligence.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by Sam988

This is not about judging a single individual based on stereotypes. Of course a black individual can be smarter than a white one. What Watson and the second text i displayed is talking about is the average black population's intelligence compared to the average white population's intelligence.

What point is there to discussing whether or not one group has a higher IQ than some other group other than to oppress a people? Why don't we simply focus on granting all people the same opportunities?

[Jugga J]

You've also got the problem of test bias + cultural bias. Guess what happens when someone from a black culture writes the I.Q test?

And most whites are richer. = white children generally receive a better education because they can go public.

I.Q is a crap measure anyway.

another note: there is a tribe in Brazil with a low average I.Q, they have low mathematic scores etc. Yet the children their can navigate their way around at night by the stars. How many children from the northern hemisphere can do that?

Is it in your jurisdiction to say what attributes qualify as intelligence?

[Brutha]

What point is there to discussing whether or not one group has a higher IQ than some other group other than to oppress a people? Why don't we simply focus on granting all people the same opportunities?

The point of science is always to increase the knowledge available.
That might for example help isolating gen that intellegent people have but stupid people don't. That might allow you in 30 years to give those gens to the stupid people to make them more intelligent.
There are valid reasons to seek the knowledge.

I don't believe that white people are smarter than blacks. Jared Diamond made a point in one of his books that if there is a difference you would expect based on evolution that blacks are smarter.
The argument is that is wasn't very important how smart you were in 0 BC in Europe to get to the next generation. It was more important to be resistent to all those diseases flooting around.

On the other hand a stupid hunter dies and can't bring his children into the next generation.

But you should still seperate people from the claims they make in a scientific debate. Otherwise you get bad science.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The point of science is always to increase the knowledge available.
That might for example help isolating gen that intellegent people have but stupid people don't. That might allow you in 30 years to give those gens to the stupid people to make them more intelligent.
There are valid reasons to seek the knowledge.

I simply think we're not advanced enough as a society to look at this with unbiased eyes though, and I can't see why it would matter UNLESS the study is looking into how to improve things. Like studies about women being worse at math than men... What's the point unless we're asking ourselves: How to we better teach math to girls? Otherwise it simply becomes about instilling inferiority.

Love,

The woman who is damn good at math and analytical thinking

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

What point is there to discussing whether or not one group has a higher IQ than some other group other than to oppress a people? Why don't we simply focus on granting all people the same opportunities?

In addition to Brutha's point, if there is a genetic difference, trying to grant people the same opportunities could end up benefiting one group more than others.

That's why IQ tests came about in the first place. The forerunner to the modern IQ test was developed by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon to identify children with learning disabilities. It didn't truly have anything to do with genetics, nor an objective measure of intelligence. Binet knew there were limitations to his test, and that intelligence was not something that could be measured so easily, if at all. But the test did help identify those children who, for a variety of reasons, needed extra help or an alternative style of education in order to reach the same level as their peers.

{edit: ...which seems to agree with what you just posted. Serves me right for opening too many threads at once and not checking for updates before replying }

[NotesMaeve]

I <3 you, Mark.

[Livgivare]

The dencity of genes in Africans are greater then the Europeans I don't know if this is ever a good indicator of who is smart or not. Maybe the most idiotic people in Europe is more stupid then the most idiotic Africans??? Who are we to judge who are stupid or not stupid. There is probobly 15 different ways of being smart in and most of us have at least 2 or 3 of those stronger then the rest of us. IQ is a bad single indicator as is EQ, Spatial and/or Sport-smart imo. I can't play soccer the way Zlatan Ibrahimovich can, and he is told to be the smartest soccerplayer in Sweden. I am no Einstein either. And I am probobly not like that woman in USA who can feel what cows feel and talk to them. But I guess that I am smart enough to know the fact that smartness is not to be according to what skin you are having...

Love Leelene

[Livgivare]

Originally Posted by Livgivare

There is probobly 15 different ways of being smart in and most of us have at least 2 or 3 of those stronger then the rest of us.

Love Leelene

Us should have been "the rest of them"

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by Jugga J

And most whites are richer. = white children generally receive a better education because they can go public.

The question is why did whites get richer than blacks in the first place?

[Livgivare]

Originally Posted by Sam988

The question is why did whites get richer than blacks in the first place?

Maybe because the soil did hold more interesting things where the white had their feets? Maybe they didn't know this from the start and then just happened to see it one day and got advantage of it as a big coincidence? So many things are just happening without reason and with a big good pay-off!

Love Leelene

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Sam988

The question is why did whites get richer than blacks in the first place?

Are you richer than Michael Jordon, or Oprah Winfrey? And a legion of other African Americans so successfull in a myriad of business enterprises.

I already know the answer. Its obvious. So lets try and find a special place, or special solution, for really lowly types like you, and others in your situation. Maybe research will help you... I reckon a miracle is your best hope, but then you don't know much about that either.

[Sam988]

First, i'm not saying nor i ever had that whites are proven to be more intelligent than blacks. Second, i'm just interested in knowing why countries/nations of whites have been and are more prosperous than nations of blacks. If someone can come up with a theory, i would enjoy it very much, because i'm not a history expert.

Originally Posted by Livgivare

Maybe because the soil did hold more interesting things where the white had their feets? Maybe they didn't know this from the start and then just happened to see it one day and got advantage of it as a big coincidence? So many things are just happening without reason and with a big good pay-off!

Love Leelene

You're talking about oil? Gold? Africa is much more resourceful than europe, yet, there's no way to compare both enonomically. And i'm not talking about recent history. I'm talking about centuries ago, even millenia. It hasn't changed. Again, i'm not saying blacks are dumber, but i'm asking why do white nations have always held this supremacy over black ones?

Originally Posted by Uplift

Are you richer than Michael Jordon, or Oprah Winfrey? And a legion of other African Americans so successfull in a myriad of business enterprises.

I already know the answer. Its obvious. So lets try and find a special place, or special solution, for really lowly types like you, and others in your situation. Maybe research will help you... I reckon a miracle is your best hope, but then you don't know much about that either.

Differently from your rude post, i'll answer politely to highlight your nonsense.

See my previous answers. I never stated that blacks are dumber than whites, since it can't be proven.

I'm not richer than michael jordan nor oprah winfrey. But if we want to do this kind of comparison, we may count how many blacks are billionaires? Oprah Winfrey is one of two. The other one is Robert L. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are, according to Forbes, 946 billionaires. Still want to use this kind of argument?


AGAIN, omg, i'll have to repeat that i never stated that blacks are dumber, i'm just exploring some facts. It's so hard to say anything about this issue because as soon as anything i mention sounds anti-black there are already hard-core politically correct guys thinking i'm a neo nazi or something. Just chill, Mr. Uplift, no one called any race dumb or anything. We're just having a healthy discussion about the issue that Dr. Watson raised.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Sam988

First, i'm not saying nor i ever had that whites are proven to be more intelligent than blacks. Second, i'm just interested in knowing why countries/nations of whites have been and are more prosperous than nations of blacks. If someone can come up with a theory, i would enjoy it very much, because i'm not a history expert.




You're talking about oil? Gold? Africa is much more resourceful than europe, yet, there's no way to compare both enonomically. And i'm not talking about recent history. I'm talking about centuries ago, even millenia. It hasn't changed. Again, i'm not saying blacks are dumber, but i'm asking why do white nations have always held this supremacy over black ones?




Differently from your rude post, i'll answer politely to highlight your nonsense.

See my previous answers. I never stated that blacks are dumber than whites, since it can't be proven.

I'm not richer than michael jordan nor oprah winfrey. But if we want to do this kind of comparison, we may count how many blacks are billionaires? Oprah Winfrey is one of two. The other one is Robert L. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are, according to Forbes, 946 billionaires. Still want to use this kind of argument?


AGAIN, omg, i'll have to repeat that i never stated that blacks are dumber, i'm just exploring some facts. It's so hard to say anything about this issue because as soon as anything i mention sounds anti-black there are already hard-core politically correct guys thinking i'm a neo nazi or something. Just chill, Mr. Uplift, no one called any race dumb or anything. We're just having a healthy discussion about the issue that Dr. Watson raised.

Hey, omg, just chill, I'm not being rude, just pointing out that you aren't as rich, thus as you pointed out, the nonsense question is, as intelligent as some people, and having a healthy think about why that is, in your case.

[Livgivare]

I was just being retorical and asking stupid questions that leads to really tough answers!

By the way in Egypt when the faraohs ruled the world it didn't matter wheter or not you were light-skined or dark-skinned you could acheive the same amout of wealth!

Love Leelene

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Sam988

i'm just interested in knowing why countries/nations of whites have been and are more prosperous than nations of blacks. If someone can come up with a theory, i would enjoy it very much, because i'm not a history expert.

Though I haven't read any of his books yet, I enjoyed an article of Jared Diamond's from a decade ago that covered this subject:

EDGE 3rd Culture: Jared Diamond

"Historians tend to avoid this subject like the plague, because of its apparently racist overtones. Many people, or even most people, assume that the answer involves biological differences in average IQ among the world's populations, despite the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of such IQ differences. Even to ask the question why different peoples had different histories strikes some of us as evil, because it appears to be justifying what happened in history. In fact, we study the injustices of history for the same reason that we study genocide, and for the same reason that psychologists study the minds of murderers and rapists: not in order to justify history, genocide, murder, and rape, but instead to understand how those evil things came about, and then to use that understanding so as to prevent their happening again. In case the stink of racism still makes you feel uncomfortable about exploring this subject, just reflect on the underlying reason why so many people accept racist explanations of history's broad pattern: we don't have a convincing alternative explanation. Until we do, people will continue to gravitate by default to racist theories. That leaves us with a huge moral gap, which constitutes the strongest reason for tackling this uncomfortable subject."

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by openeyes

Though I haven't read any of his books yet, I enjoyed an article of Jared Diamond's from a decade ago that covered this subject:

EDGE 3rd Culture: Jared Diamond

"Historians tend to avoid this subject like the plague, because of its apparently racist overtones. Many people, or even most people, assume that the answer involves biological differences in average IQ among the world's populations, despite the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of such IQ differences. Even to ask the question why different peoples had different histories strikes some of us as evil, because it appears to be justifying what happened in history. In fact, we study the injustices of history for the same reason that we study genocide, and for the same reason that psychologists study the minds of murderers and rapists: not in order to justify history, genocide, murder, and rape, but instead to understand how those evil things came about, and then to use that understanding so as to prevent their happening again. In case the stink of racism still makes you feel uncomfortable about exploring this subject, just reflect on the underlying reason why so many people accept racist explanations of history's broad pattern: we don't have a convincing alternative explanation. Until we do, people will continue to gravitate by default to racist theories. That leaves us with a huge moral gap, which constitutes the strongest reason for tackling this uncomfortable subject."

There are some good books about racism in Australia pertinent to Western culture.

Race and Racism in Australia 2nd ed. by David Hollingsworth (Social Science Press) is one held in high regard, and is extremely comprehensive. Obviously, it is a study of the perpetrators, and how they developed racist view points.

Some of the reason historians avoid the subject like the plague are because of the legal ramifications, and the wish to write guilt out of history. To paint a better picture of their culture.

[Rose of Cairo]

lol

IQ tests are made by people of some specific culture for people of the same specific culture. They also measure only a few aspects of intelligence, but there are SO many of them. Not to speak about stress and nervosity that could lead to lower results. Not very relevant in my opinion!

IMO IQ tests measure how close you are of one specific type of person/intelligence/way of thinking. Nothing more.

If black people have lower IQ, I wonder if that could have something to do with the fact that IQ tests were developed by western white men living in a totally different culture than Africans... but I'm not sure, you know, I think I'll have to test my IQ first

[4Mind4Life]

I believe that no matter what color your skin is, you can learn as much as you want. The fact is, some people ARE NATURALLY SMARTER THAN OTHERS and some people receive a better EDUCATION than OTHERS......These are two huge factors.

It's all controversial, but in the end, race doesn't really matter......everyone is their own unique person.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by 4Mind4Life

The fact is, some people ARE NATURALLY SMARTER THAN OTHERS. But it mostly boils down to the amount of quality education / schooling received by the person.

Umm, if they're naturally smarter, then it's not because of education...

[Jugga J]

lol.

[blendedchaitea]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Umm, if they're naturally smarter, then it's not because of education...

Maybe. Someone might be brilliant, but never have the means to do anything with their intelligence without an education to give it a channel. A Ju/'hoansi (African nomadic tribe) child could have an intuitive grasp of, let's say, astrophysics. They'd never know if if they didn't have a "formal" (Western-style) education, would they?

[CoolStuff]

Yeah silly black people. Those monkeys never built pyramids it was aliens.

I mean come on blacks less intelligent than whites? LMFAO.

Yet to be proven? Well my study taking in account 400 white people say that whites are born with more defects than an a snail.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by CoolStuff

Yeah silly black people. Those monkeys never built pyramids it was aliens.

Who said that people in Egypt were black in their majority? They had a mix of various skin colors.(Egyptian People - History for Kids!)

Originally Posted by CoolStuff

Yet to be proven? Well my study taking in account 400 white people say that whites are born with more defects than an a snail.

We're having a serious discussion here. What are you talking about with this sentence? I assume it was some kind of joke or sarcastic comment or whatever? Can you be more clear?

If you're commenting on science's tests ineffectiveness then you're right. Maybe someday more concrete studies about racial intelligences will be available. No one said that there was any kind of current study that could prove any kind of superior racial intelligence yet.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by blendedchaitea

Maybe. Someone might be brilliant, but never have the means to do anything with their intelligence without an education to give it a channel. A Ju/'hoansi (African nomadic tribe) child could have an intuitive grasp of, let's say, astrophysics. They'd never know if if they didn't have a "formal" (Western-style) education, would they?

I was just commenting on the contradiction in 4Mind4Life's post

But yeah, someone might be born with the potential to intuitively grasp complex abstract concepts. But it's quite possible that the regular formal western style of education would stifle that potential. I don't think we're all that good at education yet.

[4Mind4Life]

Hey Mark,

I see the contradiction in my original post which is why I edited it, but thanks for pointing it out to everyone.... (You quoted a quote that is nowhere to be found in my edited message before you replied...)

What I'm saying is that the quality of education and natural smartness are two huge factors that determine how intelligent a person will be. If two people start life out with the same intelligence and one is put in an enriched learning environment and the other is in an impoverished environment, the person in the enriched environment will be more intelligent....

I believe that certain people are more intelligent than others, NOT certain skin colors.

[Mags]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

lol

IQ tests are made by people of some specific culture for people of the same specific culture. They also measure only a few aspects of intelligence, but there are SO many of them. Not to speak about stress and nervosity that could lead to lower results. Not very relevant in my opinion!

IMO IQ tests measure how close you are of one specific type of person/intelligence/way of thinking. Nothing more.

If black people have lower IQ, I wonder if that could have something to do with the fact that IQ tests were developed by western white men living in a totally different culture than Africans... but I'm not sure, you know, I think I'll have to test my IQ first

I used to be a psychologist (actually technically still am - registered but not in practice), and for 4 years I worked for a university doing research in the area of psychological assessment (intelligence and personality). In a nutshell: Rose is 100% correct!

The field is quite complex, but here's a brief overview of some issues pertinent to this discussion:

The original IQ test, the Stanford-Binet, was developed in 1916 in the US by white, middle-class American men. It was based on work done previously by Binet, but it was reflective of a particular theory of what intelligence is and was very reflective of the time in which it was developed. The scary thing is that the test has not changed substantially since then, and all subsequent IQ tests are validated against the Stanford-Binet, so it forms the basis of all intelligence theory.

There are some very critical problems with IQ tests, in a numerical/mathematical way (related to the construction of tests). These issues essentially render IQ tests and their results meaningless. This is a complex area, but if you are mathematically/statistically inclined and wish to explore further, have a look at the work of Joel Michell.

When it comes to the issue of test results and race, remember that there is much more variation within each group than between groups. The averages are not that far off each other, and do simply represent the average of a very widely dispersed set of results. The fact that Black people's average tends to be lower is the result of many different factors related to things like socio-economic status, different cultural experiences, education, test wiseness, etc etc. All in all though, far too much emphasis is place on the average at the expense of ignoring spread and variation.

And lastly, just to give you something to think about, I'll throw in a conspiracy theory angle... : Some (note, not all) of the most vociferous IQ proponents are members of the Society for the Study of Social Biology, previously known as the American Eugenics Society... Lewis Terman (the guy who developed the Stanford-Binet) was a prominent Eugenicist.