Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
 

:eek::eek::eek: Whoa

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle3067222.ece

That's crazy.

Seriously - what a bizarre thing for him to say:

IF (and this is a big "if") intelligence has a genetic component, it would be perfectly reasonable for a certain population to self-select for intelligence - I don't think any reasonable individual would disagree. That would mean a discernible difference in mean intelligence (or, likely, aptitude) among a certain population. It's not even unreasonable that this effect would be more likely to happen in a first-world, technology-rich environment than a third-world environment. But that's at a population level, not a race level, and really requires a LOT of advances in measuring intelligence, etc. that we just don't have.

Going to the extent Watson did goes WAY beyond any sort of reasonable genetic analysis though. It's just nuts. Black employees? Unreal.

It's interesting because in my Assessment class we're talking about IQ tests and that there are still prominent researchers in the testing field that thing genes are all there is to IQ. It baffles me that you can ignore all sorts of environmental factors in that process. Add onto this the fact that Watson should know that race has no genetic standing... oy. I think you have a man who's nearly 80 and can't get his mind out of the past.

Guess it is in the eye of the beholder no matter how ignorant he/she/it really is.

If one is talking about Africans in poor countries, of course they are as they have not had the traing or tools to use as westerners!

See - proof that even if there was a shred of truth, which I doubt there is, it doesn't always hold true.

Way to miss the point, Earp.

Do you think everyone on the planet is equally intelligent?

Why do we even go to school?

Why do school's have grades?

We are all equally intelligent, right?

Apparently not. :rolleyes:

You and Tom both seem to confuse intelligence -- the capacity to learn, reason or understand -- with actual knowledge or understanding.

Schools don't teach intelligence, and grades don't (or shouldn't) measure intelligence. Intelligence can be fostered, but it can't be taught.

What tools are being used to measure intelligence?
What population are they designed for?
Do they assume a specific socioeconomic status?
Do they assume a specific language?

There is no genetic difference between different races therefore it makes no sense for there to be a genetic intelligence gap between the races.

No, but there are specific genetic differences between populations, which can lead to genetic differences between races when the population is comprised of one race - see: sickle-cell anemia - so writing the concept off on these grounds is specious and ultimately a negative for the conversation, because there are other, more pressing issues with Watson's point(s).

The implied causation/correlation problems are really the least of my concerns.

No genetic difference? Is color a genetic difference? I guess you think every race has the same athletic ability also.


Do intelligence tests exist? How do blacks score on those tests?
If I let you design an Afrocentric ebonic million man march intelligence test and Asians would still kick the chit out of blacks on the test. That is life.

Thanks for proving my point. We are not equal. Do you and Tom have same intelligence or should I say the capacity to learn? I think Tom was probably just held down by the man.

No, but it's the first place I'd start to write off Watson's argument. He makes a comparison between "Africans" and "black employees." Those are seperate populations which leads me to believe his comments are based on bias, not science. I cannot think an experiment that could be done that would remove the cultural factors from consideration and provide some sort of "accurate" IQ test. At least, I can't think of an ethical one.
There is more difference within racial groups than there are between the groups. As an example, a random black man and a random white man are more genetically similar than two random black or two random white men. Watson is a geneticist, he should know this. I do know that specific populations have shown more fast twitch vs. slow twitch muscles, but there's a lot of cultural pressure in athletics too. When all the best "insert sport here" come from a certain area of the world or population, there's pressure for athletically talented kids in that population to succeed in THAT sport.

Intelligence tests exist... they're generally designed for literate white people. I don't have any data for you, but generally minorities do poorer on IQ tests, this includes women, poor people, and non-whites.

IQ tests shouldn't be designed around specific populations, so you're missing the point.

Edit: And also, this is a man who promotes genetic screening and modifications that IMO are of a disturbing eugenics quality.

This definitely requires citation - it violates any sort of transitive quality, which may or may not exist but certainly makes the claim beyond counterintuitive.

You don't have data because both the positive and negative forms of this type of study are grossly bad science. It should be easier to confirm racial bias than deny it, but conclusive studies of control groups get bogged down in politics - for instance, the easiest way to show "cultural" bias would be to take middle-class groups from the same neighborhood across multiple cultures and test them, normalize, test again. The definition of "cultural" makes this subjective, therefore trash. However, it is a plausible explanation why minorities underperform on standardized tests - inherently, it is nearly impossible to prove this concept. There are other plausible explanations that are just as impossible to prove. That's why it's a crappy point to put into argument.

YAAY Social Darwinism!!! Whoo hoooo!!!
 

Okey, whatever, good luck with that!!!