http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm<b>Lab suspends DNA pioneer Watson

The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US. </b>

Dr Watson has drawn severe criticism over remarks he made in a British newspaper at the weekend. In the interview, he was quoted as saying Africans were less intelligent than Europeans.

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory had already distanced itself from the scientist's comments but its trustee board has also now suspended him. A statement from the Long Island, New York, institution said the action was being taken "pending further deliberation by the board".

<b>Unreserved apology</b>

Dr Watson was due to give a lecture at the Science Museum in London on Friday as part of a book tour. But the museum cancelled the event, saying the scientist had gone beyond the point of acceptable debate. The Bristol Festival of Ideas has also cancelled an appearance by Dr Watson.

And further critical comment of Dr Watson's views has come from Dr Craig Venter, the scientist/businessman who led the private effort to decode the human genome, and who, by coincidence, is also visiting the UK to promote a book.

"Skin colour as a surrogate for race is a social concept not a scientific one," Dr Venter said. "There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that skin colour will be predictive of intelligence."

In his Sunday Times interview, Dr Watson was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

He was further quoted as saying that his hope was that everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

The scientist has since said that the way the words were presented did not reflect properly his position. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have," he said.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. "That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

<b>Scientific endeavour</b>

And in comments published in The Independent newspaper on Friday, Dr Watson tries to clarify his position. "We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

Dr Watson was a joint winner in 1962 of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, the molecule that lies at the heart of heredity in living organisms. When, some 40 years later, Dr Venter and colleagues were finally able to read all of the DNA in our cells, they concluded the concept of race could not easily be described by our genetics.

Venter and his team pointed to the fact that people from different racial groups could be more genetically similar than individuals within the same group. Genetic studies show that there is more variability in the gene pool in Africa, than outside.Incredible.

The guy makes an offhanded remark that people belonging to a gene pool associated with blacks could be less intelligent than people belonging to a gene pool associated with whites -- a perfectly valid hypothesis -- and his career is over.

Yet a few years ago when Jared Diamond wrote that (black) New Guineans are smarter than (white) Europeans because of different genetic selection pressures in each region over the past 10,000 years -- another perfectly valid hypothesis -- he wins the Pulitzer Prize and no one bats an eyelash.

It's bad enough when religion infects our scientific institutions. Does America's obsessive fascination with political correctness have to do so too?

He was further quoted as saying that his hope was that everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

That doesn't sound like a very scientific argument.

Do you have any black employees, do you manage any?


Regardless.
An observation does not need to be 'scientific' to be accurate or true.

That doesn't sound like a very scientific argument.An observation does not need to be 'scientific' to be accurate or true.And many scientists make unscientific statements without being suspended.

I guess if you're going to make claims like that, you'd better have some damn good evidence to back it up. For a lot of years, whites tested higher than Jews in intelligence, then something happened and Jews tested higher than "whites". Perhaps their culture just started valuing education more?

You can start with making IQ tests that test native intelligence, not learning. And before you say it does... prove it. Show me how intelligence works on a biological level, show me the genes for intelligence and prove they're actually what you say they are, then show me how one race has more of them than another.

I guess if you're going to make claims like that, you'd better have some damn good evidence to back it up.That's my point.

Why do you need "damn good evidence" before you say blacks are dumber than whites, when you don't need any evidence at all before you say blacks are smarter than whites?

Why is it that no one thinks anything of genetic studies showing that race X is more predisposed to condition A than race Y is, but refuse to believe that race X's intelligence is different from race Y's?

These are rhetorical questions, of course.For a lot of years, whites tested higher than Jews in intelligence, then something happened and Jews tested higher than "whites".As far as I know, European Jews have always tested higher, for what it's worth. Then again, Jews suffered so many millennia of discrimination, that their evolution might have strongly selected towards those who are smarter and can survive in the harsher environment.

Why do you need "damn good evidence" before you say blacks are dumber than whites, when you don't need any evidence at all before you say blacks are smarter than whites?

To answer the first part of the question, historically 'science' of this type has been manipulated for evil political purposes. We know that could happen again and even unfounded rumours spreading into the population can cause misery to real people in their everyday lives. That is racism. It is a very sensitive issue. That is why it needs "damn good evidence".

To answer the second part of the question, you should need good evidence for that too. If you're desparately searching for the difference then perhaps you could consider the cultural history. There hasn't been the same history of oppression of white people and there seems less chance of it happening in the future.

Common garden experiments going on every day in over 250,000 households say Watson was wrong -- his observations are based on nurture but attributed to nature -- but his statement should be debated, not censored.

Anka said everything I would've said. I wondered if Watson is getting a touch senile, but looks like he's had a life long fascination with believing his race is superior.
Watson has had a longstanding interest in eugenics, the idea, adopted by the Nazis among others, that the human race could be improved through selective breeding or genetic manipulation.
It looks like he has acknowledge he goofed.

To answer the first part of the question, historically 'science' of this type has been manipulated for evil political purposes.Watson has had a longstanding interest in eugenics, the idea, adopted by the Nazis among others, that the human race could be improved through selective breeding or genetic manipulation.Just because the Nazis did something, doesn't mean it was necessarily bad. And just because someone happens to do something the Nazis did, doesn't necessarily make him a Nazi.

There is no evidence that this guy is a Nazi, or has any evil political purpose in mind. He just proposed a scientific hypothesis. Scientific theories about genetics can be used for good as well as evil.

Censoring his opinion is a more despicable act than uttering it. Don't you know? The Nazis also censored opinions they didn't like. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

[Edit] By the way Panamah, the United States was the leader in eugenics, not the Nazis. It was a respected field until the Nazis adopted it, following the U.S. example. The U.S. only dropped it after the Nazis became the bad guys, and Americans didn't want people to think they're Nazis. Who knows, perhaps that moment was the birth of modern political correctness.

We know that could happen again and even unfounded rumours spreading into the population can cause misery to real people in their everyday lives. That is racism. It is a very sensitive issue. That is why it needs "damn good evidence".Affirmative action is also racism. Blatant, in your face racism that does cause misery to real people in their everyday lives. Yet you politically correct types embrace it as one of your prime philosophies.To answer the second part of the question, you should need good evidence for that too.Diamond makes a good argument in support of it, but that's besides the point. The point is he can make the argument without being targeted by the political correctness police, even though it's the exact same type of "racist" argument Watson made.

Affirmative action is also racism. Blatant, in your face racism that does cause misery to real people in their everyday lives. Yet you politically correct types embrace it as one of your prime philosophies.

I don't support affirmative action. I'm presumably not one of my own politically correct types then?

I don't support affirmative action.Do you rebuke those who support it?

If you're at a social function, and someone talks about affirmative action, do you respond the same way as you would if that person were talking about white supremacy?

If you wouldn't vote for a white supremacist or Nazi, would you also not vote for anyone who has ever supported affirmative action in any way?I'm presumably not one of my own politically correct types then?Possibly, if your answer to the above questions is yes.

Then again, Jews suffered so many millennia of discrimination, that their evolution might have strongly selected towards those who are smarter and can survive in the harsher environment.

That is certainly a plausible hypothesis.

And I certainly don't rule out that social qualities, that is to say culture, is not a factor in this as well. But social qualities are, and have been, a part of evolution for as long as we have been humans. They evolve too.

I have never heard an unsuccessful Jew ever refer to successful Jew as an "Uncle Hebe" or anything similar to Uncle Tom or Oreo. Maybe they do have such an expression, but it would belie that it is part of their culture to not let it get out(which is a good thing, I suppose).



This is a song, that uh, theres alot of xmas songs out there, but not
Too many about Hanukkah, so I wrote a song for all those nice little jewish
Kids who don't get to hear any Hanukkah songs--here we go...

Put on your yarmulke, here comes Hanukkah
Its so much fun-akkah to celebrate Hanukkah,

Hanukkah is the festival of lights,
Instead of one day of presents, we have eight crazy nights.

When you feel like the only kid in town without a x-mas tree, heres a list of
People who are jewish, just like you and me:

David lee roth lights the menorah,
So do james caan, kirk douglas, and the late dinah shore-ah

Guess who eats together at the karnickey deli,
Bowzer from sha-na-na, and arthur fonzerrelli.

Paul newmans half jewish; goldie hawns half too,
Put them together--what a fine lookin jew!

You dont need deck the halls or jingle bell rock
Cause you can spin the dreidl with captain kirk and mr. spock--both jewish!
[esus]

Put on your yarmulke, its time for Hanukkah,
The owner of the seattle super sonic-ahs celebrates Hanukkah.

O.j. simpson-- not a jew!
But guess who is...hall of famerrod carew--(he converted!)

We got ann landers and her sister dear abby,
Harrison fords a quarter jewish--not too shabby!

Some people think that ebeneezer scrooge is,
Well, hes not, but guess who is:all three stooges.

So many jews are in show biz--
Tom cruise isnt, but I heard his agent is.

Tell your friend veronica, its time you celebrate Hanukkah
I hope I get a harmonica, on this lovely, lovely Hanukkah.

So drink your gin-and-tonic-ah, and smoke your mara-juanic-ah,
If you really, really wanna-kah, have a happy, happy, happy, happy
Hanukkah. happy Hanukkah!

By the way Panamah, the United States was the leader in eugenics, not the Nazis. It was a respected field until the Nazis adopted it, following the U.S. example. The U.S. only dropped it after the Nazis became the bad guys, and Americans didn't want people to think they're Nazis. Who knows, perhaps that moment was the birth of modern political correctness.

Yup. QFT.

even though it's the exact same type of "racist" argument Watson made.

Watson has always made inflammatory statements.

We need one like him, for every politically correct scientist(or even every 100) who is afraid to study something because he or she is afraid of the politically correct thought police.

One of my favorites is, paraphrased of course.

"Some people ask, Do you think you have the right to play God? To which one must answer, If we don't, who else will?"

Common garden experiments going on every day in over 250,000 households say Watson was wrong -- his observations are based on nurture but attributed to nature
What are you talking about?

-- but his statement should be debated, not censored.
Um, like, ya, dude.

Anka said everything I would've said. I wondered if Watson is getting a touch senile, but looks like he's had a life long fascination with believing his race is superior.
Wrong, he thinks that HE is superior.

And for the most part, he is correct. I am pretty sure that he thinks that he belongs to a race all his own.

It looks like he has acknowledge he goofed.
Whatever.

If you're at a social function, and someone talks about affirmative action, do you respond the same way as you would if that person were talking about white supremacy?

No, I'd respond in the same way as I would if that person was talking about a referendum for the EU constitution. Hope that makes it clear for you.

No, I'd respond in the same way as I would if that person was talking about a referendum for the EU constitution. Hope that makes it clear for you.Yes, it does. And proves my point.

The European Union has a constitution?

You mean to say that all you Euros have agreed on something like that?

News to me. I should research it.

The EU doesn't have a constitution...because the Euros couldn't get it ratified. The French and the Dutch, in particular, told their goverments to go **** themselves and they didn't want to be ruled by the Spanish and Germans =D

What are you talking about?
Come on, youre a smart guy...

Watson was suggesting that black people and white people are different. He was pointing to "dealing with black employees" as evidence. He was then implying that this was due to a racial (i.e., genetic) difference.

Common garden experiments are experiments in which different genotypes are reared under the same environmental conditions to tease apart effects of genetics and environment -- nature and nurture.

Common garden experiment occur in every bi-racial family (whether by marriage or adoption). Black kids raised in white environments dont act different than white kids raised in white environments. Therefore, Watson is wrong.

So what you are saying is that if a pair of Mongoloids raise a normal intelligence kid, that the kid will grow up dumber than if raised by smart parents?

So what you are also saying is that there are no genetic differences between Blacks and Whites? Or are you saying that we should not discover what those differences are?

Common garden experiment occur in every bi-racial family (whether by marriage or adoption). Black kids raised in white environments dont act different than white kids raised in white environments. Therefore, Watson is wrong.How is this proof that there's no genetic difference in intelligence?

How is this proof that there's no genetic difference in intelligence?

Why is this even in debate?

Smart parents generally have smart kids.
Dumb parents generally have dumb kids.

Same with looks.
Pretty parents generally have prettier kids.
Ugly people have ugly kids.

Why is there even debate as to whether there is a genetic component to intelligence? You already know that it exists,,,how it all works is still really unknown. Um, duh, that is why it should be studied.

Why is this even in debate?Because the political correctness police don't want to admit it?

It seems pretty obvious to me, and apparently to you, that there must be some variations in intelligence among gene pools. But even suggesting that someone with dark skin might be less smart than someone than white skin, and for genetic reasons, is enough to merit the political correctness death penalty.

It seems pretty obvious to me, and apparently to you, that there must be some variations in intelligence among gene pools.

It is not at all obvious that these genetic variations are significant compared to education and enviroment when determining intelligence. It is not at all obvious that all gene pools have an identifiable skin colour either.

But even suggesting that someone with dark skin might be less smart than someone than white skin, and for genetic reasons, is enough to merit the political correctness death penalty.

Read the man's apology. "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

It is not at all obvious that these genetic variations are significant compared to education and enviroment when determining intelligence.So you admit that it is obvious that the genetic differences exist.

Why, then, isn't a respected scientist allowed to state the obvious without being crucified by the political correctness police?Read the man's apology. "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."Because Africans are the most genetically diverse humans on the planet -- far more so than the inbred derivative races.

I'm sure there are genetic subgroups of Africans that are smarter than other genetic subgroups of Africans, and that such differences are more pronounced than those between subgroups of Europeans.

But none of this negates the underlying point, that genetic differences exist and they can affect intelligence.

So you admit that it is obvious that the genetic differences exist.

Why, then, isn't a respected scientist allowed to state the obvious without being crucified by the political correctness police?

You're twisting words. Genetic differences can exist between twins. It proves nothing.

While what the doctor said was pretty unfounded or at the least blown out of proportion. I do understand and even agree with Tudamorf's original sentiment.

However, reality is there is a double standard in western civilization. It is perfectly ok to denegrate ourselves and our own culture. It is perfectly ok for others to do so. It is not ok to "toot our own horn" so to speak or to denegrate anyone elses culture.

I'm not ashamed of my culture, but plenty of others are. My culture isn't any less valid than anyone elses.

Heck, someone can lose their job even where I work if someone else just doesn't like the guy. So long as said ex employee is white.

You're twisting words. Genetic differences can exist between twins. It proves nothing.It proves that the differences can, and do, exist.

You are operating under the assumption that every human genetic subgroup has the exact same genetic potential for intelligence as every other genetic subgroup has, because that's what the political correctness police tell you you should think. In other words, the police let you believe that families might have genetic superiority, but forbid you from believing that large, extended families might exhibit the same feature.

Scientifically, however, that assumption is absurd. Selection pressures are different everywhere and it's highly unlikely that everyone evolved the exact same genetic potential for intelligence.

Scientists should not be forbidden from exploring that topic simply because you feel guilty that you ancestors enslaved blacks. The conclusions of such studies can help people as well as hurt them.

You are operating under the assumption that every human genetic subgroup has the exact same genetic potential for intelligence as every other genetic subgroup has, because that's what the political correctness police tell you you should think.

Yeah yeah, political correctness police. Yawn. I never made that assumption so you can stop pontificating.

I'll assume you didn't read my previous post carefully, even though you quoted it. "It is not at all obvious that these genetic variations are significant compared to education and environment when determining intelligence."

If any genetic variations in intelligence are superceded by children's development in the womb, say, then they will firstly be hard to measure and secondly be largely irrelevant. You can argue as long as you like that some 100 unborn children are likely to be 99.9653% as intelligent as 100 others, on average, but why bother?

As soon as scientists can point to a specific piece of DNA affecting the brain and demonstrate how it increases human brain development then they can move the discussion forward. Until then they ought to be careful when speculating on a political sensitive subject.

If any genetic variations in intelligence are superceded by children's development in the womb, say, then they will firstly be hard to measure and secondly be largely irrelevant.If. But the political correctness police don't let Watson or anyone else determine that if, do they? That's the point.

As soon as scientists can point to a specific piece of DNA affecting the brain and demonstrate how it increases human brain development then they can move the discussion forward.How can they do that, when they're suspended for even suggesting that such a thing might exist?

How can they do that, when they're suspended for even suggesting that such a thing might exist?

Well they can because they're not. Watson made claims that he clearly couldn't substantiate and had to withdraw them. To remind you of his quote, ""all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

But the political correctness police don't let Watson or anyone else determine that if, do they? That's the point.

Research into nature vs nurture and improving education has been going on for a decades now. The more successful scientists haven't let their research be clouded by racial stereotypes.

That is certainly a plausible hypothesis.

And I certainly don't rule out that social qualities, that is to say culture, is not a factor in this as well. But social qualities are, and have been, a part of evolution for as long as we have been humans. They evolve too.

I have never heard an unsuccessful Jew ever refer to successful Jew as an "Uncle Hebe" or anything similar to Uncle Tom or Oreo. Maybe they do have such an expression, but it would belie that it is part of their culture to not let it get out(which is a good thing, I suppose).



This is a song, that uh, theres alot of xmas songs out there, but not
Too many about Hanukkah, so I wrote a song for all those nice little jewish
Kids who don't get to hear any Hanukkah songs--here we go...

Put on your yarmulke, here comes Hanukkah
Its so much fun-akkah to celebrate Hanukkah,

Hanukkah is the festival of lights,
Instead of one day of presents, we have eight crazy nights.

When you feel like the only kid in town without a x-mas tree, heres a list of
People who are jewish, just like you and me:

David lee roth lights the menorah,
So do james caan, kirk douglas, and the late dinah shore-ah

Guess who eats together at the karnickey deli,
Bowzer from sha-na-na, and arthur fonzerrelli.

Paul newmans half jewish; goldie hawns half too,
Put them together--what a fine lookin jew!

You dont need deck the halls or jingle bell rock
Cause you can spin the dreidl with captain kirk and mr. spock--both jewish!
[esus]

Put on your yarmulke, its time for Hanukkah,
The owner of the seattle super sonic-ahs celebrates Hanukkah.

O.j. simpson-- not a jew!
But guess who is...hall of famerrod carew--(he converted!)

We got ann landers and her sister dear abby,
Harrison fords a quarter jewish--not too shabby!

Some people think that ebeneezer scrooge is,
Well, hes not, but guess who is:all three stooges.

So many jews are in show biz--
Tom cruise isnt, but I heard his agent is.

Tell your friend veronica, its time you celebrate Hanukkah
I hope I get a harmonica, on this lovely, lovely Hanukkah.

So drink your gin-and-tonic-ah, and smoke your mara-juanic-ah,
If you really, really wanna-kah, have a happy, happy, happy, happy
Hanukkah. happy Hanukkah!

What great songs, his Hannukah songs.

Well they can because they're not. Watson made claims that he clearly couldn't substantiate and had to withdraw them.Because he isn't allowed to substantiate them.Research into nature vs nurture and improving education has been going on for a decades now. The more successful scientists haven't let their research be clouded by racial stereotypes.Nature versus nurture has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. The topic is whether related groups of humans can have higher intelligence than other related groups of humans. The political correctness police don't allow that research.

Nature versus nurture has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. The topic is whether related groups of humans can have higher intelligence than other related groups of humans. The political correctness police don't allow that research.

Scientists can't reliably measure genetic intelligence until they can differentiate between natural intelligence and nurtured intelligence. It has nothing to do with your political correctness police. How many times do you want it explained to you?

Remember that boys have outperformed girls in education for two thousand years and suddenly, with improved opportunities, girls now outperform boys. Any science based on 'obvious' male intellectual superiority has gone down the drain. Why do you want to repeat those mistakes again with skin colour?

Scientists can't reliably measure genetic intelligence until they can differentiate between natural intelligence and nurtured intelligence.Of course they can. What type of twisted political correctness logic is this?

We do genetic research on many types of diseases without fully understanding how much of the disease is due to genetic factors and how much is due to environmental factors.

Why is it OK to study genetic factors relating to cancer and heart disease, even as they apply to specific ethnicities, but not OK to study genetic factors relating to stupidity, which, in Watson's words, is just another type of disease?Remember that boys have outperformed girls in education for two thousand years and suddenly, with improved opportunities, girls now outperform boys. Any science based on 'obvious' male intellectual superiority has gone down the drain. Why do you want to repeat those mistakes again with skin colour?Putting aside the fact that you're wrong, I fail to see your logic. Are you saying that because one experiment's conclusion was wrong, we shouldn't even bother doing another experiment in a totally different area?

Are you saying that because one experiment's conclusion was wrong, we shouldn't even bother doing another experiment in a totally different area?

Do I need to repeat myself so often? We can perform experiments but we shouldn't make the same mistaken assumptions again.

We do genetic research on many types of diseases without fully understanding how much of the disease is due to genetic factors and how much is due to environmental factors.

It is far easier to take a small population with a disease and look for common genetic traits than to correlate variation of intelligence with DNA across the entire population.

Why is it OK to study genetic factors relating to cancer and heart disease, even as they apply to specific ethnicities, but not OK to study genetic factors relating to stupidity, which, in Watson's words, is just another type of disease?

It is ok to study it. It's not ok to make the same old mistaken assumptions again.

Nature versus nurture has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. The topic is whether related groups of humans can have higher intelligence than other related groups of humans. The political correctness police don't allow that research.

Sorry, but to acces your natural inteligence, you need to use your "nuture" inteligence. Try to pass a QI test in a language that you don't totaly know, and your QI will drop a lot. You can also try to pass a QI test translated from another language, and your score will drop too. Do a QI test with a completly different's cultural references and your score will drop too. Do QI test often and your QI will go up.

SO QI test are usefull to have an good idea where you are vs the average of your language and culture; but not the holy grail that some want you to have faith in.

Also they are the question do the humanity have only 1 type of intelligence or many.

Eridalafar

And if nature versus nuture isn't confusing enough, now there is something called epigenetics. When your environment changes your genetic expression: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

Fascinating stuff.

But the fact is, there isn't a person in the world that can possibly state with any accuracy what is nature and what is nuture. One day when we completely understand the genome and the epigenome (and anything else that lies in the way) we'll be able to take a stab at it. But right now, anyone even attempting to do so, is probably a racist and definitely ignorant, no matter how well-educated they are because the knowledge needed to make that determination does not exist.

Do I need to repeat myself so often? We can perform experiments but we shouldn't make the same mistaken assumptions again.But we can't perform those experiments.

Any scientist even suggesting such an experiment would be suspended, banned, and/or reviled by the political correctness police, and most would quit for fear of being called a Nazi.

Their employers wouldn't let them do the experiment, for fear that they might be called Nazis, which would impact their revenue.

The government won't sponsor any such experiment for fear of being labeled Nazis and suffering lower approval ratings.

And so on. All of this is on account of political correctness. And you seemed to agree with this in your posts, by implying that there is something inherently bad about asking these questions.

Now, if your position is that this is wrong, and we should be allow to study the potential genetic underpinnings of why blacks perform worse on certain tests than whites do, just as we study the genetic causes of cancer or heart disease, and without any reservation, then I misunderstood your position.

But the fact is, there isn't a person in the world that can possibly state with any accuracy what is nature and what is nuture. But right now, anyone even attempting to do so, is probably a racist and definitely ignorant, no matter how well-educated they are because the knowledge needed to make that determination does not exist.Are you saying that we should halt ALL genetic research of any type, right now, and never pursue the field again, just because we don't fully understand it?

Including genetic research for treatment of diseases other than stupidity?

SO QI test are usefull to have an good idea where you are vs the average of your language and culture; but not the holy grail that some want you to have faith in.Yes, intelligence tests suck. Yes, we can't even agree on what the term "intelligence" means.

But just because we don't fully understand it, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to. On the contrary, our lack of understanding should be motivation to research it thoroughly.

Now, if your position is that this is wrong, and we should be allow to study the potential genetic underpinnings of why blacks perform worse on certain tests than whites do, just as we study the genetic causes of cancer or heart disease, and without any reservation, then I misunderstood your position.

Firstly we know why many black kids perform badly at school. Poverty, lack of parental support, lack of education in their peer groups and family, lack of role models, and other cultural factors. We currently have no tests that can mask out those factors and test pure genetic intelligence. You just don't understand that, do you?

If I had an academic chequebook then I would however fund research that could someday lead to a scientific basis for accurately measuring genetic intelligence. I would then fund research that would perhaps correlate intelligence to DNA maps. I would then fund research into the impact of any intelligence genes upon the population as a whole.

I wouldn't fund any research based on a foolish assumption, such as all black people being inherently stupid, in order to test blacks against whites to prove racial supremacy. I don't see how you can justify such an ethically misguided approach to research.

Tudamorf,

Give up.

His logic is irrefutable.

1) We don't know
2) We can't know
3) There are too many variables

Therefore: We should not attempt to know.

You can't beat logic like that. It is impeccable and as solid as concrete. Ya know.

Firstly we know why many black kids perform badly at school. Poverty, lack of parental support, lack of education in their peer groups and family, lack of role models, and other cultural factors.Forgive me if I've lost track of your warped politically correct doublethink logic, but didn't you just say we don't/can't know how genetics affects intelligence? Then how can you know it doesn't affect intelligence, and that all of those other (politically correct) variables are the only causes?

Also, what happened to your "if there are multiple variables it's a scientific lost cause" mentality?I wouldn't fund any research based on a foolish assumption, such as all black people being inherently stupid, in order to test blacks against whites to prove racial supremacy.Why do I have to be a racial supremacist to ask questions such as, is group A smarter than group B due to a genetic difference?

If you go to a doctor, they will bluntly tell you how your race and/or genetics will predispose you to certain diseases or genetic conditions that might affect your children. Does this make them racial supremacists (i.e., Nazis, which is what you really want to say)? Is it unethical?

Tudamorf,
1) We don't know
2) We can't know
3) There are too many variables

Therefore: We should not attempt to know.

You can't beat logic like that. It is impeccable and as solid as concrete. Ya know.

False we need to know!

But you have to admit that recherches like that are to easy to be manipuled because it too easy to get the conclusion that the ones making the recherche want to get.

It is a lot harder to advance the "soft" sciences because you can't put number on social perception.

Eridalafar

Why do I have to be a racial supremacist to ask questions such as, is group A smarter than group B due to a genetic difference?

This just highlights what I've been saying for the past few pages and you just haven't understood.

First of all, you're making an assumption that group A is smarter than group B. That's what white supremacists do when it comes to race. Secondly, there is no need to select groups A and B by skin colour. Research into intelligence can be done without reference to skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, foot size, or any other physical trait.


Let me give you an example. There's a nuclear power station in the UK and the familes in the nearby town were worried about luekemia rates. Scientists looked at the statistics and found that the rates were indeed significantly above the national average. Case proven? In fact the case wasn't proven. When they looked at national statistics more closely you found that there were variations all around the country and many innocuous towns had higher luekemia rates than towns near nuclear facilties. The science and statistics had to be rethought.

What does it mean? It suggests that there are other factors that might be involved and narrowing the study, such as only studying certain places or people, can miss that out. There are still valid questions about the causes of luekemia and the health impact of nuclear facilties but they need to solved objectively and not chasing narrow political agendas.

Why is this even in debate?

Smart parents generally have smart kids.
Dumb parents generally have dumb kids.


Because there is strong evidence that the children themselves are not more or less smart than their peers, but their environment does not support and encourage them to study. They also are given less access to books and more complicated concepts as a (pre-)schooler. They start out with less background information, and have a home that does not support them as much and does not encourage (or helps) them as much either.

Studies of school performance of children in different social classes show that it is the influence of the parents that determines how well they do, and that the native intelligence is more or less equally distributed regardless of social class. Unfortunately the less smart parents do not as often provide a background for their children to succeed at school. This gives the impression that intelligence is inherited when in fact social class overpowers any possible genetic effect.
The same happens with black children. They tend to be concentrated in poor neighbourhoods, with the worst schools and very little support, or incentive, to study. The result is that they receive a poor education, and do not do well at school. It does not mean that they are inherently less intelligent than children who are a bit more advantaged.
That is the mistake that Watson made, and that he should have been intelligent enough for to realise he was making it. People in Africa are less schooled than they are in e.g. the USA. This does not automatically make them less intelligent.


Eri

I don't support affirmative action. I'm presumably not one of my own politically correct types then?

Hush Anka, do not confuse his black and white world view.

yself, I do support affirmative action under very strict circumstances.

First of all there needs to be a clear time line set for the action. No open ended quota things.
Second, there needs to be a clear case of a recognisable group meeting the required standards (i.e. completing the necessary education with sufficient grades) but failing to get hired because of prejudice.
Third, under no circumstance may affirmative action involve lowering standards.

It is very rare that those three requirements are met at the same time, but when they do, then affirmative action can help in breaking a discriminatory habit in the hiring practices. Otherwise, it is just a waste of effort an excercise in futility.


Eri

First of all, you're making an assumption that group A is smarter than group B. That's what white supremacists do when it comes to race.I'm not making any assumption. I am proposing a useful scientific experiment.

When geneticists study how race affects certain diseases, that is what they do. They see a pattern of disease in a certain race, then study the pattern to see how genetics might affect it. Then they form a hypothesis, and try to test and refine that hypothesis through experimentation.

It's called the Scientific Method, Anka, not white supremacy.

Now, why is it that when scientists use the Scientific Method to study why Native Americans get diabetes, they're OK in your book, but when they use the Scientific Method to study how race affects intelligence, they're Nazis?

I believe the question is rhetorical, since I've already given you the answer a dozen times, but I'm hoping you'll provide another explanation.

Third, under no circumstance may affirmative action involve lowering standards.Affirmative action by definition involves lowering standards.

It generally means giving non-Asian, non-Jew minorities jobs, money, or educational opportunities they wouldn't otherwise quality for.

It is state-sponsored discrimination.

Studies of school performance of children in different social classes show that it is the influence of the parents that determines how well they do, and that the native intelligence is more or less equally distributed regardless of social class.Don't confuse education with intelligence.

I've met totally uneducated people who are obviously very smart. And I've met a ****load of educated people who are dumb as rocks.

Education and intelligence are, in my experience, totally unconnected, except when you're talking about a very difficult field of study which necessarily weeds out dumb people.Unfortunately the less smart parents do not as often provide a background for their children to succeed at school.No, the less smart parents provide inferior genes.

I have seen many dumb rich kids with dumb rich parents who gave their dumb rich kids every educational opportunity there is to offer.

Until now I thought that the genetic component of intelligence would be obvious to just about anyone, but I'll leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_of_intelligence#The_similarity_of_relativ es_with_respect_to_their_intelligenceSiblings and dizygotic twins share half of their genes and the correlation of their scores should be 0.50, half-siblings 0.25 and is halved by one additional decreasing degree of genetic relationship.

Bouchard and McGue (1981) have reviewed such correlations reported in 111 original studies in the United States. The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings, 0.47, between half-siblings, 0.31, and between cousins, 0.15. From such data the heritability of IQ can be estimated, varying between 0.40 and 0.80 in the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#HeritabilityThe American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the white population the heritability of IQ is "around .75". The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, a multiyear study of 100 sets of reared-apart twins which was started in 1979, concluded that about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation.

Now, why is it that when scientists use the Scientific Method to study why Native Americans get diabetes, they're OK in your book, but when they use the Scientific Method to study how race affects intelligence, they're Nazis?

We're just going in circles. There's little point in my explaining the ethics again as you (deliberately) haven't understood it any of the previous times. If you really want to know then go look at my previous posts. It's all in there.

Fyyr was right, I should have given up long ago. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Here's what an ER doctor said:
Obligatory disclaimer: Watson's remarks (and some past remarks, apparently) were offensive and ignorant at best.

But I can't help feel sorry for the man. I have some lingering affection for him. I grew up with a fascination for biological sciences, and Watson and Crick were demigods in the textbooks; the mythic account of their discovery of the double helix was like Prometheus bringing fire to the primitives. I read Watson's memoir, The Double Helix, and came away feeling as if I knew the young scientist in the '50s, like I was there during the exciting time of discovery. It was a key part of my inspiration to go into the life sciences. Sure, I knew there was much that was fictionalized and much that was omitted (Rosalind Franklin's contribution, for example). But still, it was a great story and great science.

It's sad indeed to see a great man end his career diminished in such a way. I don't blame him per se for having anachronistic views: he is quite old and I have known many elderly individuals to have embarrassingly unreconstructed views on race, sexuality, society, etc. It is a pity that he spoke out so prominently that it couldn't be ignored and that an institutional repudiation was required, and that he must thus end his long and distinguished career in ignominy.
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2007/10/things-that-make-me-sad.html

he is quite old and I have known many elderly individuals to have embarrassingly unreconstructed views on race, sexuality, society, etc.Yep, those damned old people, they just can't learn the new political correctness game as easily as the blank slate youngsters can.

Are you saying that we should halt ALL genetic research of any type, right now, and never pursue the field again, just because we don't fully understand it??

If I say yes, will you let this topic die?


Eri

It is a lot harder to advance the "soft" sciences because you can't put number on social perception.

Eridalafar
Yes we can, we just don't know what the numbers are because people with opinions like your prevent the science from happening(to find the numbers).

You people actually sound like Luddites afraid of the steam engine, because you think it is the work of the Devil.

You people actually sound like Luddites afraid of the steam engine, because you think it is the work of the Devil.

Hitler's abuse of science to prove racial supremacy was as close to the work of the devil as you could get.

Ok, his name's been mentioned, time to close things.

Abuse of science?

I bet you most of the women here have tried hormonal birth control pills. All of the founding research for their development came from the NAZIs, and their human experiments.

Are you suggesting that all women who use OBCPs are NAZIs? They ARE taking advantage of their science of course. Are you suggesting that no one use them, lest they are NAZIs?>>>

I bet you most of the women here have tried hormonal birth control pills. All of the founding research for their development came from the NAZIs, and their human experiments.

Fine. I'm not sure why you want to use that as an apology for their genocidal approach to race relations.

Hitler's abuse of science to prove racial supremacy was as close to the work of the devil as you could get.So because the Nazis did bad things in the name of science, we aren't allowed use science at all, or else we will be Nazis too. Great reasoning.

Fine. I'm not sure why you want to use that as an apology for their genocidal approach to race relations.

Where do you see an apology?

What I see from you is myopia and fear of knowledge.

The point is, just because Hitler made all the trains run on time, does that mean that YOU must demand Amtrak to always run late?

So because the Nazis did bad things in the name of science, we aren't allowed use science at all, or else we will be Nazis too. Great reasoning

Stop exaggerating. When it comes to 'I want to prove that black people are stupid using genetics' I think the parallels are reasonably close. Hitler of course wanted to show that black people were also physically inferior because they performed so badly at the Olympics. Jesse Owens proved him wrong and that suggestion would be laughable in modern times.

Genetic science is just a tool. Use it but use it properly. You don't discard your ethics when you research humanity.

Yes we can, we just don't know what the numbers are because people with opinions like your prevent the science from happening(to find the numbers).

You people actually sound like Luddites afraid of the steam engine, because you think it is the work of the Devil.

I only say that putting "number" is hard not imposible and a lot of rechercher have personnal interest to muddle their recherch to get resultats they want. To make thing more complexe, the nurture side change with time (society change, thing theached in school change, religions change...), and even if it complicate the studies a lot, it probably what will permit us to find the natural basic and the nuture essencial, when we will have enought history of the changes of the no essencial nurture thing.

To make a comparaison with an hard science, we are at the stage when the alchemy "science" have become the chemistry science, with the socials sciences. A good number of trues with case by case theory, thing working but nobody is totaly sure why and some garbages.

Eridalafar

We will not only eventually crack the evolutionary code of genetics, but the evolutionary code of social behavior as well.

They are intertwined, and dependent on one another. It is only a matter of time before we are able to put 'numbers' on nurture as well.

As long as Luddites like yourselves are kept from making public and scientific policy. Or rather, REMOVED from making such things.


You do make a valid assessment that we are at the beginning, and mistakes will be made; that is the nature of science(the scientific method demands it).

I just watched the end of a Chris Rock special last night, with a small segment focusing on this exact very topic. American Blacks were bred to be super slaves, hence the domination in every single major athletic sport, "as soon as they find a way to heat hockey rings, that one too. Lebron won't even need a stick, he will smack the puck with his dick". But smart slaves were killed, and thus that birthright is stuck too.

Jimmy the Greek got fired in disgrace for saying the exact same thing, and his career never recovered; he died a poor miserable old white man.

"The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way -- because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner -- the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid."

400 years. Only 400 years of active selection, and it takes a Black comedian to spoonfeed the truth, has produced remarkable difference between humans. Genetic differences. You can not really argue that there are not differences in lines 4000 or 40,000 years old.

Well, you can argue, of course. But you are wrong.

You could at least admit the truth, that what the real problem is that you are just afraid that you KNOW there are differences, and you are just too afraid to know what they are.

400 years. Only 400 years of active selection, and it takes a Black comedian to spoonfeed the truth, has produced remarkable difference between humans. Genetic differences. You can not really argue that there are not differences in lines 4000 or 40,000 years old.


Fyyr, there is no conspiracy, just a lot of people frightened to give offense.

Second, you are using a small isolated population with unusual evolutionary pressure as an example. You can not apply that to a much larger population without said pressure.

If you look at the people who actually live in Africa (without that whole slave owner thing messing up their lives), you see none of what you describe in your post. Black people in Africa are not 'naturally stronger'. They are just people with a great degree of variety from one person to the next and from one part of the continent to the next.

Statistically speaking you, and the people you quoted, are guilty of selecting your sample and thus any conclusion you can draw are limited to that sample alone. In this case, black athletes (who miracle of miracles happen to be better than average at physical activities).

Before you drag out the genetic explanation, first check if there are other, more mundane (and less controversial) explanations that also might apply.


Eri
(p.s. I guess the question I asked Tuda applies to you too)

In this case, black athletes (who <b>miracle of miracles</b> happen to be better than average at physical activities).So you think it's more logical to attribute those clearly visible differences to your god(s), instead of simple natural selection.

Unless of course you're black, in which case you can bypass that mental block and speak the truth.

You politically correct types are hilarious. Well, you would be hilarious if people like you weren't in power making policy decisions.

you, and the people you quoted, are guilty of selecting your sample and thus any conclusion you can draw are limited to that sample alone. In this case, black athletes (who miracle of miracles happen to be better than average at physical activities).

No, I am not. I am not forming a conclusion in the scientific sense. But remember the first and second step in the scientific process are "observation" then "hypothesis".

You are stating that we should not even make these first two steps.


Before you drag out the genetic explanation, first check if there are other, more mundane (and less controversial) explanations that also might apply.
Like what? Environment?

Genetic understanding will burn, bore, right through that stuff.

Like what? Environment?

Genetic understanding will burn, bore, right through that stuff.

I think high quality sports scholarships at US universities bore through everything when it comes to athletic success.

So you think it's more logical to attribute those clearly visible differences to your god(s), instead of simple natural selection.

Unless of course you're black, in which case you can bypass that mental block and speak the truth.

You politically correct types are hilarious. Well, you would be hilarious if people like you weren't in power making policy decisions.

Tuda, you apparently did not even read what I wrote. And there is no reason to be snide or condescending, even when you disagree with me.

All I said is that the people that were quoted by Fyyr did base their conclusions on a biased sample. The coach made comments about the fact that blacks were 'natural' athletes based on the fact that all the blacks he saw had the body type that is good for atheletic performance. But of course the black people who typically pursue sports as a professional career are pre-selected towards being suitable for it. His conclusions are about as valid as a basketball coach coming to the conclusion that all blacks are tall, or the women's swim team coach stating that all swimmers are female.

It has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness (no matter that in your crusade against it you see it everywhere) and everything with pointing out shoddy statistics. If you pre-select your sample you can not draw any statistical conclusion on subjects that are influenced by that pre-selection. Which is what the people quoted by Fyyr did.


Eri

No, I am not. I am not forming a conclusion in the scientific sense. But remember the first and second step in the scientific process are "observation" then "hypothesis".


Yes you are.
You forget that scientific observation is held to quite a bit more stringent requirements than what is observed by the quoted opinions. One of them is that the observation must be unbiased. The observed facts were made from a selected sample, and thus useless for formulating scientific theory.


You are stating that we should not even make these first two steps.


Nope, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that before you drag out 'genetic disposition' as an explanation you should make sure that what you observe is indeed linked to the quality you hypothesise it is (i.e. that the genes for skin colour are linked to those of physical development, or that those two are otherwise linked. The idea that selective breeding by slave owners could serve as such a link is a potential hypothesis, but you then have to provide more than anectodal evidence that such specific breeding programs actually took place)
You also must make sure that your observation is not biased towards the cause you are trying to hypothesise.

The people you quoted did nothing of the kind and thus their observations and hypothesis do not pass for scientific and should not be considered reasonable cause for further study.



Like what? Environment?

Genetic understanding will burn, bore, right through that stuff.

Environment after all has a rather big influence on how people develop. It would make sense to study if it can explain the observations before you further your own hypothesis. If only to be able to show that it is not a suitable explanation in this particular case.


Eri

The coach made comments about the fact that blacks were 'natural' athletes based on the fact that all the blacks he saw had the body type that is good for atheletic performance. But of course the black people who typically pursue sports as a professional career are pre-selected towards being suitable for it.And they are selected much more often, such that certain sports are dominated by specific genetic groups that are a minority in the general population.

In any other field of science, this observation would merit a hypothesis and further study as to what is causing those differences, instead of a blanket assumption that the differences must have been caused by a limited number of politically correct factors.

But here, the political correctness police don't even allow the hypothesis, let alone experimentation to evaluate the hypothesis. It's a sort of religion.

One of them is that the observation must be unbiased. The observed facts were made from a selected sample, and thus useless for formulating scientific theory.

Not at all. No it doesn't.

You are essentially stating that a observation must be scientifically proven before you can make the observation.

Legitimate scientific observations and hypotheses are wrong all the time, proven so by the experiments which follow. Most are wrong. And they are proven wrong.

You are stating that scientists not even be allowed to make observations and form hypotheses in order to test. Saying that they must already have the knowledge; which would have came from the experiment.

Your thinking is all backwards.

Environment after all has a rather big influence on how people develop. It would make sense to study if it can explain the observations before you further your own hypothesis. If only to be able to show that it is not a suitable explanation in this particular case.

Um, that is why you have the experiment phase after the hypothesis phase.

If the hypothesis is wrong it will be proven wrong by the experiment, or the hundreds of repeated similar experiments by other scientists.

Science is not written in alabaster or marble. It is formed from modeling clay. Always changing as new information is discovered, or old information proven wrong. It is malleable, not set in stone.

You obviously fear that some hypothesis from some scientist with delusions of godhood will be set in stone, and edict, to force you into something. That is the only rationale for your logic that I can think of. Watson is a scientist, he has been wrong most of the time during his career.

And you won't even notion the thought that scientists be allowed to experiment to prove himself(or him) wrong. You just state it.

>Observation
>Hypothesis
>Procedure
>Experiment/Data Collection
>Conclusion
Repeat, over and over again.

You have your order wrong.

>Observation
>Hypothesis
>Procedure
>Experiment/Data Collection
>Conclusion
Repeat, over and over again.

You have your order wrong.

So if I select my population to be studied and then follow this repice. Do it will affect what hypothesis and conclusion I can make? Or I need to say what population I have selected when I publish my stusies (as a lot of studies made to be only an headline in the news aren't).

Let see if I select 2000 nuns, and do a study of their sexual live, can I say that the sexual live of the women in the US is almost no-existing? :whistle:

Eridalafar

Experiments need to be repeatable.

Remember Cold Fusion?

Two scientists in Utah, stated that their experiment produced energy at room temperature.

The experiment was repeated, by hundreds of other scientists, and their conclusions were never verified.

If you think that a single experiment is performed, then somehow etched into all science books and read as fact from then on, is friggen silly. Just wrong.

ost people, well most smart ones not most in general, would take your nun experiment, and 2000 is a pretty good sized N, give it a +-2 degree of accuracy FOR NUNS. And then they will repeat the experiment, to see if your data correlates with theirs.

And your sample populations would be detailed in the procedure portion of your experiment. It is not like you are going to be pulling the wool over people's eyes.

Who knows, perhaps that moment was the birth of modern political correctness.
Nope.

Liberty cabbage (also known as victory cabbage) was an American euphemism for "sauerkraut." It was introduced in the United States during World War I, but was rarely used thereafter. Similar euphemisms, some of which did not spring up until World War II, include "liberty measles" for "German measles," "Eisenhower jacket" for "Hindenburg jacket," "Eisenhower herring" for "Bismarck herring," "liberty steak" for "hamburger" (hamburger is derived from "Hamburg", a city in Germany), and others.

This euphemism is similar to the 2003 Iraq war era "Freedom fries." Liberty cabbage is often associated with anti-German sentiment.

Scientists can't reliably measure genetic intelligence until they can differentiate between natural intelligence and nurtured intelligence. It has nothing to do with your political correctness police. How many times do you want it explained to you?

i don't really want to enter the agrument, per se (but...)
this is becoming more false every day. plenty of studies are occuring that can predict intellegence based on sequence/allele. 100% atm? no. getting closer? yes.

even if the answer were a definitive YES (as in it can be done) would you believe it? would it matter?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4j1p34183653x06/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n67q8835k297u4q3/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f14n1m57128hm1v5/
etc