Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

[Gambit]

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" By Cahal Milmo Published: 17 October 2007 One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London. The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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 said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism". Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism. Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. "These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels." The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script." In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." The Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks. Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically." Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint." http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

[Gaurav]

Interesting.

[Bongosamaj]

Rather sad how idiotic some of the best educated people can sometime turn out to be. If anyone truely interacts with any 'race' and gets to believe that they are any less/more intelligent, i truely think they don't know a thing about human recognition. Besides, since technically speaking 'race' does not even exist, i wonder how the 'scientist' will justify a racial trait on genetic basis.

[sandtest]

I am really not surprised by such psy-ops works from west. White supremascists and Antlanticist ideologists have always projected themselves as above all other races.....we Indians are biggest victims of their great psy-ops -- i.e. Aryan Invasion theory. When White supremascist found that Indians have Vedas and Upanishads composed and debated and accepted, much before the invention of Bible and pseudo-monotheistic charm of Islam they were caught in a suprise and instead claimed that it's they -- supreior race Europeans as Aryans who migrated to Indus and composed Vedas. And this theory has been shoved down our throats since then...and we are still unable to do anything. Add to that British agents like Mclualay are on record issuing instructions for exploiting Manusmriti for their benefit instead of other Shrutis like Vedanata(Vedas and Upanishads) and BhagwadGita

[beetle]

From the article ....it seems the guy has too many prejudices to be taken seriously.

[gorah_pindu]

Basically to summarise current evidence - nobody knows if geographical distribution and race corralate. There are too many factors preventing an accurate reading - such as cultural and dietary effects on intelligence.

[yoda]

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

So he has blabbered with nothing to back it up.

[Lurker]

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

I think that is quite a fair argument really. Two sets of people living in completely different geographical surroundings, culture will naturally evolve differently. Does this impact intelligence as well? The only way to find that out is to do further research in the area rather than just pooh-poohing it. Isn't it strange that while we often get to hear how "Black athletes are genetically superior to Whites" and not a shout is heard about racism, when the reverse is done - Black not good in some attribute - it is shot down as racism. Odd. By the way Watson has aplogized today. xx

[Bongosamaj]

Does this impact intelligence as well? The only way to find that out is to do further research in the area rather than just pooh-poohing it.

Common sense and experience says no. What your lifestyle is, is irrelevant - thankfully, we are still very mortal creatures that is the child of this planet. There are many many challenges involved in day to day living and human interactions- technology takes no less/more intelligence to ponder & develop than interpersonal relationships & cultural influence. And whether you are a nomadic horseman from central asian steppes or basking in your sunny Californian villa, fact is, if you are to be near the top of the social order, you have to use your intelligence along with other skills. So instead of being a smarta$$ in a laboratory trying to figure out advanced differential equations, you are a smarta$$ trying to figure out what is the best way to hunt/forage in area X while keeping your horse alive, carrying food back, getting home before dark etc etc. They are just different skillsets and i can state for a fact after interacting with some of the most backwards tribes on this planet ( I've been to a very traditional Santhal village in Midnapore once) - people who don't even know that the earth goes around the sun and the moon around the earth- and i'd be kidding myself if i thought i was 'more intelligent' than all of them. People in different environments come up with different tools & means of survival & social progress. That has nothing to do with intelligence or race whatsoever. And if this 'localized evolution in different small pockets' question bugs someone, i'd highly recommend reading the book 'Guns, Germs & Steel' by Jared Diamond. It sure cures a lot of misinformed ideas about cultural superiority/inferiority and race. Ultimately how civilization develops ( or even develops at all) is not a factor of different human intelligence/capabilities or inferior/superior culture- it is simply a matter of resources at disposal, what type of domesticable animals are there ( not all animals are domesticable and GGS points out the reasons) and what type/variety of crops can be cultivated.

[Bongosamaj]

Isn't it strange that while we often get to hear how "Black athletes are genetically superior to Whites" and not a shout is heard about racism, when the reverse is done - Black not good in some attribute - it is shot down as racism. Odd.

Yeah there is a lot of hypocrasy in the system. Black people in the new world ( Americas) are some of the most racist people i find- i dunno about you folks, but i don't have to carefully mince my words around ANY OTHER group of people (except on the topic of religion) except black people from around here. One small joke even of the most mildest kind and instantly there will be 'are you racist ?' questions. I once declared to a black friend that i found Serena Williams repulsive. I instantly got a sanctimonious lecture on 'how i shouldnt be racist', how my 'idea of beauty is formed by the white-man's idea and cultural opression',etc etc. The idjit never got it that there are other black chicks i find stunning , but that is a common sentiment i find whenever a non-black person every says XYZ black woman/black man isnt attractive around a black person from the Americas. Hell, the few 'direct immigrants from Africa' i've run into are a lot more like the rest and far more chilled. Yet the black folks from here are often the loudest objectors of racism directed towards them while being completely oblivious to the fact that as it stands today, they are the biggest perpetrators of it here. Sitting around black folks from here is like sitting in a joint where black people are gonna backpat each other on ideas of racial superiority ( bigger d*nk is their fav. topic of convo followed by better physical prowess & the 'athletic ability' clause) while denigrating just about every other race. And white people here are of three kinds - people who don't give a $hit about anything to do with racism, people who are suffering from the 'guilty complex' for the misdeeds of their ancestors (the slavers) and the people who are totally hardcore 'white-power' bona-fide racists. So sadly, this aspect goes completely unchecked and if anyone says a word on this topic that isnt politically correct (as defined by the pro-black groups), you instantly get branded as 'racist/white-bootlicker/ brownie enjoying the liberties earnt by black-blood and being ingrates' etc etc.

[Lurker]

I shall agree to what you are saying Bongo. I would even extend it to say that this is not limited to Blacks only, though they come across like that possibly due to the amount of exposure on them. Take the example of comedy. Have you ever had a chance to watch Russell Peters? His comedy is laced with jokes about ethnicity. Dont get me wrong he is a very funny guy and I do enjoy his performance but I will tell you that if the same jokes were cracked by say Jerry Seinfeld there may be allegations of "racial overtones". I would think this is one reason why the comedy of White people is generally bland. They always have to watch for what they speak. They can not make fun of Blacks as Blacks can make fun of Whites. Heck even a White can not make fun of White! Just check out how sensitive people get when a Boston comic takes a jive at Southern folks. The typical Redneck jokes are often uttered on the stage by the Redneck comics only. Political correctness *sigh*. xxx

[Lurker]

Ultimately how civilization develops ( or even develops at all) is not a factor of different human intelligence/capabilities or inferior/superior culture- it is simply a matter of resources at disposal' date=' what type of domesticable animals are there ( not all animals are domesticable and GGS points out the reasons) and what type/variety of crops can be cultivated.[/quote'] Look at it this way. You have 1 set of people living in highly developed Western world. You also have another set of people in a remote part of the world(guess whatever comes to mind). Would there be difference in their intelligence? Well that would first begs the question - What is Intelligence? One answer to Intelligence would be exploring mind. In a Western world there are far less tabboo(by and large), in the example of underdeveloped country there would be far more tabboo(generally speaking). Now with less tabboo it is prudent to beleive that a Western shall be exploring his mind thinking about issues like - Stem cell research, is it nature/nurture when it comes to homophobia, does mind control lust or does lust control mind etc. For the other set of people all such topics would be rodiculous, and in some cases blasphemous. Now imagine this same gap between the two set over 10,000-20,000 years or so. Is it not likely to have a good amount of variation? Let me also say that I am not suggesting that the statement by Watson is indeed 100%, just saying that we should let this idea be pursued rather than cry foul. xxx

[Bongosamaj]

What is Intelligence?

Intelligence, ultimately, is your ability to analyze inputs correctly for a pre-determined goal. Whether this pre-determined goal happens to be making money/figuring out quantum equations/getting into someone's pants/collecting banana from the tree for your tribe, etc etc. From my experience, intelligence is NOT a factor of lifestyle, though skills in intelligence can be honed further by various techniques. One such technique is meditation and gaining control over the mind - i've met buddhist monks and hindu yogis in Manali who's just as 'intelligent' as your university professor. Having interacted with both, i can state this to be true without a doubt in my mind.

Is it not likely to have a good amount of variation?

The variations due to cultural notions of what is/what is not taboo is manifest within what results you get towards, not what tools you have at your disposal. Look at it this way - if we both are tool-workers, we'd both have a lathe machine at our workshop. If my culture bans making XYZ style of tool-cuts, then you have a far bigger variety of tools that you specialize in while my band if far narrower. You may be even better skilled at using your lathe than me(due to more variety of demands placed on you) but ultimately, if we both have the same model of lathe, our lathes are equal. Intelligence is the same way. Individuals can be more/less intelligent than each other, but on a racial basis/basis of huge population samples, the difference i find in terms of MY interactions are non-existent.

just saying that we should let this idea be pursued rather than cry foul.

Err no. This idea needs to be buried ASAP. Simply because this idea is fundamentally destructive towards the human development as a species and even if it is true, i can easily argue that it is better for mankind to 'mix some more' and equalize these 'imbalances' than focus on these imbalances and create an even more polarized society. For it is indisputable that if we have something called 'intelligence genes' identified, it will cause even more discrimination amongst man. Even if tomorrow they find out that Indians are the smartest people of all ( genetically proved), i'd still prefer the idea of indians mixing it up with the rest and equalizing the 'gene pools'.

[Lurker]

Intelligence, ultimately, is your ability to analyze inputs correctly for a pre-determined goal. Whether this pre-determined goal happens to be making money/figuring out quantum equations/getting into someone's pants/collecting banana from the tree for your tribe, etc etc.

I think that this is actually going to be a critical topic in this whole debate. What exactly is Intelligence and how do you measure it? Unless it can be measured in some way it would be extremely difficult to prove X is better/worse than Y.

Look at it this way - if we both are tool-workers, we'd both have a lathe machine at our workshop. If my culture bans making XYZ style of tool-cuts, then you have a far bigger variety of tools that you specialize in while my band if far narrower. You may be even better skilled at using your lathe than me(due to more variety of demands placed on you) but ultimately, if we both have the same model of lathe, our lathes are equal. Intelligence is the same way.

Fair enough. I would say you are kind of leaning towards the idea where a person with less resources at hand often pushes himself harder than someone who has easy access to them. Quite true. This is the reason why (generally speaking) migrants across the world tend to do better in the long run than the local populace. The question again would come back to how does it relate to intelligence? Is perseverance a part of it? Afterall wasnt it Einstein who said "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration"?

Err no. This idea needs to be buried ASAP. Simply because this idea is fundamentally destructive towards the human development as a species and even if it is true, i can easily argue that it is better for mankind to 'mix some more' and equalize these 'imbalances' than focus on these imbalances and create an even more polarized society.

I would differ. If there is any difference at all between races why not address it rather than pretend to ignore it? I do not deny that this would be misused by vested interest but surely in the long run the benefits shall outweight the drawbacks. I mean what is the whole point of trying to educate a set of students say when they might face more difficulty(by Mother Nature) than the next guy? xxx

[Bongosamaj]

If there is any difference at all between races why not address it rather than pretend to ignore it?

For the simple reason that any potential harm from it is 100000x bigger than any potential gain from it.

but surely in the long run the benefits shall outweight the drawbacks.

I don't see any reason for that optimism that any 'fact' will have more benifits than drawbacks. Atleast, the idea of 'is the world ready for such a fact?' needs to be taken into consideration, for timing is everything- 'facts' will either be put into good use/bad use depending on what juncture of human history we are at. And at this point, with the world barely showing some signs of recovery from inherent idiotic discrimination like racism, casteism, etc, the world most definitely is not 'ready' to deal with what 'facts' might be in this regard. Perhaps in the future it'd be different but if it were up to me, any genetic study that uses differing races or castes as point of study would be stamped out by me.

and how do you measure it? Unless it can be measured in some way it would be extremely difficult to prove X is better/worse than Y.

It is an utterly futile question until we as a medical community can state with certainty that we've figured out how the brain works. Until then, everything else is nonsense and pure speculation.

[Lurker]

For the simple reason that any potential harm from it is 100000x bigger than any potential gain from it.

We see it differently then. In USA the crime rate is heavily tilted in favour of Blacks. There are socio-economi reasons for that. Now if there could be a remote chance of a medical/chemical reason as well why not atleast make an effort to check that? If it doesnt work hey no harm done, if it does then surely it shall help.

It is an utterly futile question until we as a medical community can state with certainty that we've figured out how the brain works. Until then, everything else is nonsense and pure speculation.

Yes we have not figured our brain but we are getting good at it. It is almost like religious orthodox people scoffing at Science and how Science changes every 300-400 years and refutes itself. But hey guess what we are regularly getting good at it and pretty much disproving most religious beleifs, with success if I may add. So much so that religious beleif is widely considered a faith based aspect of life and not with any sound ground. Who is to say we wont be able to figure out brain some day :alberteinstein:?

[Bongosamaj]

In USA the crime rate is heavily tilted in favour of Blacks. There are socio-economi reasons for that. Now if there could be a remote chance of a medical/chemical reason as well why not atleast make an effort to check that? If it doesnt work hey no harm done, if it does then surely it shall help.

Sorry but i find this idea to be very very naive and even counter-reality. You really think that if tomorrow someone proves that black people are less smart than white people (or vice versa), it will not have huge negetive social rammifications in the fabric of US of A ? If you think that, then i gotto say that you do not know/understand the most basic of social nature of USA. Now, what possibly is the benifit of this ? Even if black people are more/less intelligent, so what ? are you really naiive enough to think that crime is a factor of intelligence ?You really think that smart people don't commit crimes or dumb people commit more crimes, etc ? The crime aspect is 99.9999% socio-economic and individual mentality in question. Of which, intelligence is only the method to the goal, not indiciative of whether the goal shall be persued or not. So again, your scenario has little or no positive benifit but its negetive rammifications are extremely HUGE for the US of A today. As i said, the world is not ready for this type of research.

Yes we have not figured our brain but we are getting good at it.

We have barely even scratched the surface, really.

Who is to say we wont be able to figure out brain some day ?

not saying we wont. I am saying that UNTIL we do, all this question of genetic analysis to mental faculties are irrelevant. We have no way of knowing how much the brain itself can 'overrite its base programming' based on the desires/viewpoints of the individual. But suffice to say, looking for a medical causation of intelligence is one of the most dangerous research topics for the social fabric of mankind- and mankind most definitely has not shown any sign whatsoever that it can deal with the conclusions in a humane way and not fall back to its idiotic ways of discrimination that while is dying down, is still very much present today.

[Lurker]

You really think that if tomorrow someone proves that black people are less smart than white people (or vice versa), it will not have huge negetive social rammifications in the fabric of US of A ?

It sure will have far reaching affect. And I for one won't deny that many would even misuse it. But if there is any scientific reason behind it I say why not? If you argue that Scientific evidence are inconclusive and hence should be researched further I can certainly agree to that. But to simply stuffle a reseach cos it breaks down certain wide-held notion is plain wrong. xx

[Bongosamaj]

But if there is any scientific reason behind it I say why not?

Why not use scientific reason to cause more problems for humanity ? eh ? Does that sound right to you ?

But to simply stuffle a reseach cos it breaks down certain wide-held notion is plain wrong.

There is nothing wrong in saying that humanity is not ready to deal with the consequences of these type of research. And it is prudent to die knowing that some things are best left unexplored in YOUR LIFETIME than explore it and cause $hit for the next 500 years with untold bloodbaths.

[Lurker]

There is nothing wrong in saying that humanity is not ready to deal with the consequences of these type of research. And it is prudent to die knowing that some things are best left unexplored in YOUR LIFETIME than explore it and cause for the next 500 years with untold bloodbaths.

Your line of reasoning sound more theory than practise Bongo. The reason I say is to my knowledge, and you can correct me here, I have not heard of Scientific experiments held back simply because the human society was not able to deal with the consequence. Yes they have been held back due to fear of attacks, physical as well as intellactual, but not otherwise. Any example that can help your view point? xx