Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer
news.independent.co.uk — James Watson, 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.
NoStoppingUs- 1200 diggs
- digg it
- blogbot, on 10/22/2007, -166/+131Not hard to believe.
- Meccabilly, on 10/19/2007, -83/+50WHY ARE YOU DIGGING THIS RACIST??
- zyklon, on 10/19/2007, -11/+54Capslock is indeed cruise-control for cool.
- ORBAT, on 10/20/2007, -33/+66I'm sorry if the truth offends your delicate sensibilities, but sometimes the world isn't quite what you we're-all-beautiful-and-unique-snowflakes idiots want it to be.
- YuriSakazaki, on 10/22/2007, -29/+22So, as a black man, I'm inferior to you?
- Koldkompress, on 10/27/2007, -13/+106No, it's saying that the plateau of average intelligence is Dependant on genetic traits, genetic traits that differ depending on how a race of people evolved.
Europeans had it easy. We had easy crops, easy food etc. This allowed a propagation of admirable traits other than strength/speed etc, which in turn lets those traits help in acquiring a mate.
However, in places where it's harder to farm and hunting is still common, traits such as strength and speed are passed down, as they are the more successful breeders. Also, this lifestyle of hunting makes it harder to settle down enough to establish ways to further technology and research.
It's not a coincidence that 90% of sports like the NFL have black people, even though in America, black people make up 15-20% of the population. This is because, -ON AVERAGE- Black people are more PREDISPOSED [Read: More likely] to have physical prowess.
It wouldn't surprise me that people that originate from Europe developed differently, and are -On average, yet again- more predisposed to have a higher IQ.
Of course, there are plenty of dumb white people, and plenty of fast/strong white people, just as much as there are plenty of black people who are smarter than average.
Again, I'm not saying white people are smarter than black people. There are plenty of black people smarter than most white people, but white people are more predisposed to have a higher IQ.
Sorry if this rambled, tl;dr, I know. - cdahlkvist, on 10/19/2007, -10/+13Not at all what he was saying.
Now, the fact that you took it that way (or you were just trolling) shows that you are inferior to the rest of us as a human. - staticneuron, on 10/22/2007, -18/+5While I like your attempt to explain that in a logical fashion I really haven't seen any evidence that intelligence or the ability to learn/ critically think has anything to do with genetic traits. While it is no question that physically many genes and genetic traits can be passed through blood, it always has been shown that the brain is the most adaptable and malleable matter in the human body. When you are born, you can pretty much start with a clean slate and soak up anything around you. Ambition, reasoning, critical thinking, the willingness to learn as long as there is no physical damage in the tissue there should be no difference. No matter what race you are if you are taken up and put in a different society at birth you are going to pick up the mannerisms and mentality of those around you.
- Schrodinger, on 10/19/2007, -4/+18The NFL/NBA thing is always a bad example. Those sports are part of black culture in America. That's like saying hispanics are genetically predisposed towards soccer because so many play it. Last time I checked African countries dont win the world cup.
- emjaymj, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4@staticneuron:
Yes, this is from Wikipedia, but I've looked at better sources for this stuff and this seems to be more concisely written while still remaining accurate:
Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers.[8] Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). [9] Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture" debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the "nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the United States. - emjaymj, on 10/20/2007, -1/+2oops, double post. The point is that it may seem counter-intuitive, but studies show that intelligence has EVERYTHING to do with genetics.
- Koldkompress, on 10/27/2007, -13/+106No, it's saying that the plateau of average intelligence is Dependant on genetic traits, genetic traits that differ depending on how a race of people evolved.
- LemmingJesus, on 10/19/2007, -12/+16Yes.
Let the burying commence! - ICSU, on 10/19/2007, -5/+25Calm down, YuriSakazak. It's on average. It's about education, nutrition...
Aren't the Japanese supposed to be more intelligent than the white Westerners?- nthug, on 10/19/2007, -17/+7they aren't more intelligent...they just work harder
- Murdats, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11@ntug
so black people arent stupider just lazy then?
you cant say we are smarter then these people but if anyone else looks smarter then us its only because they are harder workers. - LupeFiasco, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0"Aren't the Japanese supposed to be more intelligent than the white Westerners?"
Yeah because screen names are the "tell all" on digg. - AceLy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1@nthug
Racists like to pick and choose.
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1you get your other "the truth" from bill o'reilly and michael savage, dontchya? you still think dubya's doin' a heckuva job for blowing up "them" what attacked us on 9/11 in iraq, right?
- YuriSakazaki, on 10/22/2007, -29/+22So, as a black man, I'm inferior to you?
- alexanEmpire, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12Capslock is used to UNLEASH THE ***** FURY!
- OhFrak, on 10/20/2007, -7/+86Well, James Watson is a white person and I hear they are very smart so I would take his word for it.
- Koldkompress, on 10/20/2007, -1/+31Best circular logic/sarcasm ever.
- kerryhall, on 10/19/2007, -39/+31This kind of ***** has been debunked a long time ago.
http://slate.com/?id=2416
But keep right on talking about it, you just make yourself sound really ***** stupid.- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -9/+3You people keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- ventralnet, on 10/19/2007, -3/+10What you mean you people!!?!?!
- mattsw84, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6Don't be that guy.
- ventralnet, on 10/19/2007, -3/+10What you mean you people!!?!?!
- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -9/+3You people keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- enjinere, on 10/25/2007, -26/+61I can't believe everyone is taking this ONE scientist's word for it. The article doesn't even explain his theory AT ALL!! It doesn't say any of his theory has been peer reviewed or even published, for that matter. He is meeting opposition from many leading scientists worldwide. He has a history of racist and homophobic comments. All you racists just jump on the first piece of "evidence" that pops up to support your views. Show me the research or it didn't happen.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/25/2007, -11/+20which is why it will never be "peer-reviewed." If, even in consideration of the opinion, people like yourself automatically label others as racist, just for trying to analyze the idea.
- enjinere, on 10/19/2007, -3/+10I don't have a problem with him researching it- I just ask that he backs his claims- and for other people to be a little more skeptical about claims that are just thrown out there. If you consider this science based on this article, then I have some "scientific" articles on intelligent design you might be interested in.
- souljaboytellem, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2Well he's not rascist in the least bit...but your right he does need to back up his views or research, theories, etc.. but he might be on to a good project i'm interested to see what will come of his claim
- andreas1999, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3"He is meeting opposition from many leading scientists worldwide".
Would love to read more about this. Where's the link? - hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3The problem is what scientists would want to be the ones to state that some races are genetically superior than others? That would lead them to utter public shame.
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1not really. plenty of things (sickle cell anemia, breast cancer, skin cancer, alcohol intolerance) are more prevalent in some races than others. it's been carefully studied and it's fact, and no scientist should be ashamed of stating simple facts that could help people lead healthier lives. the shameful thing here is that watson is generalizing one tiny bit of very specific data to mean "black people are dumm." that, he should be ashamed of.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/25/2007, -11/+20which is why it will never be "peer-reviewed." If, even in consideration of the opinion, people like yourself automatically label others as racist, just for trying to analyze the idea.
- Eleo, on 10/19/2007, -5/+7These types of comments were doing great before this article made the front page. (Just an observation.)
- Klowner, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10Says the man with a Hitler icon
- Eleo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Oh. Sometimes I forget I have it.
- Klowner, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10Says the man with a Hitler icon
- hankyone, on 10/19/2007, -12/+28Lack of education =! Lack of intelligence
- nick111, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11=!!=!=
- hellotyler, on 10/19/2007, -1/+15≠
- BOFH2, on 10/19/2007, -7/+2So if you have your PHD you are smarter then most people? BS
- somecheesypoofs, on 10/20/2007, -2/+9- in specific subjects, hell yes.
- hmunkey, on 10/20/2007, -2/+4Um... well yes.
- BOFH2, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Right - you both have proved a couple of points
1. It means that you can regurgitate facts and what the professors and committees want (in the current education system in most universities)
2. your IQ is not measured by knowledge of one subject.
3. educational elitism is unbecoming.
- leffunov, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6um.....no, education = knowledge......not intelligence, if you were educated you would know that; I'm not saying you're stupid ; )
- Nemous, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2BTW, he said "Lack of education =! Lack of intelligence" notice the "=!" which means NOT EQUAL TO, well I would have written it as "!=" but either way he is saying the same thing as you!
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1i'm hella educated, and part of that education was learning to think critically and solve problems. some of my intelligence is absolutely learned.
- insanebrain, on 10/19/2007, -11/+4So .. I assume you are black ??
- chillfaktor, on 10/19/2007, -14/+9you know what IS hard to believe? that his comment had about 20+ diggs at one stage until it turned around in one big landslide. Grow a backbone ***** bunch of sheep
- ToadLeg, on 10/19/2007, -14/+15I didn't know there were so many racists on digg.
- nthug, on 10/19/2007, -7/+17yup, nothing new here, just beware when you enter these comments areas. you'll find some pretty ignorant people sometimes
- souljaboytellem, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4really? you really thought there were no racists in digg?
- CeeAyy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6You must be new to DIGG. Besides, racism is everywhere, why should DIGG be any different?
- ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Have you discovered a way to undigg/unbury a comment after you've already clicked? Or was it just a whole different slew of people voicing their opinion?
- ToadLeg, on 10/19/2007, -14/+15I didn't know there were so many racists on digg.
- tehxen3, on 10/19/2007, -9/+41It's sad that Digg can't handle the truth. Reality is some geographical and racial groups have on average lower intelligence than others.
For whatever reason, it could be undernourishment and environmental factors over generations but it's the undeniable truth.
One example is, Asian people have higher IQs on average than whites and that's a fact. They score higher on all tests etc. This is documented on countless places, and they all indicate the same IQ data among races.
Reality is not what you believe it is, reality is what is scientifically true, equaling stating the facts with racism is despicable. Sorry but Earth isn't flat.- ToadLeg, on 10/19/2007, -23/+10No racial group of people has been shown to have any different intelligence than any other. We are all the same species.
- itsthebrod, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10Did you happen to catch that Top 5 Maury Povich moments on Digg a day or so ago? Are you seriously saying I'm the same species as those individuals? *****!
- tehxen3, on 10/20/2007, -9/+10Your references and sources are? ToadLeg I don't think you could find any for your idiotic statement.
- nick111, on 10/20/2007, -3/+6as a matter of idle curiosity, what are yours?
- NathanDavis, on 10/18/2007, -4/+0wikipedia
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/18/2007, -2/+11"No racial group of people has been shown to have any different intelligence than any other."
Who would fund such research in today's politically correct climate?
"We are all the same species."
Yes, we are. And some races are more prone to certain conditions than others, e.g. sickle cell. Just because we're all the same species does not mean we're all exactly the same.- staticneuron, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4"Race, they write, fits into no known genetic pattern. Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. This concept of race serves a social rather than a biological purpose. Different types of parentage have, at various times and places, given rise to racial labeling (e.g., “Aryan race,” “German race,” and “Jewish race”). Hence race is a highly inconsistent concept. In contemporary North American society, Blacks and coloreds are considered to be one “race,” since any individual who possess any degree of nonwhiteness is automatically grouped in the Black category."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Sure... you may have a point......... but you would have to define intelligence.
I am black and I am not prone to sickle cell
- staticneuron, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4"Race, they write, fits into no known genetic pattern. Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. This concept of race serves a social rather than a biological purpose. Different types of parentage have, at various times and places, given rise to racial labeling (e.g., “Aryan race,” “German race,” and “Jewish race”). Hence race is a highly inconsistent concept. In contemporary North American society, Blacks and coloreds are considered to be one “race,” since any individual who possess any degree of nonwhiteness is automatically grouped in the Black category."
- hmunkey, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1Technically races of humans are considered subspecies, much like different types of retrievers.
- ToadLeg, on 10/20/2007, -18/+16It's called education, technology, nutrition, and healthcare; not genetics.
- tehxen3, on 10/20/2007, -5/+10They all impact genes over generations.
Some people are less or more intelligent than others, it all depends on that persons and their parents genes.- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -6/+6If there were any genetic variation as a result of environmental factors, they would be expressed as differing physiological structures. All human brains are the same barring disease or developmental (i.e., not genetic) changes.
It's environment, not heredity. - emjaymj, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers.[8] Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). [9] Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture" debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the "nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the United States.
It's hereditary, not environmental. - thanakar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3It all goes back to "nature vs nurture", its both hereditary AND environmental. Both factors play in shaping a group of individuals.
- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -6/+6If there were any genetic variation as a result of environmental factors, they would be expressed as differing physiological structures. All human brains are the same barring disease or developmental (i.e., not genetic) changes.
- Navicerts, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5If they impact genes over generations it's a good reason to treat everyone equally.
- roodammy44, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Genes have been shown to be affected by the environment, in terms of which ones activate or not.
The truth is we still don't understand everything about how humans work even though we now know a lot about genetics. - gquaglia, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5Hey professor, if we are all the same, then how come some races are more susceptible to certain diseases while others are not. How come blacks have thicker skulls? We are not all the same. We may have started the same, but hundreds of years of evolution have changed that. Pull you head out of your altruistic ass and see the world for what it is..
- tehxen3, on 10/20/2007, -5/+10They all impact genes over generations.
- jamdogg, on 10/19/2007, -17/+3"Reality is not what you believe it is, reality is what is scientifically true" - this in itself is a statement of belief and thus how you percieve your reality.
- ToadLeg, on 10/18/2007, -8/+5Agreed. One problem is that nothing can be "scientifically true" because that implies a certainty. The other is that science makes no determination about reality. However, it could be said that reality determines science, because science is based on observations of reality.
Reality is actually an interesting thing, because you can never be certain about anything in it, and even defining it is difficult, if not impossible, because of this uncertainty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
- ToadLeg, on 10/18/2007, -8/+5Agreed. One problem is that nothing can be "scientifically true" because that implies a certainty. The other is that science makes no determination about reality. However, it could be said that reality determines science, because science is based on observations of reality.
- souljaboytellem, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3tests are based on your knowledge of that subject and how good you are under pressure of getting a good score.. not truely based on your overall intelligence which is (IMO) your ability to comprehend something and use it in real life
- hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1IQ tests.
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I thought the article's insinuation was that this "Dr." was going to some how connect intelligence with the genetics of different races? What does that have to do with "average lower intelligence" or "undernourishment and environmental factors over generations"? If your so interested in facts (which I totally am too!), why don't you look into IQ tests. Ask a scientist what he thinks about an IQ test.
- CeeAyy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+9If Asians aren't Black or White... what are they? Your comment doesn't make sense. The amount of melanin in your skin doesn't determine your "race". At what shade do you stop being one "race" and become another? What Continent do white people come from and what does that make Asians? Aren't Filipinos Asian? The country that you are born in doesn't define your race either. What "race" are American Indians? Are they white or black?
The truth is that our outward appearance is expressed by less than 2% of our genes. The suggestion that some of you are making is that 2% is so important as to completely dominate the other 98%. If any of you want to learn more about "race" and what is really going on in our societies I suggest visiting the National Geographic website. There is a whole section devoted to "race".
The differences we see as races are not that at all. Its all about geography and gene pools. Certain characteristics are common to an area not a race. (The passage of time is relevant) If that scientist's work is to be believed that would mean that Brits are smarter than the Irish for example. (Are they different races?). What about red skin vs. yellow skin vs. brown skin vs pink skin? (Does that mean that albinos are all incredibly smart?) If the point is continents then it would be that Asians are smarter than Europeans which are smarter than Australians which are smarter than Africans which are smarter than North Americans which are smarter than South Americans. Actually, why don't we do a study on who is smarter between Australians and Europeans? Why hasn't it happened yet? The answer to that would probably tell you why the current research is being done.
BTW, that scientist is not interested in a comprehensive look into what he considers racial intelligence, otherwise he would include ALL continents. If it was about skin color he would define race by melanin level or skin shade, actually ANY definition. He just says race as if that has been a term that is accepted by everyone. It has not been properly defined. If he is talking about culture then he is not talking about genes and his bias would be clear.
Here is the most ridiculous part of this whole thing... the less melanin you have the smarter you are? Oh, wait... people from India and Australia are considered Caucasians... Maybe its how kinky your hair is... no wait... a lot of so called white people have kinky hair. Hmmm... maybe it's the width or length of your nose... Ummm, the length of your torso? No... What physical feature correlates to intelligence? Maybe it's hat size? ... and that guy is considered a respected scientist... please. He was on a TEAM that discovered the structure of DNA. He didn't do it alone. He may not have done it at all. Being a part of that team doesn't make him brilliant nor always correct, not even usually correct. Just because a team does something extraordinary does not mean that all of its members are extraordinary (or even good). Chicago Bulls? Celtics? Yankees? Red Sox?
When you look at a lot of what that scientist says, he is given way to much respect. A lot of what he says is considered wacky even by his peers.- sockdemon, on 10/20/2007, -2/+5You forget that we're 98% chimp.
- CeeAyy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1If by "we" you mean your family, I guess I did forget. Your comment reminded me. Thanks.
- AceLy, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Very good comment. I hope everyone else will read it in its entirety instead of just stroking their egos and ignoring reality.
- sockdemon, on 10/20/2007, -2/+5You forget that we're 98% chimp.
- DDRSkata, on 10/19/2007, -3/+2I'm black and my IQ is 160.
- Monk22, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3doubt it, less than 1/4 of 1% of the population has an IQ over 140 much less 160.
- DDRSkata, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I mean, the paper is back at my mom's house. I can scan it next time I go home. Not that I really have a reason to prove anything to you.
- Monk22, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3doubt it, less than 1/4 of 1% of the population has an IQ over 140 much less 160.
- ToadLeg, on 10/19/2007, -23/+10No racial group of people has been shown to have any different intelligence than any other. We are all the same species.
- NeptuneZen, on 10/19/2007, -7/+9Dogs are all the same species, would you tell some one that all dogs are equal? But you also have to put it in perspective, there are many types of intelligence, reasoning, memory, intuition, common sense. Most people won't deny the blacks are generally better athletes, yet you will find athletes from other races better than black's. Its not simple and clear cut. The back lash about saying that other races are different then our own is almost as bad as racism. We should accept and embrace our differences. Look at the differences between males and females. Statistically men are stronger then women, but I've met many women stronger than me. For the most part the differences are minor and the only thing they affect are statistics. You will find exceptions, you will meet dumb asians, weak blacks and non alcoholic irish men (me for example). But if we do find that blacks brain structure is different that doesn't necessarily mean they are dumber, it could mean that they learn different. And if we cannot openly and objectively look at these differences then we are doing a great disservice to all races.
- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -6/+8Dogs are only the same species because our current classification system doesn't support the notion of a sub-subspecies. Nobody would argue that a black, white or asian person were as varied as a malamute, cocker spaniel or italian mastiff are.
Apples != Oranges.- ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I thought the definition of species wasn't arbitrary, that it was based on whether or not two individuals can produce viable offspring?
- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1...fertile offspring. And although I never said "arbitrary", it is next to it. Consider the existence of subspecies in the classification system. A subspecies would have many of the traits common to a species, but also be notably different. The qualifier there is a limited amount of interbreeding between subspecies.
- AceLy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yes. Fertile offspring. Not all combinations of breeds of dogs create fertile offspring. apples != orange indeed.
- hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Think of human races as breeds of retrievers. That makes it easy to see.
- ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I thought the definition of species wasn't arbitrary, that it was based on whether or not two individuals can produce viable offspring?
- CeeAyy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I like what you said and I appreciate anyone who thinks like you do. I just have two things to disagree with though.
First, There was never any study done that shows that Blacks are stronger or better athletes.
Second, dogs are not classified based on appearance so it's not an equal comparison. Are brown dogs faster than white dogs. Are dogs with spotted fur smarter? It's not an equivalent comparison.- hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Answer to part one, there were studies. http://www.helium.com/tm/255032/reality-blacks-dom ...
Part two, think of different breeds of retrievers, not completely different types of dogs.- CeeAyy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Reread my comment. There were studies done, no studies that show that Blacks are better athletes. That would require defining what "Black" is first of all. Also, you didn't link to a study, you kinked to an opinion piece by an author, not a scientist.
As for different breeds of dogs vs races of people, it's still not equivalent. There are traits that are specific to each breed. there aren't specific traits for each human "race". Any trait you could possibly name would be shared across the board in humans. There are pale "Blacks" and dark skinned "whites". If you know what "passing" is then you know what I am talking about.
- CeeAyy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Reread my comment. There were studies done, no studies that show that Blacks are better athletes. That would require defining what "Black" is first of all. Also, you didn't link to a study, you kinked to an opinion piece by an author, not a scientist.
- hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Answer to part one, there were studies. http://www.helium.com/tm/255032/reality-blacks-dom ...
- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -6/+8Dogs are only the same species because our current classification system doesn't support the notion of a sub-subspecies. Nobody would argue that a black, white or asian person were as varied as a malamute, cocker spaniel or italian mastiff are.
- chyya, on 10/18/2007, -11/+5its like saying all asian people are smarter than everyone else. even though its 99 percent true, its still a stereotype
- Meccabilly, on 10/19/2007, -83/+50WHY ARE YOU DIGGING THIS RACIST??
- ChrisAlbon, on 10/19/2007, -101/+35I think Watson's own remarks prove his theory incorrect.
- BillyBIanks, on 10/19/2007, -17/+47I think your lack of informed retort proves your bias.
- zyklon, on 10/19/2007, -15/+9I can't wait for his next retort: "NO U"
- ToadLeg, on 10/19/2007, -14/+5Yeah, we non-racists have this strange bias toward caring for humanity.
- itsthebrod, on 10/20/2007, -4/+26Stop saying it's racist you idiot. Just because difference racial groups adapted towards different goals thousands and thousands of years ago is in NO WAY THE SAME as saying "I hate black people!" Just shut the hell up already!
- tbydal, on 10/20/2007, -10/+4It is, however, remarkably similar to the logic used by the Nazis. Until there's any conclusive research, one should perhaps avoid professing it as truth, or expect to be labeled a racist.
- BillyBIanks, on 10/19/2007, -17/+47I think your lack of informed retort proves your bias.
- soteek, on 10/19/2007, -122/+36James Watson: a racist.
- no3gods, on 10/21/2007, -30/+80it's amazing, if the science points to evolution or liberal biases, then it's "true" research. However, if it points to a politically incorrect conclusion, then it's false research and the scientist is a racist. Pull your head out of the sand.
- Frostman3D, on 10/21/2007, -16/+25Glad to hear someone say that.
- Aitese, on 10/21/2007, -11/+37I'm glad you saw some research here as from my reading this article speaks of no actual scientific finding by the Dr himself to back up his claims. But what do I know...I'm black.
- Frostman3D, on 10/18/2007, -13/+4Yeah, but are you African? Cuz you might have lucked out by being Western as well. ;) Maybe that would cancel it out or something.
- Aitese, on 10/21/2007, -4/+19Both my parents are from Nigeria...being born in London does not, as far as I'm aware, change ones DNA
- twinklyJesus, on 10/21/2007, -2/+10Not every African is "black."
- hammerattack, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6And not every black is African.
- souljaboytellem, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3What I love is that white people act totally different around black people.. you see a white friend aquantence, whatever say hello and give him a handshake, but if you see a black friend your posture changes your vocabulary changes, not that this is all white people or anything to do with this article but hey ***** and giggles never hurt no one. :) dugg
- emjaymj, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2That's because people are fake and it has nothing to do with races. People just act around others in the way they believe they are expected to act. You'll see these same people act differently around different groups of white people too...
- mscamara, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Actually, there is a research quoted in the article: to paraphrase, "you just have to look at black employees to realize that whites are smarter than blacks"
- mscamara, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1double post, sorry
- Frostman3D, on 10/18/2007, -13/+4Yeah, but are you African? Cuz you might have lucked out by being Western as well. ;) Maybe that would cancel it out or something.
- Koldkompress, on 10/18/2007, -5/+7I think it's interesting, because I believe that this research (if true) does show that its evolution. Not everyone is equal, and due to surrounding situations, people change and pass on traits that are more successful in their environment.
- hooande, on 10/20/2007, -1/+8What research? This is just an article about his personal opinion. ...Did you even bother to read it? Here, see what it says for yourself:
"He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
As an expert geneticist, he's stating his opinion and saying that he might be scientifically proven within the next years. Does that really constitute "this research" to you? - Schrodinger, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3*****. A harvard graduate is likely to lave less kids than someone living in a trailer. Don't be so quick to rule out the influence of culture.
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Whether or not his research is "true", statistics (the conditions of which we know little of) are not always indicative of fact. The term "socio-economic" mitigates the results so strongly, one could hardly make an assumption.
- hooande, on 10/20/2007, -1/+8What research? This is just an article about his personal opinion. ...Did you even bother to read it? Here, see what it says for yourself:
- PTCHFRKR, on 10/18/2007, -5/+4You would do well to abandon your liberal-media conspiracy theory *****, no3gods.
- frazw, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7From a scientific standpoint, what he says while unsubstantiated may be true. The separate evolutionary paths mean geographical separation which means different environment, resources and diet. We already have evidence that diet is very important for brain function and it is possible that evolving with a specific diet could mean evolving a higher thinking capacity. Where the best diet for such evolution was or is though is obscured by socio-economic factors and it becomes very hard to tell if there is even an effect.
All of that aside the differences are clearly minimal if any so much so that you could never judge whether people are more or less intelligent than anyone else simply by appearance. Intelligence is also difficult to quantify and perhaps our current idea of intelligence is unnaturally skewed towards a particular way of thinking.
This whole argument is similar to saying white people are worse athletes. Again this may be true. Evolution offers a credible reason why we could be different in that regard. I don't know if any of these points are true all I'm saying is it is possible.
I think it is wrong for us to ignore the differences between us both as individuals and as part of our countries and races. Diversity is what led us to rule this planet.
There is, however, a huge difference between acknowledging differences and using them to divide.- octophobic, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6I agree with your post but I think it's important to emphasize even more the fact that intelligence is difficult to measure and that there is no consensus on what it is. Testing for intelligence may also include cultural and economic bias that is difficult to eliminate.
- starmanjones, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2or maybe... its the confounded opinion of a senile old racist. here's a more likely answer than genetics. poverty is rampant. education a luxury. the ability to see whats going on in the wider world... hinders formation of more sophisticated points of view. cultural and language prejudices. as well as experience in taking tests.
nope, this is a measure of poverty.
you are exhibiting the same thing but different when you can support these kinds of claims. your education... experience... are effecting your ethical IQ compared to those of us who recognize a racist opinion that is easily rebutted... so you can digest what i said i'll put it in simpler terms.
we see it as the obvious ***** it is.
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1i wish someone would study the intelligence of people who jump to rapid, disgusting conclusions about things like "the science" and "the truth."
- FluffyWolf, on 10/19/2007, -15/+15Why are you burying soteek? He is absolutely right, if James Watson believes there are significant differences in potential between human "races" (for lack of better word), then James IS a racist by definition. It doesn't matter if he has any scientific grounds or not.
Well, his reasoning does not seem that scientific to me, so there is a chance that he is a racist of the same old same old school, which claim they are right because they are right. Saying that all tests are indicating that Africans are less intelligent is very unscientific talk, and is simply wrong, all tests never say the same thing in soft sciences.- hammerattack, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10The problem with calling him racist is that in these politically correct times, racism automatically implies bigotry. My reading of Watson's comments doesn't lead me to believe that he believes that blacks are inferior to other races. He uses language which makes me believe that he subscribes to the theory of multiple intelligences (i.e., you - as a writer - can suck at math, but be really good with writing, and therefore are just as intelligent as a mathematician). Ultimately, he never said that black people were stupid (despite a headline to the contrary), just that they weren't intelligent in the same way that white westerners were.
The continued decline of African civilization despite billions of international investment tend to back him up.- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2The decline of African civilization has more to do with geography than "international investment", most of which by the way is intended to turn a profit, not help Africans (define third world country). Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". He uses much better science to justify the situation in places like Africa. He even made a movie, which would probably suit you better hammerattack. Oh yeah, I forgot to call YOU a racist.
- hammerattack, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1That book is an anti-globalist pile of pro-marxist crap whose author is quite possibly an idiot. YOU need to read "Law, Custom, and Social Order The Colonial Experience in Malawi and Zambia". It's the imposition of western lifestyles that have caused the social decline, not some cabal of greedy capitalists.
- itzac, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1How about the imposition of western lifestyles by a cabal of greedy capitalists?
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2The decline of African civilization has more to do with geography than "international investment", most of which by the way is intended to turn a profit, not help Africans (define third world country). Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". He uses much better science to justify the situation in places like Africa. He even made a movie, which would probably suit you better hammerattack. Oh yeah, I forgot to call YOU a racist.
- frazw, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5That is not racism, racism is borne of prejudice and hatred.
I agree that metastudies of this type are far from conclusive but evolution tells us that there will be differences between groups which have evolved separately.
Differences are not bad things and simply noticing them doesn't make you racist. How you deal with them is what makes you a racist. Whether there is a difference to be noticed is debatable and perhaps his seeing it from fairly unscientific means hints at a little latent racism, but evolution supports his argument at least in principle in the same way that a Cheetah can run faster than a Lion. Again I must say that evolution only provides a possible explanation, whether there is anything to be explained is the real issue. - souljaboytellem, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I'm sorry, i missed the part where he said " I hate black people"
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2racism is not just about seething hate. it's about thinking less of people because of external factors like skin color and geography. watson fits the bill.
- hammerattack, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10The problem with calling him racist is that in these politically correct times, racism automatically implies bigotry. My reading of Watson's comments doesn't lead me to believe that he believes that blacks are inferior to other races. He uses language which makes me believe that he subscribes to the theory of multiple intelligences (i.e., you - as a writer - can suck at math, but be really good with writing, and therefore are just as intelligent as a mathematician). Ultimately, he never said that black people were stupid (despite a headline to the contrary), just that they weren't intelligent in the same way that white westerners were.
- Recluse, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Wow nice knee jerk reaction there.
- no3gods, on 10/21/2007, -30/+80it's amazing, if the science points to evolution or liberal biases, then it's "true" research. However, if it points to a politically incorrect conclusion, then it's false research and the scientist is a racist. Pull your head out of the sand.
- lOvOl, on 10/27/2007, -22/+206This may be true in the general sense, however, I think people should not be judged through the collectivist lens of grouping people into categories, rather they should be judged on their individual merits.
You could also say that most Chinese are short and therefore none of them should ever bother to be looked at as serious NBA potential, yet look at Yao Ming?
I know it is next to impossible for most people to be colorblind to race when judging someone on an individual level, but one hallmark of a civilized society is that people are judged based upon merit rather than prejudice. A lot of people would be surprised to know that the group of high schoolers in the United States with the highest GPA happen to be African immigrants (sorry I can't dig up sources to this). Americans of African descent, unfortunately have the lowest GPA scores of any group. Of course, the best and the brightest from around the world still continue to seek opportunity in America which is probably one reason for the disparities in GPA, but this is all the more reason people should not be so quick to judge a book by its cover.- desqjockey, on 10/19/2007, -5/+21Plus there is still some prejudice against black people being smart, so the really smart ones had to try that much harder to overcome it.
- kunfu, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Their is no evidence at this time to suggest that their is a genetic bases that goes across race lines for intelligence. May their be some day? Possible. At this time however it is irresponsible for any scientist or person to claim such a basis. At this point sure we can say on average a person of African American decent has a lower GPA, but might that be a result of social oppression? One last thing, although what he said is awful in no way should he be charged with a crime, its freedom of speech whether or not we like the speech.
- EvilYoshi89, on 10/19/2007, -7/+5Prejudice against smart black people?
What the hell are talking about.
Do you even know how the college admissions system works in America? - kuzotz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Yea they set a quota on how many minorities that get accepted. Of course this allows for there to be at all times more white students than minority students. Of course the minority applicants still must be qualified, and still must beat out the competition like everyone else, but unlike the white students. Once quota has been met for their group.. All applicants of that minority group will be put on a waiting list before the white applicants are(meaning there is a quota for minorities, and a bigger quota to enroll white students in ) This keeps white students as a majority on a campus.
Walk into a classroom at any university, and for every 20 white students there is 1 black student.
I'm sorry but yes something is wrong with that. I mean if a black person isn't considered dumb before they could even open their mouths now we're getting crap from people like you yoshi.
BTW I'm African American. Computer Engineer major. Sophomore with a 3.61 GPA in the Honors College...
African AMerican students in college bust their asses harder than their white counter parts just so they can be taken seriously. We have to do double the effort for eveyrthing to impress your ***** white ass.
***** alll of you racist *****.
- EvilYoshi89, on 10/19/2007, -7/+5Prejudice against smart black people?
- known, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Perhaps due to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
- known, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Perhaps due to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
- kunfu, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Their is no evidence at this time to suggest that their is a genetic bases that goes across race lines for intelligence. May their be some day? Possible. At this time however it is irresponsible for any scientist or person to claim such a basis. At this point sure we can say on average a person of African American decent has a lower GPA, but might that be a result of social oppression? One last thing, although what he said is awful in no way should he be charged with a crime, its freedom of speech whether or not we like the speech.
- Drogoganor, on 10/21/2007, -2/+19I agree with what you're saying. Although I think you would agree that Yao Ming is the exception rather than the rule. =)
I also think human beings are innately prejudiced and suspicious of that which is different, to some degree. Some people like to push a simplistic view that people should not be racist or prejudiced at all. I think this goes against our natural instincts - what we should really be doing is understanding that we have our natural instincts, but we should temper them with reason and understand that not everyone is the same and our pre-conceived notions are not always right.- desqjockey, on 10/21/2007, -2/+10And that we as humans often make our observations fit our pre-conceptions.
- JohnFlux, on 10/21/2007, -5/+8Exactly. Why is speaking loudly about black vs. white IQs, but not poor vs. rich IQs? The rich have tend to score higher on IQ tests than poor people.
The reason is because if he included that, then people might be forced to come to conclusion that it's mostly about nutrition, standard of living, education etc, and not racial reason like the author wants us to conclude.- Maddjonesy, on 10/21/2007, -4/+7I agree, I think it would be shown that the reason African-Americans may have a lower average I.Q. is more to do with the fact that historically the majority come from poor backgrounds. When slavery was abolished African-Americans had to start afresh, from the bottom of the economic scale.
This hasn't stopped many of them overcoming this however, and providing their families with a better standard of living, which in turn allows their offspring a better education. And better education = better I.Q. levels. - cdahlkvist, on 10/19/2007, -6/+5I know. It's like that whole crap about blacks being predisposed to Sickle Cell Anemia. I bet that has more to do with nutrition, standard of living and lack of education too.
This whole DNA thingie is just a passing fad. Just a matter of time before they realize that DNA is not real. - pegisys, on 10/19/2007, -5/+5it's not just blacks with sickle cell many white people from parts of the world where malaria was highly distributed are predisposed as well. It's evolution, not genetics, but something tells me that James Watson probably doesn't believe in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria#Sickle-cell_d ...
What is really funny is that it has been proven that there is no IQ gene and that intelligence is a result of socialization and conditioning. So what is going to happen when you start treating a group of people like they are stupid and not giving them the opportunity to learn? They are going to become more ignorant or stuck on the highest level they have achieved - mahdaeng, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4Except that the studies are supposedly based on DNA rather than on social factors.
- emjaymj, on 10/22/2007, -3/+3FOR THE LAST TIME, IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS, DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION:
Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers.[8] Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). [9] Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture" debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the "nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the United States. - ZenMojo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1@mahdaeng
Supposedly? RTFA, the man bases his beliefs on nothing but statistics, not genetics at all. He just assumes that genes will eventually prove what he thinks tests currently show.
- Maddjonesy, on 10/21/2007, -4/+7I agree, I think it would be shown that the reason African-Americans may have a lower average I.Q. is more to do with the fact that historically the majority come from poor backgrounds. When slavery was abolished African-Americans had to start afresh, from the bottom of the economic scale.
- JohnFlux, on 10/21/2007, -5/+8Exactly. Why is speaking loudly about black vs. white IQs, but not poor vs. rich IQs? The rich have tend to score higher on IQ tests than poor people.
- John0877, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3people will have a hard time doing that because then that means to an extent that there is no way to change who we are or what we are. people usually have problems with not being in control. plus to some to say we have instincts means we are animals and most people like to think that humans are above mere animals when we are in fact animals, just more intelligent animals but animals nonetheless.
- Drogoganor, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4That's very true. And that's the trap that people fall into on the other end of the spectrum too - thinking that one cannot or should not control ones nature, I guess.
- souljaboytellem, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0Thank you for pointing out the difference in exception and rule..big difference
- desqjockey, on 10/21/2007, -2/+10And that we as humans often make our observations fit our pre-conceptions.
- hisXenocide, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8completely agree. however true this may be, it shouldn't matter cause it doesn't say anything about the individual. It's not right to condemn anyone because of what others in his stereotype may be like.
- frazw, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2well said
- Asianwaste, on 10/18/2007, -2/+11Yup. You aren't what you are given, but what you do with what you are given.
- ethnicman, on 10/19/2007, -12/+38While this may be true. It is not due to a general lower IQ due to genetics. it is a socio-cultural thing. Immigrant "blacks", and I say blacks because they may be darker skin complexion but not necessarily Africa, typically have a greater drive for education and their parents tend to be more involved in developing that drive. Unfortunately, US born kids tend to not have that same drive and particularly less so among the low income "black" community. Here it is not uncommon to hear the comment "acting white" if someone strives to do well in school. And kids being kids, tend to want to fit in rather than stand out and if their parents are not motivating them to continue doing well in school they will choose the path of least resistance and this causes their GPAs to go down and since this happens en masse the general GPA score goes down with it.
- frazw, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Economics come into it strongly too
- coustoe, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2There have been numerous studies of IQ and Race. Yes in general despite cultural influences such as a person being adopted, IQ differences persist.
It is true though that through education and culture one can raise a person IQ, but genetics determines the cap, So a person with a naturally lower IQ will not be able to suprass someone with a naturally higher IQ given the same education and culture, though both persons IQ will increase due to cultural and educational influences.
There are always exceptions and as the original commentator stated generalities should not influence your interactions on a individual level.- ZenMojo, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1"There have been numerous studies of IQ and Race. Yes in general despite cultural influences such as a person being adopted, IQ differences persist."
That's intentionally misleading. While it's true that differences persist despite environment, these differences are not consistent across any one race. In short, while there are studies with heritability as the control, there are no studies where race and heritability are not constant. Once you find a study with black children adopted by white families (an incredibly rare occurrence, in fact, as white parents are reluctant to adopt black children, perhaps because of prevailing stereotypes), then maybe we can discuss this. Simply saying that black people have slightly lower average IQ scores than whites, that IQ is partially heritable, and therefore white people are naturally smarter than blacks is retarded and scientifically dishonest. It denies the reality that blacks have 200% the poverty rates of whites, which affects nutrition, environment, AND education!
- ZenMojo, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1"There have been numerous studies of IQ and Race. Yes in general despite cultural influences such as a person being adopted, IQ differences persist."
- CandidateZero, on 10/18/2007, -18/+9Intelligently put. You must be white.
- Maddjonesy, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3dude, not funny, just racist.
- itsthebrod, on 10/18/2007, -2/+5Racist jokes are some of the best ones. Of course, I'm sure you get your humor from old sitcom reruns so I'm not surprised you're offended.
- hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Old sitcoms like... Archie Bunker?
- itsthebrod, on 10/18/2007, -2/+5Racist jokes are some of the best ones. Of course, I'm sure you get your humor from old sitcom reruns so I'm not surprised you're offended.
- Maddjonesy, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3dude, not funny, just racist.
- Eleo, on 10/19/2007, -3/+3I have serious doubts things would happen that way. Already now, it doesn't work that way. It would only be exacerbated by widespread belief of intellectual superiority/inferiority based on race. In an ironic sense, I think humanity overall is too stupid to be left to act rationally with such knowledge.
- smartalecks, on 10/18/2007, -11/+12Look, Watson is 72 years old. Surely these are the sentiments of an older generation, one that I hoped we would have moved on from! Besides, there is not really any _genetic_ proof that Africans aren't as intelligent, only statistics! I really think it has more to do with the culture among or marketed to African Americans, a culture in which it isn't cool to care about school (ex. think of the most stereotypical (modern) gangster from New York. What color is he? Exactly).
Suggested reading: Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Of, if you aren't into reading, it is also a documentary xD- algo, on 10/18/2007, -7/+3good point, maybe white westerners are smarter than Africans on average but this research implies it is *genetic*. which i find ridiculous.
- elipabst, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2@ LivingHealthy Most traits that are different arise from either being in environments with different selective pressures or from random genetic drift when a trait is neutral. Intelligence would clearly be an important factor regardless of what environment you are in, so I find it extremely doubtful that there was somehow less of a selective pressure to be smart in Africa than in Europe or Asia.:
- hmunkey, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1@Elipabst, there was, simply put. The Western world is very developed so we have a strong focus on education and higher-class jobs. Africa is less developed as has less focus. See what I mean?
- elipabst, on 10/19/2007, -1/+0What you consider to be the modern Western world has only been around for a trivial amount of time on an evolutionary scale and therefore is absolutely too short of a time period for significant differences in intelligence to have evolved. Almost all the racial differences you observe have evolved in the last 60,000 years when humans were still hunter-gatherers. I can see no reasonable explanation for why intelligence would be selected for in europe and asia, but not in africa. Humans in both areas were doing there best to outsmart animals and each other. Those that succeeded survived and passed on their genes to their offspring.
- ZenMojo, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3Guns, Germs, and Steel is interesting, but I'm not particularly convinced it applies in this case. A more succinct description: "Public schools on average outperform private schools. Public schools are paid for with property taxes. Black people are disproportionately poor. Public schools are, appropriately, poorly funded as well."
If you want to know why black students do poorly in school, start with how poorly their schools are doing.- Baelorn, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3This isn't necessarily true. I went to a public school where the majority was was white, it was a nice school. However the VP(dumb bitch) once left the stats for the last state-test laying around and black students scored the lowest. Motivation is the key to being well educated and I think that is what is missing.
- ZenMojo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Funny, in my school black students scored the highest on PSAT and SATs and my school was a blue ribbon school. Anecdotal evidence is good for proving exceptions to a rule but is incapable of setting a rule.
- algo, on 10/18/2007, -7/+3good point, maybe white westerners are smarter than Africans on average but this research implies it is *genetic*. which i find ridiculous.
- BubbleBobble, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5Fully agree.
The problem is that there is no CAUSAL relation between race and intelligence. We might as well come up with a study relating blue to brown eyed and green eyed people people and find that eye colour is related to intelligence, appetite or whatever (if the group size is large enough).
Furthermore, categorization can only be done if strict uniform rules apply to the category you are describing. As an example, you can separate people who ate rice from people who never ate rice. In this situation there is no "in-between" group. The problem is that many variables like eye colour, skin colour etc. are pseudo-categorical and often continuous in real life.- betterth, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5"The problem is that there is no CAUSAL relation between race and intelligence"
People of a certain lineage have dominant traits to control the melatonin in their skin, as well as a thousand other things, which denote "race". They also get traits controlling their brain, the amount of neurons, the efficiency of them, etc, and the traits controlling this are passed through their race. Interracial relationships alter this, but especially if the genes controlling factors in the brain are dominant, than it's very easy to understand how intelligence and race can be linked.
However, no one is 100% a single race, and interbreeding is more and more common, so that's mostly a moot point anyway.- hooande, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3The amount and efficiency of neurons, huh? Right.
- devindotcom, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I went to public schools and a state university (UCLA) and I happen to have a degree in Neuroscience.
- hooande, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3The amount and efficiency of neurons, huh? Right.
- betterth, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5"The problem is that there is no CAUSAL relation between race and intelligence"
- CookieTrain, on 10/21/2007, -3/+46There are differences between all races. The Aborigines in Australia has a different metabolism, Inuits have more fat layered in their skin, Kenyans have longer shin bones than the rest which makes them generally better runners that most people. Africans have larger penises than Japanese.
It his hard to believe that from evolution we can have different traits, or genetically differences like these ,but yet our brain are 100% identical ?- Myztry, on 10/19/2007, -4/+2And as controversial as this is. African's American's were also effectively subjected to selective breeding during the slave trading era.
Mix breeding between the races should be removing / proliferating attributes between the races though.
Although intelligence (and other attributes) seem to vary between races, it definitely does within races.
We all the same species, and it's our humanity that we should be having pride/embarrassment over. - hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -7/+3They are, in fact, 100% identical barring disease or developmental restrictions. The adaptations you cite can be made in a matter of generations. Neurological development has occurred over mllienia.
- ScratchyJoe, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2Are brains are not 100% identical....more like 80%..size shape and thickness of key membranes.
- devindotcom, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I like how you guys are pulling numbers out of your ass... based on my experience, it seems that the most arguable position is that brains have differing levels of likeness depending on the level of organization you're looking at.
- ZenMojo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The problem isn't that what he's saying is controversial, it's that what he is saying is wrong. The Bell Curve is archaic, obsolete, and has not held up under peer review. Quoting archaic "science" is simply lying.
- Myztry, on 10/19/2007, -4/+2And as controversial as this is. African's American's were also effectively subjected to selective breeding during the slave trading era.
- betterth, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8I agree in part, but this article isn't about merit and achievement. it's about genetics. And your intelligence is denoted by what, the pattern and amount of neurons and how efficiently and accurately they fire to create memory, wit, etc. These factors are all controlled by genetics. It is perfectly possible that the evolutionary tract taken by Europeans created a more capable brain than the tract taken by Africans. It's just evolutionary statistics, the tract taken by one group of people will statically be more likely to be better or worse, not the same.
Now, African Americans or whatever the ***** we're supposed to call black people these days are hardly affected by that, since there is so much interbreeding that the genetic makeup will now include European, African, Asian, and everything in between. I'm not sure I've ever met a person who claimed direct, 100% African lineage, so this argument being made here is a moot point for most people outside of Africa.- Stevethegreat, on 10/19/2007, -6/+2Now, there is no ***** connection between genetics and intelligence. I would would like you tell me the same in the Middle-Ages, for what I know whites were dumb as hell back then and if anything the "Browns" (Muslims) were considerably more intelligent. Where's your theory of intelligence now, huh? Don't forget that we're actually also black people that came of Africa around 50 thousand years ago, now 50 thousand years are too little to make any concrete difference between us and our cousins, the Africans. Hell, we have 7 MILLION years of difference between us and chimps and only then there is some noticeable difference, but still Africans are in the low 70s (compared to the 50s that chimps are), while we are in the high 90s, there is no chance in the world that in 50 thousands years we are "evolved" faster than we did in those 7 MILLION years..... Peace
- frazw, on 10/19/2007, -5/+2What about skin colour? Would you consider that to be 50,000 years worth of difference? It is clear that if there are any differences they are very minor but to deny they potentially exist is ridiculous. There are obviously socio-economic factors present and they obscure any information regarding the genetic link to intelligence.
Also is it not possible that with intelligence on our side we had more directed evolution than other species for a short time because we controlled our environment. Just a thought not saying any of this is fact- Stevethegreat, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3The genes that control skin color are thousands of times less complex and as a result a lot more modifiable. What do you think took apes some millions of years to create such a kind of high intelligence? The intelligencia takes millions of years to be modified, concerning its hardware, and that's has been proved over and over again in the evolutionary sciences. If Mr Watson thinks its genetics what makes Africans less intelligent he's -to the least- uninformed of the most recent advance in his science. No; even throughout history, it has been proved, that only our software (ethics, codes of morality, behavior) can change our collective intelligence, it's not an accident that the most humane societies have progressed further in the latest centuries...
- Stevethegreat, on 10/19/2007, -4/+2It's commendable that the Dutch for example from an average 70 IQ (concerning today's standards) in the early 1900s rose to high 100s in the late 1900s, in less than a century they put up 30 points of IQ, EXACTLY because they modified their societal rules, that's exactly what can happen on African communities, and this does not need money, only enlightenment (in its broad sense)
- frazw, on 10/19/2007, -5/+2What about skin colour? Would you consider that to be 50,000 years worth of difference? It is clear that if there are any differences they are very minor but to deny they potentially exist is ridiculous. There are obviously socio-economic factors present and they obscure any information regarding the genetic link to intelligence.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/19/2007, -6/+2Now, there is no ***** connection between genetics and intelligence. I would would like you tell me the same in the Middle-Ages, for what I know whites were dumb as hell back then and if anything the "Browns" (Muslims) were considerably more intelligent. Where's your theory of intelligence now, huh? Don't forget that we're actually also black people that came of Africa around 50 thousand years ago, now 50 thousand years are too little to make any concrete difference between us and our cousins, the Africans. Hell, we have 7 MILLION years of difference between us and chimps and only then there is some noticeable difference, but still Africans are in the low 70s (compared to the 50s that chimps are), while we are in the high 90s, there is no chance in the world that in 50 thousands years we are "evolved" faster than we did in those 7 MILLION years..... Peace
- aschocobo, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigrants#Ed ...
though it's a wiki source, it does have citations, if that counts for anything.. - moracity, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Nice post. The problem with the strides that we've made in genetics, is that things like this may come to the surface. Science was resisted so much in the beginning precisely because of discoveries that did not fit neatly into socially accepted ideology and religious dogma. Genes, if we understand what we are looking at, don't lie.
Your genes control the formation and structure of your neural synapses. The mouse models used in Alzheimer's and Down syndrome research have help identify the specific synapses that control memory and learning. Depending on the gene expression, the structure can be variably "abnormal", resulting in cognitive impairment.
In the end, it is what it is and, like anything else, the information can be used to support any argument...good or bad. - Stevethegreat, on 10/18/2007, -4/+5Indeed the Africans (those who live in Africa, especially the Sub-Saharan part of it) have considerably lower collective IQ than the rest of the world and that's indeed a major cause of both their problems and the rest of the world's as well, I don't get why Watchon was banned from his speech by just stating what statistic speaks us about Africa.
BUT (and here comes the big "but"), Africans are the way they are exactly because they are suppressed the last 5 centuries or so, they never had proper education, they always fought for survival one way or another (first it was the slavers, now their corrupt princes and tribe leaders) with only brief periods of relative well being through the last centuries, they NEVER had the chance to make a high IQ population. I guess their IQs are proportional to those that, us, "whities" had in the Medieval.
What they need is a renaissance and this would never come by giving them yet even more money but bythe banishment of evil which is the close-mindness and the ignorance, it's encouraging that finally advanced countries decided to help those people in a meaningful way, giving them tools of knowledge and wisdom (OLPC) instead of yet even more money which would be smuggled by the local princes. - gwhardyiv, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I think Watson is talking about government. In that context, collective generalizations regarding the intellectual abilities of the governed would be appropriate. Government doesn't care about the outlying anomalies in a population, they gain their consent from the average. I'm not agreeing with what Watson is saying, I'm just saying that the Chinese basketball team analogy doesn't really fit.
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2I dugg you down and I am kind of upset you got dugg so high. Northern Chinese people are actually quite tall. It is a racist view that America holds ( wherein all Asians are compared to Japanese) that keeps these stereotypes alive. If you've ever been to Northern China ( i.e. Shanghai where Yao Ming is from) or Mongolia, the average height of an individual is around 6 feet tall. As Americans our Asian experience tends to be dominated by Japanese cultural values and traits, which is unfair and makes us look idiotic.
Point being, you can't look at Yao Ming as Yao though ridiculous tall, had ridiculously tall ancestors and its not shock he is tall. Black Africans ( which you have to clarify because large number of white africans live in south africa) are probably not as smart as whites. They don't place a need on creating a society and have been destroyed by centuries of European oppression.
This doesn't mean anything other than forcing us to find a new way to help them as continually throwing money and a few workers armed with food at the problem has not made a dent. - burrito4891, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1"Suggested reading: Guns, Germs, and Steel. " REQUIRED READING. that book completely opened my mind on human evolution. I would be really interested if studies could be done to determine racial or sexual intelligence differences, but unfortunately I think we live in an age where many people would be offended by the results. Even If white people turn out to be the dumbest version of humans (or at least the most violent), I'd still be interested.
- richmondphotog, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1best comment. i shall read no further.
- desqjockey, on 10/19/2007, -5/+21Plus there is still some prejudice against black people being smart, so the really smart ones had to try that much harder to overcome it.
- Jus7in, on 10/22/2007, -103/+180Amazing how most diggers will applaud and worship science when it meets their needs (say, further proof of evolution or an Al Gore documentary) but cry foul when it goes against their emotional sensibilities.
This is old news, but it is good to see a(nother) Nobel Prize winner speaking the truth.- crestfall, on 10/19/2007, -5/+14Looks to me like "most Diggers" are supporting your sentiments with their comments and ratings.
- Gggarth, on 10/20/2007, -31/+105This is no science. How was the "testing" done ? How do you measure intelligence ? Through westerners-designed IQ tests ? He claims it will be proven through gene studies in ten years. Which means he has not found any proof of what he's saying now. This isn't science, it's just a scientist using his declining credibility to justify his racism.
- OhROFL, on 10/18/2007, -7/+5Do you prefer the click test? Starvin' Marvin might.
- alexanEmpire, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1What the ***** are you babbling about?
- TheUngod, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1I'd gladly take a test created by Africans, assuming it wasn't specifically about African culture. A logic test is hard to make specifically biased toward one culture. Logic is logic.
- ZellD, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Well.... Logic isn't not as culturally universal as you might think. Confucius for example used common sense instead of syllogism. Both were types of logic, but very different.
It would be really hard to design a cross cultural test that was perfectly equal. Even the testing language, word order, etc effect it. IQ tests are measured in seconds, certain langauges provide contextual clues earlier in the sentance than others. - queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1yeah "logic is logic" (tautology?), and they teach it in school, assuming your village can afford a school that gets past reading and basic math.
- ZellD, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Well.... Logic isn't not as culturally universal as you might think. Confucius for example used common sense instead of syllogism. Both were types of logic, but very different.
- Zique, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Oh please, it's not that simple. There's a war going on over how much of the difference in IQ can be attributed to genes and there doesn't seem to be a consensus, yet there's proof for and against either side. "He has not found any proof" is only misleading.
- Tmax88, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3The "western bias IQ test" claim is easy to rebut: no one has been able to formulate a test upon which blacks score higher. Many have tried, if for no other reason to avoid scrutiny and lawsuits when testing candidates for, say, police positions. And there are mountains of data, both empirical and scientific, that indicate that blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites. Whites, in turn, happen to score slightly lower than asians. What's the big deal? Get over it.
- OhROFL, on 10/18/2007, -7/+5Do you prefer the click test? Starvin' Marvin might.
- mcmlxxii, on 10/19/2007, -5/+14If you read the whole article it looks like this guy is fond of making outrageous comments. I'm not suggesting he is right or wrong - I'd chime in by saying I have encountered a not insignificant amount of extremely stupid white people - I'm just saying it looks like this guy is very fond of lighting the touchpaper and then standing back to watch the ensuing fireworks.
- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4He's not fond of qualifying his statements. If you read the article and give him the benefit of the doubt, you find that he's not trying to be objectional. What he really said was "western ideas of intelligence are not applicable across racial boundaries and this is why our policy has failed", not "black folk are dumb".
- mcmlxxii, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Well possibly, although if he really said that then there really wouldn't have been the need for him to say this (Guardian Unlimited):
The DNA pioneer James Watson today apologised "unreservedly" for his apparent claim that black people are less intelligent than whites.
"I am mortified about what has happened," he told a group of scientists and journalists at the launch of his new book, Avoid Boring People, at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have."
- aracne, on 10/19/2007, -10/+28If you actually knew something about science, you wouldn't be impressed about his credentials for spouting baseless statements supported by a highly discredited research method. Intelligence depends on environment, so until he shows how to measure only the genetic component of it, he is talking up his ass.
Yes, people who don't know how to read are "less intelligent". We already knew that. It is not scientific to say that because most Africans are uneducated or whatever, blacks are less intelligent. Because, you know, "uneducated" can be the important part, and nobody has found out how to control for that.- asdf2000, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2people who don't know how to read are "less intelligent" ?
errrr... your post confused me- aracne, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2The tests can be praticed. They are tailored for our culture. They are calibrated using intelligent people here. People who do know how to read do better on those test. That makes the tests unsuited to measure innate intelligence, not uneducated people stupid.
- asdf2000, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2people who don't know how to read are "less intelligent" ?
- lnf69, on 10/19/2007, -15/+20I think it is horrible that this piece of ***** Watson uses his credentials as a Nobel laureate to express unscientific opinion.
Plus the guy won the nobel in 1962! That's prehistoric times when it comes to genetics and DNA studies.- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/19/2007, -6/+5And he stole his research from a woman, who never got recognition.
- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7Rumor control here to clean up your mess: Watson (and Crick) didn't steal anything. The data was freely given. Also, the woman in question was long dead when the Nobel Committee awarded the prize. The rules don't allow awarding of prizes to dead folk.
Get your ***** straight.
- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7Rumor control here to clean up your mess: Watson (and Crick) didn't steal anything. The data was freely given. Also, the woman in question was long dead when the Nobel Committee awarded the prize. The rules don't allow awarding of prizes to dead folk.
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2look, you can respect his contribution to science *and* wish he'd take his senile ass off to a secluded nursing home. there would be no modern "genetics and dna studies" without the discovery watson, crick, and franklin made.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/19/2007, -6/+5And he stole his research from a woman, who never got recognition.
- scottfarner, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3People applaud and worship science, not when it is convenient to them, but rather when it is based on sound scientific principles.
- Lixie, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8Galileo might think otherwise.
- queenstarsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1should read: "*Good scientists* applaud and worship science, not when it is convenient to them, but rather when it is based on sound scientific principles."
- asdf2000, on 10/19/2007, -4/+1He was probably so stoned he didn't even realize what he was saying
- BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yeah that's typical of nobel prize winning scientists, to be stoned.
- asdf2000, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Well, he was stoned when he came up with the double helix model for DNA.
original post was a joke btw..
- asdf2000, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Well, he was stoned when he came up with the double helix model for DNA.
- BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yeah that's typical of nobel prize winning scientists, to be stoned.
- pr0t0, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7Well, even if in ten years some study is done proving that black people are somehow genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people, it won't change my mind. I'm white, all of my friends and coworkers are white, and most of the people I interact with from day to day are white. Believe me when I tell you there is no shortage of ignorant, undereducated white people in the world. It's a nature vs. nurture issue... in my experience nurture is the deciding factor.
If you raise a child in a good school system with strong support from family he will likely be smarter than a child who was not raised in similar conditions, Regardless of color.- BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1The data doesn't show that though. That's the point. Even at the same socio-economic situation, the data supports Watson. In fact, well-off black children do worse on IQ tests than well-off white children. I mean, the only reason people argue is because they think somehow if one race is inferior or superior in some trait, then they're overall inferior or superior... but all it really means is that environmental pressures molded that specific trait. As there are distinct physical differences, it's not unreasonable to accept that something so variable as the brain could also have differences. Everyone alive today is the result of millions of years of evolution. We're all the survivors, the superiors. All that matters is ensuring that the future humans have the best of our traits. It's not evil to learn more about varying strengths/weaknesses. In fact, it's evil to conceal strengths/weaknesses.
- pintomp3, on 10/19/2007, -6/+4it's not science, it's the opinion of a scientist. he doesn't have any tests or data. it's amazing how many racist diggers jumped on this as proof of their preexisting racist notions.
- elipabst, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Yeah, Watson has repeatedly proved himself to be a misogynist and a racist. Granted, that doesn't take away from his discoveries, but people forget that he's a biochemist/biophysicist and not a biostatistician or population geneticist (in fact his PhD is in zoology). He certainly isn't the first scientist to turn into a nutjob later in life. The fact that the gp post is modded +40 is sickening.
- W00DR0W, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I guess it doesn't matter that modern geneticists think he's wrong, because they're just being PC and biased by their incorrect knowledge of how humans have evolved.
- theuniversal, on 10/19/2007, -3/+8"... people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"
You are truly a moron if you think that comment is based on anything remotely resembling science.
The only thing Watson's comments actually prove is that you can be a genius in a lab and still be an ignorant ***** on matters outside your expertise. But no surprise there. Just read the words of virtually any of the most 'intelligent' thinkers through history, and for all their genius, they are still blinded by the prejudices of the society and time they live in. So it's not particularly amazing to hear that Watson - an old white guy who understands genetics - also holds the ignorant views of the era and society he grew up in.
There may be subtle genetic differences in the brains of people with different skin color, but those differences are minuscule compared to the variance of individuals and the huge social and environmental impact. Even the definition and measurement of "IQ" itself is loaded to the brim with the social and political bias of the people doing the testing. If you don't realize that, you need to get an education outside of a lab. I have complete respect for science, but being a great scientist - or a great anything for that matter - doesn't preclude you from a *****, a racist, or just plain totally ***** ignorant about something outside your area of expertise. - isukeyo, on 10/20/2007, -1/+11First off, I'm black! Second, if hard scientific data shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, I would be upset, disappointed - but that's about all I would be able to do. I wouldn't expects scientist to be ridiculed, or prosecuted for revealing the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be.
That being said - there is NO science here! This "scientist" is making scientific claims about the genetic difference between westerners and Africans - yet, it's not based on any scientific data. His entire argument is based on testing (IQ, Standardized tests, etc.). I will not dispute that having evolved in different regions of the world, there are going to be inherent genetic differences between westerners and Africans! And those differences will almost certainly involve intellectual diversity. However, there isn't any scientific data to support this yet. To make such a claim based on social testing and not scientific data is irresponsible.
And why is it that whenever someone with some sort of credential makes a racially polarizing statement (against blacks or any other non-Caucasian race) there seems to always be a parade of diggers who see it as an opportunity to spout all of their hatred and frustrations.
"This is old news, but it is good to see a(nother) Nobel Prize winner speaking the truth"
Except that he's not. He's substituting the results of social testing for scientific truth! - aaaleman, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2What "truth." There is no scientific data to prove or uphold Watson's ridiculous claim. There are, however, countless studies that prove otherwise. Read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel," anything by Claude Levi-Strauss, and the works of Mary Douglas. They will no only enlighten you on the matter, but will also show you how racist you are. Watson's claim of white supremacy was trounced and beaten to nothing back in the 1950's.
Watson cannot uphold his view with genetic data. Does that tell you anything?
It blows my mind that the generally smart and forward-thinking digg crowd has your comment on positive diggs. - brandvegn, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Dugg for, "Amazing how most diggers will applaud and worship science when it meets their needs (say, further proof of evolution or an Al Gore documentary) but cry foul when it goes against their emotional sensibilities."
However, your assertion that this 75 year old racist speaks the truth, eh, not so much of a digg. - fonebone, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1It's amazing how most diggers will applaud and worship scienctists, even when they talk racist crap.
"Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments About Blacks"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson ...
"is no scientific basis for such a belief" - Dr Watson - fonebone, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1It's amazing how most diggers will applaud and worship scienctists, even when they talk racist crap.
"Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments About Blacks"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson ...
"is no scientific basis for such a belief" - Dr Watson
- StepCousin, on 10/27/2007, -66/+228Black people have no problem bragging that they're the best athletes. I guess the double standard applies here.
- jongos, on 10/22/2007, -14/+98Not really. I'm black and I'm not an athlete, I'm a programmer. I don't brag about being either. It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way though.
- zyklon, on 10/19/2007, -23/+4So you're black, yes? But are you African? That's the whole point of the article, that people of actual African descent are less intelligent, which I can believe. It's not a racist thing, trust me. I'm possibly the least racist person you could imagine.
- Aitese, on 10/21/2007, -7/+22Well I'm an African and this article is just the OPINION of and esteemed scientist who has in no way claimed to have done ANY work on this theory in any way but was rather making a comment about the current socioeconomic and political failings in Africa. believe it if you want, I'll just go about my life in the hope that most intelligent white people can see the difference.
- ethnicman, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10I think it is hard to be black and not be of african descent. Do you think pockets of Black people just happened to pop up around the world? Blacks are in the Americas due to the slave trade, in Europe up from northern africa of moorish decent and also en part due to the slave trade and colonization of African countries
- BornLegend, on 10/18/2007, -4/+7"I'm possibly the least racist person you could imagine."
Really? At this point I think I'm a little less racist then you. =P - blackdude, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1dude, your comment sucks...
- knde, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Zyklon please peruse this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigrants#Ed ...
Given the right environment and resources, Africans are just as intelligent as any other group of people. From the above link:
"Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans[6]." - Groovemaster, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1"I'll just go about my life in the hope that most intelligent white people can see the difference."
They can, I assure you. It's the unintelligent ones you need to be concerned about.
- jongos, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4Correct. I am black-American, I am not black-African. My point however was that some people defy the standard which is what makes unfounded generalization dangerous and erroneous. For instance would this same study apply to native white-Africans? You know the ones born there. There are millions of them you know.
- brasso, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6If it really is in the genes then it doesn’t matter where you are born.
- zyklon, on 10/19/2007, -23/+4So you're black, yes? But are you African? That's the whole point of the article, that people of actual African descent are less intelligent, which I can believe. It's not a racist thing, trust me. I'm possibly the least racist person you could imagine.
- blackdude, on 10/18/2007, -14/+21Same thing here.. Sadly (i'll get dugg down for this) but there's an invariably racist attitude here on digg.
- Segphault1, on 10/19/2007, -15/+2Word, stupid selfish white people like me who live in the western hemisphere are naturally racist; we don't want to take responsibility for what our mothers and fathers did to the black people. We claim it is not our fault, so therefore we owe no help to them. ***** THAT!
The whole internet is pretty much racist and right-wing biased. Take Wikipedia for example: written by right-wing university students from America. People believe that Wikipedia is free and unbiased? Come on, open your eyes you racist fascist *****.- Zarchon, on 10/19/2007, -2/+8You are just a "sterotypical" self hating liberal white guy with a complex. Don't drag my family into your fantasies. Don't bash my parents because you don't know them. How can "We claim it is not our fault" when "we" would include you spouting just the opposite? And please, don't say "word" who the hell are you ?
- Segphault1, on 10/18/2007, -15/+3Word, stupid selfish white people like me who live in the western hemisphere are naturally racist; we don't want to take responsibility for what our mothers and fathers did to the black people. We claim it is not our fault, so therefore we owe no help to them. ***** THAT!
The whole internet is pretty much racist and right-wing biased. Take Wikipedia for example: written by right-wing university students from America. People believe that Wikipedia is free and unbiased? Come on, open your eyes you racist fascist *****. - sufiboy, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4I echo lardvark. but there is racism, homophobia and misogyny, as you'd expect from a bunch of immature geeks.
- mantodea, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3The sick irony of this entire thread is that so many people are being dugg down for claiming that there is a large racists contingent here on Digg and yet the more racist ***** are getting dugg UP!
It's like pointing out to someone they have anger management issues and they disprove it by taking a swing at you.
- Segphault1, on 10/19/2007, -15/+2Word, stupid selfish white people like me who live in the western hemisphere are naturally racist; we don't want to take responsibility for what our mothers and fathers did to the black people. We claim it is not our fault, so therefore we owe no help to them. ***** THAT!
- Eleo, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11Although, there would be irony in defining oneself as intellectually superior and then going on to repeat the stupidity of those supposedly less intelligent. Kind of like monkeys building a catapult and then using it to fling ***** at greater distances.
- hammerattack, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4I think you just described human evolution.
- memoid, on 10/20/2007, -13/+28Actually, i've not seen any black guys boast about the athletic capabilities of their race. I have seen many white guys comment on the athletic capabilities of blacks though - isn't that strange.
- xxrealmsxx, on 10/19/2007, -5/+4An inferiority complex at its finest.
- scottfarner, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5i echo memoid's comment. I have yet to hear a black person bragging about blacks' superior athletic ability in a serious manner. Does it happen? Probably, but certainly much less frequently than white people purporting that stereotype. The reason it appears to many that blacks dominate professional athletics is likely sociological. Many of the black youth in America see no other option for themselves besides athletics, and are therefore more likely to devote their efforts towards achieving at the highest levels.
- clockdist, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1When the NBA gets taken over by white, Eastern Block Europeans, then what will be the excuse?
- logosx1, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2White Men Can't Jump
- clockdist, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1When the NBA gets taken over by white, Eastern Block Europeans, then what will be the excuse?
- entitynine, on 10/19/2007, -8/+10I have never heard a black person brag about black athletic ability.
- logosx1, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4White Men Can't Jump
- brandon573, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5White Men Can't Jump was written and directed by Ron Shelton ... a white guy.
- Myztry, on 10/20/2007, -2/+26Those Kenyans are amazing long distance runners. But when you come from a country full of lions, the gene pool is bound to evolve certain attributes. You don't have to outrun the lion, you've just got to outrun the person next to you.
- atdigg, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4This is funny
- fatas, on 10/18/2007, -10/+3Maybe if blacks used it to enslave you whites for 400 years, you could have a ***** cry about it.
- atdigg, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Yeah but the question is: why didn't they?
- fatas, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Because they are not sick ***** like your race which also stole 2 complete continents, wiped out 6 million from a race,.
Why do you think most serial killers in the world are white?
- fatas, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Because they are not sick ***** like your race which also stole 2 complete continents, wiped out 6 million from a race,.
- atdigg, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Yeah but the question is: why didn't they?
- Ukonu, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6I rarely, if ever, have seen blacks in the public media brag about being a better athlete because of their race. Just because they dominate NBA and NFL doesn't mean they're running around talking about their genetic superiority.
I've actually seen whites "brag" about being mentally superior to blacks more often than anything. They also like to follow with the disclaimer: "but -- Asians are smarter at math!" so that they don't look completely racist. The funny thing is, in my lifetime, I've never actually heard an Asian repeat or believe this statement. They know their culture usually just stresses them into academic success. They also know numerous other Asians that contradict every stereotype people like you try to push on them. Now that's analytical thinking. - DDRSkata, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I'm black and I'm a terrible athlete. I brag about my writing and cooking skills, though, and I'm working on acquiring bragable filmmaking skills. Also, my IQ is 160.
- aaaleman, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2"Black" people don't brag about them being the best athletes (maybe a few black comedians do, but it's mostly to highlight the stupidity of the claim). "White" people claim "black" people brag about being good athletes.
Pay attention to the Olympics next year. Take a good look at the colors you'll see. Make a list and note the numbers down. Then maybe looking at such a note will make you feel rightfully ridiculous.
- jongos, on 10/22/2007, -14/+98Not really. I'm black and I'm not an athlete, I'm a programmer. I don't brag about being either. It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way though.
- BECoole, on 10/27/2007, -14/+155I find it interesting that there are calls to have him prosecuted for these statements.
- jongos, on 10/18/2007, -8/+19yeah really, prosecuted for what?
- memoid, on 10/18/2007, -13/+21for inciting bigotry. So many diggers here seem excited about this article. If you actually look into what Watsons says, he doesnt actually have scientific evidence yet. He is saying that he thinks in the next decade the evidence will come - i.e. at the moment its just his view. And for a scientist to push off his personal views (which also include homophobia and sexism) as scientific facts is worse than your average hate speech - cos stupid people (like most diggers here), seem to take it as fact straight away.
- saturdaysinbed, on 10/19/2007, -3/+8Oh, you want him to be arrested because his opinion is different than yours
- memoid, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1oh no - not arrested, no one is talking about being arrested. What on earth gave you that idea!?. Just obliged to retract his LIES about how his opinions are NOT based on scientific fact but his own prejudiced analysis of very weak statistics. And most importantly raise awareness of that fact that he is racist, sexist and homophobic. Thats all. Freedom of speech allows him to say and believe what he wants. But it also allows others to challenge him when matters of truth (i.e. scientific evidence) are concerned. Very straight forward and democratic. If I were to write a book about how people with moustaches were generally more evil, and cloud the book with fuzzy statistics and crazy logic - I'm sure I could make it convincing enough to fool quite a lot of people. The wiser people in society have every right to challenge me (for the sake of science) AND prosecute me (for the sake of the poor stupid souls who believed my crazy theories).
- BECoole, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5RTA - it said that the evidence is pretty conclusive. not that "its just his view".
- luckykpolice, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Sounds agreeable: "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.""
- saturdaysinbed, on 10/19/2007, -3/+8Oh, you want him to be arrested because his opinion is different than yours
- memoid, on 10/18/2007, -13/+21for inciting bigotry. So many diggers here seem excited about this article. If you actually look into what Watsons says, he doesnt actually have scientific evidence yet. He is saying that he thinks in the next decade the evidence will come - i.e. at the moment its just his view. And for a scientist to push off his personal views (which also include homophobia and sexism) as scientific facts is worse than your average hate speech - cos stupid people (like most diggers here), seem to take it as fact straight away.
- LemmingJesus, on 10/19/2007, -2/+16Exercising free speech, that thing that was removed from the constitution.
- mossestudio, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3ns
- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -5/+6There's no freedom of speech in the UK.
- DirtySnachez, on 10/18/2007, -3/+6Theres no Freedom in America.
- stoanhart, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I definately agree with that. If he has the hard data that brought him to this conclusion, and other scientists find that data valid, then it's just a fact. It may be an unpopular fact, and not very PC, but hey, that's just the way it is. As long as he is properly supporting his statement, there should be no controversy.
- jongos, on 10/18/2007, -8/+19yeah really, prosecuted for what?
- jonolan, on 10/19/2007, -34/+25Racist or not, Watson may be correct. African Blacks may well be less intelligent on average than Whites - or American or European Blacks. Prenatal care and post natal nutrition plays a huge role in brain development. The starvation and malnutrition levels in Africa may well be lowering the cognitive abilities of each generation enough in a broad enough swath of the population to noticeably affect studies.
What's scary is, that since this guys a geneticist, the thought may be that this is hereditary as opposed to environmental. That would be a load of *****!- StepCousin, on 10/20/2007, -14/+20Why would that be a load of *****? Different breeds of the same species in animals show dramatic differences in size, intelligence, traits, temperament, etc. For instance, compare a Poodle to a Pit Bull.
- lnf69, on 10/18/2007, -10/+12It's a load of ***** because you can't compare breeds within a species with the concept of race in humans. There are no "breeds" within the human genome. The differences in DNA that cause different physical features such as "Asian", or "African", "European" are so small that they do not justify the commonly held illusion of there being different "races" in ***** sapiens sapiens
- Koldkompress, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5Genes make a huge difference though!
Just 2 small changes can make you into a savant, someone with amazing aptitude for a limited set of mental abilities but unable to function in a social situation - hammerattack, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Actually, before the era of political correctness, there were three recognized breeds of human: Mongoloid (Asiatic, Pacific Islander, Native American), Caucasoid (White, Hispanic, Indian) and Negroid (Black, Arabian). Ironically, advances in genetics made possible by none other than Watson himself blurred the lines so much that it because less useful to look at people in terms of these three categories and instead look at them in terms of several dozen migratory branches.
- Koldkompress, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5Genes make a huge difference though!
- PTCHFRKR, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3Why the ***** is StepCousin getting dugg up? Didn't know Digg in general supported white supremacists.
- max420,
- lnf69, on 10/18/2007, -10/+12It's a load of ***** because you can't compare breeds within a species with the concept of race in humans. There are no "breeds" within the human genome. The differences in DNA that cause different physical features such as "Asian", or "African", "European" are so small that they do not justify the commonly held illusion of there being different "races" in ***** sapiens sapiens
- StepCousin, on 10/20/2007, -14/+20Why would that be a load of *****? Different breeds of the same species in animals show dramatic differences in size, intelligence, traits, temperament, etc. For instance, compare a Poodle to a Pit Bull.