Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can still live a good life, make a valuable contribution to society, and be competitive with anyone as far as I’m concerned.
If it turns out that Watson is correct, then the type of attitude you express is somewhat commendable. But keep in mind that Watson's claim is generally considered fringe science (or, at least, not very well-supported by evidence) by many scientists. This, in itself, does not mean that Watson is wrong, but it does suggest that one ought to consider his views with a good dose of healthy skepticism and do some digging into the evidence and arguments before making a concession speech to those who agree with Watson. The game is not over, but Watson does not appear to be someone I would not bet too heavily on at the moment.
If it turns out that Watson is correct, then the type of attitude you express is somewhat commendable. But keep in mind that Watson's claim is generally considered fringe science (or, at least, not very well-supported by evidence) by many scientists. This, in itself, does not mean that Watson is wrong, but it does suggest that one ought to consider his views with a good dose of healthy skepticism and do some digging into the evidence and arguments before making a concession speech to those who agree with Watson. The game is not over, but Watson does not appear to be someone I would not bet too heavily on at the moment.
What exactly do you think Watson is saying that is "fringe science"? Few people who study the topic doubt that there is some genetic component to the observed IQ gaps between population groups. The debate is mostly over the size of that component, not its existence. And as far as I know Watson hasn't made any categorical claims about it anyway. He's just observing, accurately, where the evidence seems to be pointing.
I wonder how he feels about mixing of races. For instance the average black person in America is only about 70% African, about 25% European, and 4% native American. I wonder how that would effect IQ given we're mixing more and more as a species, and as we know that makes our genes stronger.
There's been a study done by Stanford will check has determined that what we call race doesn't scientifically exist. Out of 4000 different alles that human beings have only 7.4% of those are unique to any geographic location and of those only 1% of people in those locations have those specific alles. Letting us know that scientifically there is no distinct genes that unify any of what we deem to be different races. How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News
What exactly do you think Watson is saying that is "fringe science"? Few people who study the topic doubt that there is some genetic component to the observed IQ gaps between population groups. The debate is mostly over the size of that component, not its existence. And as far as I know Watson hasn't made any categorical claims about it anyway. He's just observing, accurately, where the evidence seems to be pointing.
The Evidence - if we consider it accurate (and obviously we are way too early for all of that) shows that at least 85% of IQ is NOT genetic.....that leaves a very small amount to be split up in various ways.
AND, we don't even know that amount is true.
Given this, his statements are FALSE just as they stand. His statements would be akin to this:
You have 10 million dollars
I have 8.5 million dollars - maybe more, but it's like Trump - I wake up every day and decide what my stuff is worth.
THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE, WE "ALL KNOW" THAT "EVERYONE" CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT WE ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT IN OUR LIFESTYLE, NET WORTH AND WHAT WE CAN AFFORD.
It's clear as day. In fact, based on Watson, I could line up 500 of these 8.5 million folks and 500 10 million folks and even you would be able to instantly pick out the "lesser" humans!
Would you?
Let's talk specific junk out of his trap:
"He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
(Note - it's over a decade since he said this)
THIS was his "proof". We were going to find and ID the genes and that would be that. Clear as glass.
WE DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
That is JUNK SCIENCE...or even worse, a total opinion and fabrication...along with a bad guess.
Let's continue:
"In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual"
Well, there IS NO Homosexual Gene...wrong again, in addition to what many supporting him here may think about "choice". He's obviously big on abortion....
I could go on but I think many will agree those types of "truths" are more the type a radio talk show host comes up with, not a Nobel Prize winner.
He is a far right winger - yet believes in full-on designer babies. Hates Creationists....and, by that measure, the religions that spout such things. Seems to hate just about everyone....except perhaps himself.
His own son - is a Schizophrenic. Genetic they say.
I don't downplay his accomplishments early in life. But if one is going to open their trap and stick their neck out when they are over 80 years old (we all decline....by then), then they are likely to get into trouble.
The Evidence - if we consider it accurate (and obviously we are way too early for all of that) shows that at least 85% of IQ is NOT genetic.....that leaves a very small amount to be split up in various ways.
AND, we don't even know that amount is true.
Given this, his statements are FALSE just as they stand. His statements would be akin to this:
You have 10 million dollars
I have 8.5 million dollars - maybe more, but it's like Trump - I wake up every day and decide what my stuff is worth.
THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE, WE "ALL KNOW" THAT "EVERYONE" CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT WE ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT IN OUR LIFESTYLE, NET WORTH AND WHAT WE CAN AFFORD.
It's clear as day. In fact, based on Watson, I could line up 500 of these 8.5 million folks and 500 10 million folks and even you would be able to instantly pick out the "lesser" humans!
Would you?
Let's talk specific junk out of his trap:
"He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
(Note - it's over a decade since he said this)
THIS was his "proof". We were going to find and ID the genes and that would be that. Clear as glass.
WE DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
That is JUNK SCIENCE...or even worse, a total opinion and fabrication...along with a bad guess.
Let's continue:
"In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual"
Well, there IS NO Homosexual Gene...wrong again, in addition to what many supporting him here may think about "choice". He's obviously big on abortion....
I could go on but I think many will agree those types of "truths" are more the type a radio talk show host comes up with, not a Nobel Prize winner.
He is a far right winger - yet believes in full-on designer babies. Hates Creationists....and, by that measure, the religions that spout such things. Seems to hate just about everyone....except perhaps himself.
His own son - is a Schizophrenic. Genetic they say.
I don't downplay his accomplishments early in life. But if one is going to open their trap and stick their neck out when they are over 80 years old (we all decline....by then), then they are likely to get into trouble.
Better to remain silent and go out a hero.
Instead, Watson is pulling a Shockley and going out with a ruined reputation.
"Perhaps the most dramatic example is the Northern Irish. Even though they come from the same ethnic group, Catholics (the discriminated minority) score 15 points lower on IQ tests than Protestants. "
"Most geneticists agree that there is far more genetic variation within groups than between groups. According to one commonly cited study, 85% of all human genetic variation is intra-population, 7% intra-race and only 8% inter-racial"
You can dismiss this commonly held belief, but I certainly am not making it up like Watson did with his stuff.
He was wrong. He said we'd have the IQ gene by now easily. We don't.
You have to look at the data where it falls. It may have been that Homosexuals wished (some of them) that there was a gene...it would have given them something to prove the point of "born that way". But the data doesn't point that way.
Obviously things can change. They may find an IQ gene. They may find a Homosexual gene. Let me know when it happens, but until then Watson is just someone I feel sorry for because he didn't use "science" to determine these theories.
There is a reason only 6% of Scientists ID as Republicans. Watson proves the point as he seems to have went far right - and then dumped Science. And before you say I made that number up:
"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP"
WOW - big numbers. Your explanation for those "generics"??? 700% more high IQ Scientists are Dem leaning than GOP. Not a rounding error.
This would seem to say - with real clarity - that Democrats have MUCH higher IQ's. But they don't. They just have more logic and reason and ability to change with what they see and discover.
What exactly do you think Watson is saying that is "fringe science"? Few people who study the topic doubt that there is some genetic component to the observed IQ gaps between population groups. The debate is mostly over the size of that component, not its existence. And as far as I know Watson hasn't made any categorical claims about it anyway. He's just observing, accurately, where the evidence seems to be pointing.
The "fringe" part is specifically the part that links to his conclusions about social policy. Watson said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – where all the testing says not really”. And then he suggests that there are significant race-level genetic reasons for this. I don't doubt that there are significant genetic components concerning who scores better on standard IQ tests, and I'm not surprised that blacks, on average would score lower than whites, on average, in when taking IQ tests. (There are huge social/historical factors involved in this.) But the path from here to the belief that, for the purpose of social policy decisions we should assume that blacks are genetically less intelligent that whites is rickety, at best, and fraught with blatantly naïve and illogical leaps of faith. Science gets left behind on that path, and most scientists know this, which is why most scientists look at Watson's remarks about racial intelligence insofar as it could be related to social policy as sheer unfounded speculation.
In general, sheer unfounded speculation is not necessarily always bad - indeed in the form of sci-fi and creative brainstorming exercises it can be a source of new insights. But in this case publicly speculating that that genetic differences between "races" are of a sort such that some races might be "smarter" than other is morally irresponsible, and for Watson to throw the weight of his scientific reputation behind this sort of speculation is reprehensible. In terms of existing data, it is way, way, way, way too early to draw the link that he is trying to draw. To publicly draw the connection and to put one's scientific reputation behind it is fringy, at best. And that is why he was stripped of his honorary titles. (Not just because he said something that was not PC.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're just making up numbers. Why should I even read the rest of your post?
