This guy must want to get his butt kicked!
http://www.topix.net/afam/2007/10/dna-pioneer-says-blacks-are-genetically-less-smart-tells-uk-newspaper-whites-are-more-intelligent
Don't shoot the messenger...since I don't agree with what he says.
Printable View
This guy must want to get his butt kicked!
http://www.topix.net/afam/2007/10/dna-pioneer-says-blacks-are-genetically-less-smart-tells-uk-newspaper-whites-are-more-intelligent
Don't shoot the messenger...since I don't agree with what he says.
Holy shit.Quote:
“All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really,†Watson told the newspaper. He recognized that the prevailing belief was that all human groups are equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
I don't even know where to start.
Is it possible to revoke this idiot's Nobel Prize?
I wold like to know what he is defining as "intelligence" anyway, since in the field of psychology this is disputed.
Crap, I want the three minutes of my life back that I wasted reading that article.
Caj, I agree with you, this guy needs his ass kicked.
Sometimes admitting you are part of the human race is embarrassing... after reading this gents garbage... It is one of those times.
It's that hip hop I tell ya!
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold claim to make. If he just went to places that had poor employees (ie fast food) you would find a lot of management unhappy with their employees. To singe out black people isn't fair. I bet he could go to a hospital or law firm and have the management say great things about their black employees. Maybe he could even hear it from a black manager or two...
I can't even believe he went as far as to say that about employers and black employees... Wow...
I guess they're giving out Nobel prizes in cereal boxes nowadays.
"baumy300" wrote:
OR from a black partner!Quote:
It's that hip hop I tell ya!
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold claim to make. If he just went to places that had poor employees (ie fast food) you would find a lot of management unhappy with their employees. To singe out black people isn't fair. I bet he could go to a ... law firm and have the management say great things about their black employees. Maybe he could even hear it from a black manager or two...
Heck, my nephew's wife is an African-American law student at Duke Law (top 10 school) and she EARNED her spot there.
I guess that Dr. Watson didn't include her in his study.
Maybe he needs Sherlock Holmes to give him a clue?
Most other scientist would do a much more broad study before you make those ludicrous claims...one small study isn't gonna set the standard...it's Elementary, my dear Watson!
"cajunvike" wrote:
You hit the nail on the head there Cajun. Being a scientist, and a Nobel prize winner at that, I am surprised that he didn't have years of study and piles of evidence to back up a claim like that... I mean, it is called the "Scientific Method"Quote:
Most other scientist would do a much more broad study before you make those ludicrous claims...one small study isn't gonna set the standard...it's Elementary, my dear Watson!
He just blurted out an opinion, and a very uneducated and uninformed opinion at that.
Well, this is one guys misguided opinion.
Here's how he reached it:
-he sees that african-americans are getting lower test scores in the US
-he doesn't get a lot of african-american applicants for his lab
From that, he concludes that blacks are not as intelligent based on their underlying genetic makeup.
That's just a leap in reasoning that makes little to no sense.
I suppose it's a possible conclusion based on his evidence (that is, not ruled out by it), but based on what is readily apparent to everyone, it's not likely.
Try looking at test scores and other measurables for african-americans growing up in good school districts, or comparing blacks in European countries in which the social situations might not be so distorted to people of other races in those same areas.
Even if the social evidence supported his idea, it's still not proof of any genetic trait.
As a geneticist, if he wants to make this claim he should be pointing out a specific chromosome/sequence/whatever responsible for the development of certain brain functions or areas.
Then he should explain what differences exist and how those are likely to affect intelligence.
He hasn't done this.
My guess is no one ever will do this successfully, because it's difficult to prove what isn't there.
This is a great example of why people need to look at these things rationally no matter who says what.
This guy has a lot of credibility in the field of genetics, yet still manages to say something that is pretty irrational.
There will be people that see this and think it must be true because a Nobel Prize winning geneticist said it.
"Overlord" wrote:
Yup.Quote:
Well, this is one guys misguided opinion.
Here's how he reached it:
-he sees that african-americans are getting lower test scores in the US
-he doesn't get a lot of african-american applicants for his lab
From that, he concludes that blacks are not as intelligent based on their underlying genetic makeup.
That's just a leap in reasoning that makes little to no sense.
I suppose it's a possible conclusion based on his evidence (that is, not ruled out by it), but based on what is readily apparent to everyone, it's not likely.
Try looking at test scores and other measurables for african-americans growing up in good school districts, or comparing blacks in European countries in which the social situations might not be so distorted to people of other races in those same areas.
Even if the social evidence supported his idea, it's still not proof of any genetic trait.
As a geneticist, if he wants to make this claim he should be pointing out a specific chromosome/sequence/whatever responsible for the development of certain brain functions or areas.
Then he should explain what differences exist and how those are likely to affect intelligence.
He hasn't done this.
My guess is no one ever will do this successfully, because it's difficult to prove what isn't there.
This is a great example of why people need to look at these things rationally no matter who says what.
This guy has a lot of credibility in the field of genetics, yet still manages to say something that is pretty irrational.
There will be people that see this and think it must be true because a Nobel Prize winning geneticist said it.
Perfect example of someone using correlational data (weak correlational data at that) to try an imply causation.
This drivel doesn't belong here.