Well, my 3 Intellects posit is more focused on creativity- which is something that is related to, but not synonymous with intelligence.

The point of the Wealth of Nations thing was not a support of the posit by Watson, but to show that there have been numerous studies, globally, that show the same correspondence between affluence and intelligence- across nations and groups within and without the nations. The point being is black wealthy Nigerians and black poor Congolese doubtlessly share more in common genetically, so why are their scores so divergent? One could find studies in other countries, or just here in the US, where Anglo stock in wealthy Massachusetts and poor Tennessee Appalachia have test scores as divergent as the Nigerians-Congolese.

The point is that nothing really points to racial bases for good or bad scores, but there are great tie-ins to wealth and affluence.

I’m still leery of the genetic breeding ideas of slave owners. After all, most of these guys were not exactly Darwinians, and unbuttoned their pants at the first sight of a fine slavee.

Basically, I doubt there were any special conditions on the African continent that would select for stupidity, and the alternative, that everyone else’s ancestors underwent greater pressure towards intelligence, doesn’t make sense either.

cosmoetica: I’d always felt that Gardner’s theory, which I’m not an expert in, considered intelligence more like aptitude, an ability to pick things up and apply them more quickly, whether that’s dance moves or equations. As for the functionary/creationary/visionary idea, it seems nice, but I’m not sure that it’s anything more than a useful framework for thinking about intelligence. That is to say, I don’t think it’s supported by evidence, though I could be wrong.

As for the “IQ and Wealth of Nations” book, that’s a no-go also. A 0.62 correlation, while real, isn’t all that strong, and considering they were using the already-suspicious IQ test, and in many cases “deducing” nations’ average scores from scattered studies, the whole thing is pretty weak.

As for the miscegenation vs killing-slaves-who-could-read issue, I don’t have enough knowledge to say what impact these would have. I thought I read in a post above that traumatic experiences could cause epigenetic imprinting on intelligence genes, but I don’t know about that, either. I was just going off something Chris Rock said, though the black people reading this probably think that’s a shitty excuse and that I’m a giant racist… uh, I’m really not guys!

Anyway, to sum up, I was speculating that one specific subset of black people who had lived for generations under extraordinary conditions had genetic differences that created a lower average potential intelligence (understanding that emphasis is what I mean by understanding genetics), not that a whole continent was genetically dumb. As such, I differ from your basic assumptions, cosmo, so “whatever.” We still agree that most people are stupid, so that’s good! And really, isn’t it our similarities that matter?

In closing, I’d just like to point out that they used to use the Bible to justify slavery, so don’t think Creationism will make people less racist than evolutionary theory! Watson’s just a crazy old man, and doesn’t represent science, really! God that sounds so weak… Gah! (grumble grumble, frickin senile grumble grumble)

Some in the southern regions are of dark African descent. But, by and large, this is sort of a reverse racist bit of junk theory from the founder of the Black Muslims.

Silliness swings in both directions.

Egyptians are black now?

Personally, I wanted to hear more in depth about how he actually developed his science, but, it’s his book, and he wrote as he wished. I believe he has at least three other books. He won his Nobel, and it was shared with at least two others, a long time ago… I think in late 1960s.

Good takes Angela, with really interesting comments.

dr.e

Jewboy: ‘This is a very confusing topic, because people don’t understand genetics, let alone intelligence. Most of all, it’s hard because people don’t understand the limits of these concepts.’

This is true: from http://www.cosmoetica.com/D1-DES1.htm:

‘the human mind has 3 types of intellect. #1 is the Functionary- all of us have it- it is the basic intelligence that IQ tests purport to measure, & it operates on a fairly simple add & subtract basis. #2 is the Creationary- only about 1% of the population has it in any measurable quantity- artists, discoverers, leaders & scientists have this. It is the ability to see beyond the Functionary, & also to see more deeply- especially where pattern recognition is concerned. And also to be able to lead observers with their art. Think of it as Functionary2 . #3 is the Visionary- perhaps only 1% of the Creationary have this in measurable amounts- or 1 in 10,000 people. These are the GREAT artists, etc. It is the ability to see farther than the Creationary, not only see patterns but to make good predictive & productive use of them, to help with creative leaps of illogic (Keats’ Negative Capability), & also not just lead an observer, but impose will on an observer with their art. Think of it as Creationary2 , or Functionary3 .’

Most people only think of intellect on an IQ scale, or the Gardener 7 types of intelligence, but they all deal w rather one dimensional intelligence- what we call knowledge. There is also intelligence, which is an analog to the Creationary model I state above, and then wisdom, which is an analog to the visionary.

In short, one can know facts, one can be able to use facts, and one can understand the facts.

‘Nonetheless, “intelligence” is as real as any human trait; maybe less real than height, but more real than attractiveness, certainly.’

Actually, attractiveness is one of the easiest things to measure, as symmetry is a mathematical equation. One may be attracted to a Plain Jane, but your attraction, based on pheromones or intangibles, has nothing to do w her physical beauty. In short, physical attractiveness and sexual attraction are different things.

‘For centuries, smart black people were prevented from passing on their genes. Whether that means there is a genetic difference between blacks and other races, we can’t be sure. However, it is in no way unreasonable to think that, on average, the descendants of American slaves have a lower genetic potential for intelligence than non-slave descended Americans.’

That some slave owners had ideas of breeding ’strong bucks’ is true, but this is a late 20th C. myth that has no basis in fact, at large. However, when one realizes that Am. blacks are almost all partly Europeanized thru miscegenation, the VERY opposite has to be concluded: that these part-blacks are either smarter than ‘pure’ blacks, or if not, then the white gene pool dumbed them down.

However, if you look at my above link to The Wealth Of Nations claim, we see that Nigerians and other African nations sit at opposite ends of the IQ spectrum. White slave owners so routinely screwed their best looking black slave girls that within two or three generations after slave importation waned in the early 19th C., there really were very few ‘pure’ blacks in the Am Gene pool.

Again, this means that, if whites are smarter, then Am. blacks, genetically, wd be smarter than Africans. But, since we see lower IQs than Nigerians, and higher IQs than Congolese, and know that black Am’s are not as rich and well off as Nigerians, per capita, but much better off than most African black nations, the correlation between affluence and testing scores seems very striking.

As I said earlier, it’s really not that difficult, people.

And that’s not that midget kid from the 1980s is it, the non-Gary Coleman one?

—————-
I got it from a friend on Facebook. I just think its silly and I usually use it when I post about racial issues because people tend to get so upset over those things, its a little levity.

It’s really annoying, which is why I like it. Its much worse with sound.

Let me just say that what Watson said is essentially something Chris Rock said during one of his performances: he explained to the audience how for centuries white people would kill black people if they were discovered to know how to read!

Rock didn’t take his train of thought to the last stop, since he’s a smart guy and knows what not to say, but to anyone with a passing familiarity with the concept of natural selection, the upshot is obvious.

I was shocked by his performance, actually. I wonder if his thinking was the chauvinism of the emerging black middle class, or an intellectual coping mechanism…

Anyway, let’s dissect the issue and try to see what the truth is.

~Intelligence is real, but hard to measure. The ability to think and learn vary from person to person. But to define these aptitudes in a way that can be tested is incredibly difficult. Nonetheless, “intelligence” is as real as any human trait; maybe less real than height, but more real than attractiveness, certainly.

~Intelligence has both genetic and environmental components. This seems so obvious I don’t know where to look for evidence. I’d guess any intro psych book would refer back to those useful studies of identical vs fraternal twins. Environment is obviously hugely important, but genes definitely affect intelligence. Let’s not let ideology or personal discomfort blind us to obvious truths.

~For centuries, smart black people were prevented from passing on their genes. Whether that means there is a genetic difference between blacks and other races, we can’t be sure. However, it is in no way unreasonable to think that, on average, the descendants of American slaves have a lower genetic potential for intelligence than non-slave descended Americans.

For people like me, who crave equality and justice, this is a heartbreaking admission, because it seems to cast such a long shadow on African-Americans’ long and beautiful dream of having the lives they deserve

But! As harsh a mistress as clear-eyed reason can be, in the end her stringent path curves up, and we come to rest in the light. What am I talking about? Didn’t I just make a clear and reasonable argument that blacks may well be genetically predisposed to be stupid?

Sure I did. But so what? Really! Think about it! What does that even mean?!?

Put it another way: there is so much fucking stupidity on this rock that it can’t hardly matter! Look, let’s be generous and say that 90% of all people everywhere are dumb. Not dumb as shit, necessarily, just unable to think for themselves, to discern or judge both matters of logic and life. Just kinda dumb. So what if 92% of black people are dumb, compared to that 90%? Think about it!

We keep talking about genetic potentials, but look around! Dig: I’m from Oregon. Not many black people out here at all. I can tell you that there is no way that black people are that much stupider than these fuckers. However genetically predisposed black people are to stupidity, it’s obviously a small drop in a very, very, very, very big bucket.

This is the light that clear thinking leads us to, that I referred to earlier. When we look at the world, and he see how fucking stupid it all is, we don’t even need to try to tease out whether poor black people are stupid because they’re poor, or poor because they’re stupid; if anything the history and condition of poor blacks shows that stupidity may well be contagious.

We don’t even have to start one of those sweetly paternalistic missions to improve the lot of those poor besotted minorities. (Although given the disparities between blacks and whites, I like affirmative action and John Edwards’ “explode the ghetto” housing voucher idea.) But really, we have to focus on applying a universal program of employment and education to the whole populace. The whole planet, preferably, but there’s obviously some administrative hurdles there. But when I say “have to,” I mean must.

Yes, folks, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has us at 5 minutes to global Midnight. Wars are spreading and resources are depleting. Greed and stupidity are the rule of the day. I want an iPod. What was I talking about?

And that’s not that midget kid from the 1980s is it, the non-Gary Coleman one?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/

Hahahaha…Domajot, your comment is sharp double-edged sword.

Any male blogger who tries to touch it is gonna get cut!!!

Holly, yes, Rosalind Franklin was the colleaque I meant. The story of the discovery of DNA always left me with a lingering distaste over the injustice of Watson & Crick stealing her work.

Yes, I think it was stealing…she was a pioneer…and most of the men just regarded her as date-bait…but they were willing to steal her discoveries.

Rosalind Franklin was Watson & Crick’s colleague.

Men all over the blogosphere are thanking you for the IQ and size correlation you conributed.

Small Penis = Big IQ !!!

(Seriously! That’s it.)

Angela wrote: “This guy won a Nobel prize?”

I would just like to point out that Watson’s & Crick’s work was relied heavily upon the discoveries of a female colleaque who didn’t realize the significance of what she had discovered.

Watson & Crick employed rather dubious methods – which they freely admit – to get access to her work. She later died of radiation poisoning, I believe, as a side-product of her work with X-rays.

Is IQ also gendered? If race is a determinant, why not sex?

But always remember Rushton’s consoling discovery:

Small Penis = Big IQ !!!