Your DNA Can Make You Stupid & Unreasonable
October 18th, 2007 by ANGELA WINTERS
This guy won a Nobel prize? Can anyone get one of these things? Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Independent Online Edition. “James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions…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.
Controversial DNA pioneer’s talk halted - Yahoo! News
Breitbart.com: Museum pulls top scientist’s talk over race row
I don’t think people need to get up in arms about it. It’s just an opinion and people who want to believe in racial superiority wouldn’t change their minds if a Nobel Prize winning scientist said the opposite. But I do question the standards used for this sort of conclusion. A bunch of white men created the standard for Western intelligence, so why would you just accept that it objectively and coincidently appears they meet the standard higher than anyone else? And wouldn’t it make more sense that the fact that one race has had a 400 year head-start on the other in terms of building knowledge (in this country at least) wouldn’t probably play a greater factor than DNA?
And who created the standard for an ability to reason? Men with reasonable Western DNA thought there was nothing “unreasonable” about enslaving other human beings less than 200 years ago in this country. Which leads me to my next question. When did this intellectually superior DNA actually kick in? Because history suggests that non-Western cultures were flourishing intellectually well before Western cultures got their act together. Sounds more cyclical than genetic to me.
I’ll stop ranting before I start sounding like some left-wing, reparations-seeking nut, but you get my point. And I know the haters will be in full force over my opinion, but whatevs.
American Scientific Magazine is not waiting for my call, but all I know is that my 12-year old niece scored in the Top 10% on her PSATs, will be skipping a grade next year and currently takes a 2-day/month class at Northwestern University while my co-worker’s 7-year old blond-haired, blue-eyed son still can’t get the difference between “we” and “our” or “he” and “his.” He asked me, “Are you going to come to we’s house?” I really don’t think its all about DNA.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 18th, 2007 at 8:36 am and is filed under As Yet Unassigned. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Angela,
To do a mild thread jack, you do realize that the argument of James Watson is that, on average, whites (really Europeans) are smarter than Africans? Using you niece as an anecdote does not disprove his argument at all. It is just that the mean of the distribution of intelligence of whites and blacks are different.
What made me react to you post is a radio caller the other day on WBAL radio who keep using the term “I feel that your statistics are wrong.” You use an anecdote about one person but the counter statistic is that the average SAT score of a black male from a two parent, college educated family is still lower than the average SAT score (See http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zeaxHJwyHbcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22Jencks%22+%22The+Black-white+Test+Score+Gap%22+&ots=6hgvvrWqt4&sig=E6xP-na_424iWkR4JRzH-mM-Y-g#PPA2,M10
Do you feel that the statistics are wrong?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Super D-
You do realize that the whole area of measuring intelligence is circular in nature. First. someone defines intelligence according to his own narrow experience and understanding, and then you measure how people stack aginst that definition.
Change the definition, and you change the results.
What i’ve read about epigene functions leads me to think that much of what we know about genes and DNA will be revolutionized in coming years. Much of what we think we know about group differences will be dramatically changed as science can delve further into how epigenes and other,yet undiscovered, factors actually determine traits and behavior.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Africa isn’t called the “dark continent” because of the skin color of the majority. It’s called that because of the myriad of atrocities and extreme level of “backwardness” that is the norm there. I would expect the average African to be less “smarter” than the average European. Heck, many Africans can’t even make it to adulthood. You change the environment in Africa and the “intelligence” (can’t believe I said that) will rise. ‘Nuff said on that. I’ll save my state-side rant for a blog post.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:24 am
OK a couple of things, which I’ll say in list format because otherwise it’ll be a mess.
1. IQ distributions are in bell curves. If you divide populations into different groups you can get different bell curves. From what I know the bell curve of blacks has its average somewhat below that of whites, but both populations have considerable overlap. This obviously means that there can be brilliant blacks and idiotic whites, something that won’t surprise anyone not uhmm…idiotic.
2. Watson makes one decent point and, in my opinion, one very bad blunder. He said:
People have evolved separately, and any study of intelligence cannot simply assume that it is equal amongst the races, sexes, ages, classes or whatever. That we hope it is does not make it so, and science must look for what is true, not what is nice.
3. I said he made a blunder, IMHO. He stated, from what I can tell without the slightest bit of evidence, that the origin of the different intelligences is genetic. Unless he has some data to back that up, he simply is in no position to say that. If blacks and whites were in identical social and economic positions as a population, a biological origin to the problem would seem quite plausible, but that isn’t the case. We still don’t know that much about the development of intelligence, but it seems clear that it doesn’t only depend on the genes. More intellectual stimulation throughout childhood for instance appears to be a factor. If you take the black population of the US and compare it to the white, it’s very likely that the black scores lower on average. This might reflect a real difference, but you can’t just assume that this difference is biological. It could also mean…
4. IQ tests are very hard to separate totally from the level of education. Put in another way, measuring raw intelligence, independent from the kind of education the subject got, is difficult. This means that people with a higher level of education is likely to score higher than someone with no education. Now think about the black vs. white divide in the US….
On the other hand, this is circular. A better education in your childhood can mean greater intellectual stimulus, which actually might make you more intelligent.
5. What we mean by “black” and “white” is rather questionable, especially in the case of “black”. In the US, most people who are called and call themselves “black” are actually mixed race, many have white ancestors. In addition, Africa has many different black races. This is important if you’re trying to say that somehow differences in IQ are genetic. That’s why if you set out to prove that differences are genetic, you’re much better off stating which genes are involved, which isotypes, and only THEN seeing how they are distributed in the population.
6. Science must be allowed to study these things without the pressure to give results that are pleasing to people. Science is restricted by what’s true, not what’s nice, however owing to the fact that this is such a sensitive subject, and the huge potential for misuse of these facts, any and all data (both in one direction or the other) arising from such studies should be given special scrutiny. Rigour must be used in all scientific studies, but these studies have deep social implications, so if such a thing IS true, it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and any and all efforts must be made to explain to the non-specialist population what the results really mean, not leave it up to the eternal headline seeking press.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Lynx, some good points.
However, here’s the best one. In all societies that measure intelligence- in the functionary IQ way, one thing stands out. As income and prosperity rise, so does general ‘intelligence’.
I.e.- if you measure the IQs of the richest black people in an ethnic group in sub-Saharan Africa, and compare it to the poorest group in Ireland, or Poland, the blacks score higher.
If you go to the peasant class in China, and compare them to the Lords of England, the Lords win.
Also, there are certain cultures that value functionary skills like math and language over more abstract skills like storytelling or dance. I.e.- Jews and many Oriental cultures score higher than blacks and Eskimos.
However, raise an Eskimo in posh Manhattan, and stick a white kid into an igloo for a couple decades, and you will likely find the Eskimo is smarter. Again, on a general basis.
I would recommend Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is an excellent theory on why certain cultures, due to geographical luck, were able to advance their civilizations more than others.
What Watson and Bell Curve supporters refuse to recognize is not that their scores are wrong, but the mitigating factors behind such scores are never accounted for.
Poor people- be they white Appalachians, inner city blacks, reservation Indians, barrio Latinos, will ALWAYS, as a group score lower than their richer counterparts of whatever race, as a general rule, because it’s like starting a 100 meter dash 20 meters behind, then calling them slowpokes.
Yet, charter schools that focus on erasing such gaps, have shown progress can be done, and that they often top their state scores across the board.
A similar silly argument is made in sports, w blacks considered superior. But, look at boxing. First Irish and Jews dominated, but they left the sport as their ethnic groups did better. Blacks took over, but have slowly given way to Latino dominance. Is this because Jews, Irish, and blacks got wimpy? Of course not. It’s really not that difficult, people.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
What the study of epigene influence shows, so far, is that the physical experience of indiciduals tags genes to transform how they affect traits. That means that the effect of environmental experiences are inherited along with the genes and is propogated over many generations. (Environmnetalists, take note!)
This view changes how we define what ‘inherited’ means. It also poses the possibility that positive experiences can equally be inherited by means of tagged genes to cancel out negative experiences.
In re Aftrica, a harsh living environment would certainly influence inhabitants and what they pass on, even to descendants who have never been to Africa. The inheritance isn’t due to race, per se, but due to the racial experience.
Intermarriage and the mobiliy of populations may also change how ‘intelligence’ testing is seen.
We’re only at the dawn of understanding.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Superdog
I never said the stats were wrong. Read my post. I said the people who create the standards will always have the advantage and that I don’t believe DNA is what determines who is smarter. I guess you do, but we’ll just have to disagree.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Superdestroyer - To do a mild thread jack, you do realize that the argument of James Watson is that, on average, whites (really Europeans) are smarter than Africans?
————-
Yes, but he’s suggesting that it is DNA, but there is no proof of that. Look at world history - prior to the colonization and destruction of Africa through slavery. The history of Egypt, Nubia and other countries showed that they were engaged in science and math at levels much higher than Western history records show. Was that because of DNA?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I watched the NOVA episode on epigenetics and sent the following message to friends:
NOVA | Ghost in Your Genes | PBS
Fascinating! So trauma can affect future generations which did not experience the original events. Well, we “knew” that!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Angela ,
I do not believe that Watson was claiming that individual intelligence is totally affected by genetics. He, once again, was discussing the average/mean of very large groups.
I believe your argument holds on the individual level (you ancestors are not your destiny as far as intelligence is concerned) but does not work at the population level.
If you claim that the white guys set the test to benefit whites, then you are claiming that there are real differences between populations and those that those differences can only be genetic. If you claim it is all cultural, then there should be data that shows that the children of college educated, affluent blacks should be equal to that of college educated, affluent whites but it is not even close.
So what non-anecdotal evidence to based you claim that all intelligence is cultural and the average intelligence of different populations will all eventually move to the same mean? Do you really want to propose that everyone can be taught quantum mechanics to a proficient level?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Superdestroyer - What I’m saying is that he is suggesting that people of one type of DNA are smarter than people of another type of DNA and that somehow DNA has something to do with it.
I asked you before, then how to explain the reverse in ancient cultures? Was Ancient Egyptian DNA more intelligent than DNA of Ireland or Germany at the time? If you follow his theory, then yes.
If you also follow his theory then if the roles in the U.S. were reversed and Africans had enslaved whites, colonized/hijacked their culture, created caste systems, had determined what the standards for intelligence & reason were, created a legal, education and social system that all favored them over whites, then whites would still be intellectually superior because they’d still have the same DNA.
If this reverse situation was the true case, I would still absolutely believe that even college educated affluent whites would score lower than college educated affluent blacks. And black Noble Prize winning scientists would be saying that’s just scientific reality.
Whatever the case, a Wendy’s Frosty is calling me, so I have to go, but I enjoy the conversation. The people in my office only want to talk about Britney. Talk about faulty DNA.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am
SD: ‘If you claim that the white guys set the test to benefit whites, then you are claiming that there are real differences between populations and those that those differences can only be genetic. If you claim it is all cultural, then there should be data that shows that the children of college educated, affluent blacks should be equal to that of college educated, affluent whites but it is not even close.’
The first half of this paragraph is grammatic gobbledygook, and the second half is plain wrong- and studies of income groups over the globe show this. Wealth and ‘intelligence’ go hand in hand.
‘Do you really want to propose that everyone can be taught quantum mechanics to a proficient level?’
You are again stating something she did not state. Very few folk can understand higher concepts, as proven by blog threads. In fact, they prove very few people can understand basic concepts. After all, what is more base than politics?
The argument Watson propounds has its flip side, as I mentioned- that blacks, or other groups, are naturally better at sports, or music, etc. Yet, there is no evidence to support that. Yes, there are more blacks in football and basketball than white- in sheer and relative #s. Yet, far fewer Am blacks in baseball. Why?
Because there are simply less baseball fields and school teams in the inner city than basketball courts or football teams.
But, if blacks are still culturally shunted away from being doctors, lawyers, or realtors, they will then fill the economic niche left for them. Similarly, if blacks, due to racism, are segregated into poor nabes, where teachers of quality refuse to teach, they will from Day One, not have the advantages that suburban whites have.
Then, there are cultural factors- blacks have had their familial structure sundered by racism, poverty, and regressive prison times levied against them. By contrast, Asian immigrants band together, form superstructures, culturally, pool their resources, and demand their kids study above all else. That’s why the Asian nerd stereotype exists.
So, add in wealth, culture, and it’s not difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff re: why certain groups do better than others, and the patterns are not difficult to read, IF you do not go in w a presupposition.
However, those who want to see gold where only yellow exists will, and this is where it then becomes pertinent to question the motives and methodologies of the claimants. There are reams of articles, as example, puncturing the infamous Bell Curve, which is the most notable bad science example on this topic.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Although Wiki is a flawed doc, it does link to better materials. This book, while limited in scope, does show that, even on a national level, wealth and IQ go hand in hand.
Other studies, none that I could Google easily online, show breakdowns within diverse societies, and the averages plot neatly across income groups- be it Nigeria- a black nation at the top of the heap, or poorer non-white nations.
The book often misses the forest for the trees, but if the idea of genetic correlation were so, why would Nigerians be so smart, while blacks in the nearby Congo are so dumb?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
cosmoetica,
It is really hard to claim that in American of the 21st century that blacks are being shunted away from academics when a black male with an SAT of 1000 is much more likely to attend college than a white male with an SAT of 1000.
It is also hard to claim that whites (and asians) benefit from the suburban schools when all of the recent studies (with data from NCLB) have shown that blacks at the same schools underperform versus the white (and Asian) students even when the results are corrected for family education levels and income. And no, finding one black child who graduated valedictorian does not disprove the average performance.
When Angela makes the claim that intelligence is a social construct, she is most definitely making the claim that given proper income, the proper standard of living, and the correct teachers and facilities that everyone can learn quantum mechanics. Yet, reality demonstrates the opposite. So if everyone cannot be taught quantum mechanics, the next question is if there are differences among populations in the ability to learn quantum mechanics? Angela is arguing that no real differences exist (except maybe to claim that quantum mechanics is “white” science and thus would not interest blacks). Dr Watson would argue that there are differences between populations in the ability to learn quantum mechanics and that the differences are based upon genetics.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
In addition to all the other factors in measuring intelligence,consider non-verbal or intuitive intelligence. While these may be based on the the same principles of information gathering and deduciton, they woudl not easily show up on any IQ test.
The definition of intelligence in animals has had to be revised several times, and will be revised more, I”m sure.
The more we learn, the more it becomes obvious how little we know.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Superdestroyer - Dr Watson would argue that there are differences between populations in the ability to learn quantum mechanics and that the differences are based upon genetics.
————
So based on what you’re saying if the situation were as I put it here:
If you also follow his theory then if the roles in the U.S. were reversed and Africans had enslaved whites, colonized/hijacked their culture, created caste systems, had determined what the standards for intelligence & reason were, created a legal, education and social system that all favored them over whites, then whites would still be intellectually superior because they’d still have the same DNA.
You’re suggesting that whites would still score higher in quantum mechanics than blacks because its just in their DNA to do that better?
If that is true then why aren’t most white people smart? You go to the richest neighborhood in CT or NE or TX and the average white person couldn’t understand quantum mechanics at all.
——————–
Superdestroyer - When Angela makes the claim that intelligence is a social construct, she is most definitely making the claim that given proper income, the proper standard of living, and the correct teachers and facilities that everyone can learn quantum mechanics.
I’m not saying that at all. There are plenty of very, very wealthy white kids that had the best of everything that aren’t smart at all. Their parents are rich as hell and educated. I went to a school in Evanston that was 70% white and I was in the top 10%. These kids were overwhelming upper middle class to wealthy.
I’m not saying that given these perfect conditions, everyone could learn quantum physics. I’m saying that if everyone were given these same conditions, who could learn it wouldn’t be based on racial DNA. It would be based on individual DNA.
At my last company, about 5 years ago, I hired a black female graduate from MIT with an engineering degree, who scored 1520 on her SAT and had a 3.7 GPA and spoke 3 languages. I remember because this hire got me my first promotion. Neither of her parents graduated from highschool, she grew up in gang-ridden Detroit. She had none of those things you suggest I’m saying she’d need, but I’m certain she could knock the “quantum mechanics” out of the average white guy. All the above-average white guys who worked in the analyst department I hired her into agreed.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:50 am
SD: ‘It is really hard to claim that in American of the 21st century that blacks are being shunted away from academics when a black male with an SAT of 1000 is much more likely to attend college than a white male with an SAT of 1000.’
I’m hoping that this is just your wicked sense of humor, but past comments say no.
By your own admission, blacks in this country tend to score lower than whites, so, by and large, they will have lower SAT scores, and less will have a chance, on a level playing field to enter college. Thus, there will be fewer actual, and adjusted for % of population,. blacks with equal scores to whites, across the higher end, especially.
But, that aside, scores do not equate with familial incomes, wherein the white kid will, on average, have a better shot at being able to afford college, even accounting for minority grants and awards.
So, this claim really has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, and wholly to do with socioeconomic status, which while related, is not the point of your comment.
As for No Child, the program- in conception and execution, is so skewed, in so many ways, that to try and decipher it, and its myriad flaws, in a single comment, is pointless, and again, not germane to the point. As I stated, plenty of studies, from around the globe, show that income levels and socioeconomic status, play a substantive role within societies and between societies.
Granted, there will always be dirt poor genius and Paris Hilton, but when averaged out, and sticking to rough means, there’s simply no getting around social, economic, and other factors.
As I said, how else to explain the smart NIgerians and dumb as a post Congolese? Or, by the same measure, the smarter than average Orange County white resident, and his podunk, dumb as a post cousin from Turkey’s Tit, Mississippi?
‘When Angela makes the claim that intelligence is a social construct, she is most definitely making the claim that given proper income, the proper standard of living, and the correct teachers and facilities that everyone can learn quantum mechanics.’
No, she is stating that they will do well across the board in a wide range of subjects, not any particular subject. I doubt that your average TMV reader could become a Hawking in quantum physics, or a Picasso in the visual arts, much less a Kobe Bryant in basketball.
But, if blacks were, on an average, given the same opportunities as whites, intellectually, you would see similar #s of doctors and Nobel Laureates, just as if whites were marginalized to lower end activities, like sports, the next Michael Jordan might not be named Jamal, but Seamus O’Toole.
Intellect is a far different matter than something as manifest as skin color. I think those folk who deny that race exist are silly, but there is simply no evidence that shows that Asians cannot swim as well as whites, that whites are better power lifters and pilots than blacks, or that blacks are better linebackers and dancers than whites.
This is simply wishful thinking, and skewing #s to justify extant prejudices.
Stupidity is a human trait, as the proponents of such claims prove with their own claims, not something that is immanent.
Let’s say it were feasible to absolutely, with metaphysical certitude, confirm the prowesses of all individual human beings in all areas- strength, intellect, creativity (which is wholly diff than intellect- as I’ve known smart people with high IQs who could not even begin to grasp the abstractions that great artists deal with), speed, sexual prowess, beauty, etc. Then, we could chart across racial, ethnic, religious, professional, and age classes. And what we would likely see was a day by day variance of minuscule proportions. For a week, Asians might be faster, blacks smarter, whites stronger, and then a few folk wd die off, and others would mature, and the flow would ebb another way.
However, since GIGO rules- not just for computers but for statistical models, and much of what we define as intellect is culturally biased and subjective, I doubt this will ever be possible.
I recall a hilarious IQ test, from 1969, that I took when a cousin wanted me to join Mensa. Its questions were ridiculous. It asked, as example, what went with a cup: a spoon, a fork, a table, or a saucer. Now, my family had few saucers, and drank from mugs. The only way I knew what they wanted to hear was saucer was from the books I read at school. But, I put table down, knowing they would think it wrong, yet it is just as valid, and shows that there is more than one legitimate answer to such a q. IQ tests do not, generally, even ask empirical q’s, like 2 + 2 = , or what does the 2 in H2O stand for.
Again, stop trying to justify biases, and actually look deeper at the numbers, and those not included, for often, on such scales, someone is subtly, or not so, tipping them with their thumbs.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
[…] of Wisconsin Your DNA Can Make You Stupid & Unreasonable » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news […]
October 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Angela, you are again arguing specific while SD is arguing generalities. Use my Wealth of Nations example, and let him explain how black Nigerians score the highest of any nation on the planet, while their Congolese neighbors score poorly.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I added the two specific cases just to give an example because he keeps getting my message wrong. Everything else in that comment is a about generalities.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Clearly, as w Watson, nothing you say will change his mind. I was recently arguing over the Armenian genocide at Michael van der Galien’s blog, and despite decades of scholarly verification, he dismissed the facts of that genocide as fraudulent and forgeries.
Similarly, SD will simply dismiss any contrary facts because something in him WANTS to believe there are racial superiorities in this or that. Some folk just prefer the Dark Ages approach.
When emotion and intellect collide in the human beast, bet on emotion all the time.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I live in Southern Appalachia and I can tell you that all of the stereotypes of low intelligence usually applied to inner city blacks apply equally to mountain whites. Poverty, illiteracy, no value of education, poor health habits and choices, inability to speak properly or to code switch around educated people, anti-intellectualism/anti-achievement (Appalachian version of “acting white”), inability to comprehend social change, etc. Oh, and IQ scores in Appalachia are much lower than in, say, Connecticut or Iowa. Of course, none of this is genetic at all. People who, for whatever reasons, no longer live in some holler in rural Cocke County but now live in a posh west Knoxville home with a college degree are evidence that social mobility is not determined by genetic difference. Yes, the bell curve of IQ scores is lower in West Virginia than it is in Massachusetts - and yet they’re mostly white in both places. Class affects IQ more than anything else.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Well said, Elrod.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Folks here should read some of the literature on IQ=Race, as it can be amusing. Philip Rushton’s work correlating penis sizes and IQs for example.
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 !!!
October 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Marlowe-
Men all over the blogosphere are thanking you for the IQ and size correlation you conributed.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Funny, no penis must lead to an even higher IQ!
Rosalind Franklin was Watson & Crick’s colleague.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Holly,
Being a female, I’m assuming I’m in the genius range.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Domajot said: “Marlowe-Men all over the blogosphere are thanking you for the IQ and size correlation you conributed.”
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.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
PBS had a good bio of Franklin a couple of years ago:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/
October 18th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
BTW- where did you get that little kid in the video up top. I know he’s saying, ‘That’s racists!’ but he looks like he’s gonna vomit.
And that’s not that midget kid from the 1980s is it, the non-Gary Coleman one?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
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.
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?
October 19th, 2007 at 7:31 am
BTW- where did you get that little kid in the video up top. I know he’s saying, ‘That’s racists!’ but he looks like he’s gonna vomit.
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.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Oh, yeah, and if you think Watson’s nutty for saying that, just remember Kary Mullis who got credit for inventing PCR, who’s also an AIDS denier. But both PCR and the structure of DNA totally deserve Nobels.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Oh boy!
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.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
just read ‘Watson’s most recent book from knopf; Avoid Boring People. Someone should do a book review on it; it’s several hundred pages, sort of a “lessons learnt whilst working as a scientist;” with no big precis on ‘intelligence’ anywhere in it. Interesting to see if others think that he has in depth observational skills about life and politics in the science community re content of this book. There’s a few pages in back of book, summing up chapter by chapter all he learned: such as ‘make your mark when you are young (I’m paraphrasing), learn to tell a funny story first, hire people who are really good (I liked that one)… and others.
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
October 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“The history of Egypt, Nubia and other countries showed that they were engaged in science and math at levels much higher than Western history records show. Was that because of DNA?”
Egyptians are black now?
October 19th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
My wife actually met Watson when she worked at Texas Southwestern U., and she said he was very rude and condescending to ‘underlings’.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Sam:
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.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Oh, crap. I actually, like, read what Watson said. That’s just racist. Forget my little foray into reason, lol, I didn’t realize how general and ignorant of history Watson’s statements were.
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)
October 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Jewboy:
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.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 am
[…] Your DNA Can Make You Stupid & UnreasonableThe Moderate Voice - Then, we could chart across racial, ethnic, religious, professional, and age to see beyond the Functionary, & also to see more deeply- especially where pattern could find studies in other countries, or just here in the US, where Anglo stock […]