One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.
More fierce criticism of the eminent scientist is expected as he embarks on a number of engagements to promote a new book ‘Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science’. Among his first commitments is a speech to a London audience at the Science Museum on Friday. The event is sold out.
Dr Watson, who runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.
The 79-year-old geneticist 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 - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission is studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said today: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.
“I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels.”
Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.
He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. His argument may be true. Racial differences do exist (height, build, athletic prowess, predisposition to disease). To think that intelligence is a preserved characteristic across the races is an odd thought.

A study similar to this was done in the 60's and proved just as faulty as this one. WHy should it be given anymore credibility then the original.
I also believe a study like this was prevelant in 1930's Germany and you know where that went.

One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.
More fierce criticism of the eminent scientist is expected as he embarks on a number of engagements to promote a new book ‘Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science’. Among his first commitments is a speech to a London audience at the Science Museum on Friday. The event is sold out.
Dr Watson, who runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.
The 79-year-old geneticist 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 - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission is studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said today: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.
“I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels.”
Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.
He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. His argument may be true. Racial differences do exist (height, build, athletic prowess, predisposition to disease). To think that intelligence is a preserved characteristic across the races is an odd thought.

Link to a credible new source please.

Ive heard this before.
asians are smarter than european whites, european whites are smarter than blacks from well, anywhere.

how was it determined?
if by a test we have to look at education.
asians typically spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week, 12 months a year in some sort of training or schooling.
whites have generally in the past been educated in the better schools, and have been raised by parents that benefited from those better schools during their own education.
blacks having the lessor educational background will most likely have lower scores.

if by an IQ test
asians and whites generally in the past have had more exposure to the higher tech products of the time due to income levels created by the lessor educational opportunities. How well do you think ol Abe Lincoln would do on a present day IQ test with only his 1800s perception and knowledge of the world and science?

I think it might be fairer to say that at this time, or, at least in the past, Whites and Asians outperformed blacks due to social and economic differences during the education process.

you can see a good example of this where you have black children in the better county majority white schools, the black children will perform at levels that are well within the standards of that school.

if by an IQ test
asians and whites generally in the past have had more exposure to the higher tech products of the time due to income levels created by the lessor educational opportunities. How well do you think ol Abe Lincoln would do on a present day IQ test with only his 1800s perception and knowledge of the world and science?

:confused:
To my knowledge, an IQ test has nothing to do with how exposed to technology you are. It isn't the same as an IQ test on the internet :lol: There is a reason that the test is preferably done on adolescents...it isn't supposed to really incorporate learned things, but more so, your ability to think logically.
At least that's how I understand it.

Link to a credible new source please.
it's MONUMENTAL EARTH SHATTERING BREAKING NEWS










... about 14 months ago :killingme

Race remarks get Nobel winner in trouble - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21362732/)



nice try Uncle Rico :bigwhoop:

once again, you FAIL! :loser: :dork: :crazy: :otter: :bonk: :shortbus:

It would appear that nearly everyone is more intelligent than uncle rico.

It would appear that nearly everyone is more intelligent than uncle rico.

:killingme :roflmao: :yeahthat: :roflmao: :killingme

:confused:
To my knowledge, an IQ test has nothing to do with how exposed to technology you are. It isn't the same as an IQ test on the internet :lol: There is a reason that the test is preferably done on adolescents...it isn't supposed to really incorporate learned things, but more so, your ability to think logically.
At least that's how I understand it.
based on who's logic?

Ive heard this before.
asians are smarter than european whites, european whites are smarter than blacks from well, anywhere.

how was it determined?
if by a test we have to look at education.
asians typically spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week, 12 months a year in some sort of training or schooling.
whites have generally in the past been educated in the better schools, and have been raised by parents that benefited from those better schools during their own education.
blacks having the lessor educational background will most likely have lower scores.

if by an IQ test
asians and whites generally in the past have had more exposure to the higher tech products of the time due to income levels created by the lessor educational opportunities. How well do you think ol Abe Lincoln would do on a present day IQ test with only his 1800s perception and knowledge of the world and science?

I think it might be fairer to say that at this time, or, at least in the past, Whites and Asians outperformed blacks due to social and economic differences during the education process.

you can see a good example of this where you have black children in the better county majority white schools, the black children will perform at levels that are well within the standards of that school.

yet every school in the mostly black charles county school system met met nclb ayp requirements ... you fail

based on who's logic?

Not sure.
the type of logic that includes things like putting the square block through the hole of the corresponding shape, that sort of thing. :shrug:

based on who's logic?

An IQ test is based on pattern recognition. someone with a Doctorate would not have an advantage taking the test over someone with only a high school diploma.

Trust me I am a genius and know about stuff like this.

An IQ test is based on pattern recognition. someone with a Doctorate would not have an advantage taking the test over someone with only a high school diploma.

Trust me I am a genius and know about stuff like this.

Thats what I thought.
but they still prefer to do the test on kids, so I heard, but I'm not 100% sure why.

One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.
More fierce criticism of the eminent scientist is expected as he embarks on a number of engagements to promote a new book ‘Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science’. Among his first commitments is a speech to a London audience at the Science Museum on Friday. The event is sold out.
Dr Watson, who runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.
The 79-year-old geneticist 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 - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission is studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said today: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.
“I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels.”
Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.
He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. His argument may be true. Racial differences do exist (height, build, athletic prowess, predisposition to disease). To think that intelligence is a preserved characteristic across the races is an odd thought.

My child = S.T.E.M= you’re stupid. :loser:
My other child= above grade level in reading and math = you=:loser:
Tell that to the couple hundred ‘non black people’ behind me in my graduating class...they would disagree...:popcorn:

My child = S.T.E.M= you’re stupid. :loser:
My other child= above grade level in reading and math = you=:loser:
Tell that to the couple hundred ‘non black people’ behind me in my graduating class...they would disagree...:popcorn:

An example of exception does not prove the average to be false.

NGM would have had a field day with this thread if he were still around....

I find it appalling that a "scientist" could have the audacity to try and prove intelligence based on skin color. There's just no way to achieve flawless results. Too many extenuating circumstances and there are far to many variables to come to an accurate conclusion.

:smack:Uncle Rico for posting this wothless garbage.

NGM would have had a field day with this thread if he were still around....
I find it appalling that a "scientist" could have the audacity to try and prove intelligence based on skin color. There's just no way to achieve flawless results. Too many extenuating circumstances and there are far to many variables to come to an accurate conclusion.

:smack:Uncle Rico for posting this wothless garbage.



:killingme

An example of exception does not prove the average to be false.

Prove that it's an exception.....

Prove that it's an exception.....

I have no way of doing that :lol:
I know/have known plenty of intelligent people of all races, as well as some stupid stupid white people (along with the other races as well).
No idea what the facts are on average intelligence if you looked at it by race, unless we are just going off of how kids do in school, in which case I'd say that this scientist wasn't too far off :shrug: IMO, grades in school does not necessarily show intelligence or lack their of though, and I have no idea what the average IQ is, nor divided by race.

An example of exception does not prove the average to be false.

where is the smiley for "the hand"??
:rolleyes:

..............................I'm out!!! :popcorn:

No idea what the facts are on average intelligence if you looked at it by race, .
a quick search found this.


The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law (http://www.apa.org/journals/law.html), a journal of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/), examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."
The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario (http://www.uwo.ca/) and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley (http://www.berkeley.edu/), appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware (http://www.udel.edu/), three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University (http://www.yale.edu/), Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/), and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University (http://www.nyu.edu/)), and the authors' reply.
"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.
Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/ (http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/)

a quick search found this.

:bubble:
Interesting.

:bubble:
Interesting.
Im sure it will be attributed to my own personal research and writings before the night is over.

Im sure it will be attributed to my own personal research and writings before the night is over.

Your own personal research? Can you provide links to your research and publications? I would find that quite interesting.

or are you saying.....

The findings posted above are someone else's research and publications in reputable scientific journals that just happen to be descriptive of the real world without trying to provide non-scientific attributes to potential 'cause' for the observed factual information proved by numerous other reputable scientific studies?