View Full Version : DNA Discoverer: Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites
October 18th, 2007, 10:30 AM
Echoing other notable scientists like William Shockley and Richard J. Herrnstein...James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, told the Sunday Times of London that 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."
Read the entire article (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece)
Do you agree with Watson when he wrote in his memoirs 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."?
Or do you feel that it is just a perception brought on by a race hindered by economic and social factors that contribute to low IQ scores?
Personally, I think it is common sense that genetics places a strong role in race intelligence, and I agree with all of the above people in regards to their notion that there are extremely distinct differences in overall intelligence between races and that the more intelligent races suffer by being outbred by the lesser intelligent ones.
October 18th, 2007, 10:48 AM
the more intelligent races suffer by being outbred by the lesser intelligent ones.
You were doing well until you got here. The opposite is true. The tests don't just show blacks to be (on average) at the bottom of the IQ ladder, they show people from Asia to be at the top, slightly above Western Europeans. Since two of the most populace countries are India and China, where innate IQ's are higher than whites, I question the old adage you presented above.
Africa is a problem. It will be interesting to see what the rest of the world does as we progress further ahead and that entire continent becomes more and more reliant on our generosity.
Something to keep in mind, though: IQ isn't everything. We also reward people for cock size and athleticism, and the lowest-paid NFL player makes more than a brain surgeon. If I had to choose between being a genius and having the physicality of an NFL linebacker, it would not be an easy choice.
October 18th, 2007, 11:53 AM
I love when people get old and just don't give a shit anymore. Latimer and I were discussing this just the other evening - Multiple individuals and organisations have come to similarly unpopular conclusions and have chosen to quietly walk away from their findings.
That being said, no, I.Q. isn't everything...But it is one hell of an indicator.
October 18th, 2007, 01:00 PM
I have to jump in here. I haven't posted in a long time but I think this is interesting.
I just got done reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Jared Diamond answered a lot of these questions so well in his book. Environment has so much to do with what we would call "intelligence". We should not equate the lack of ability to adapt to intelligence. For thousand of years Africans lived in certain a environment and as with natural selection that is what they became best adapted to. When you change that environment suddenly there is no time for them to adapt to the change. Westerners had thousands of years to slowly adapt to the changes in western lifestyle, ecology. Breeding is always going to supply you with the tools you need as long as these is changes are not rapid. If if change is rapid you're probability to survive will decrease.
Not all races are going to be equal in everything but you have to be careful how you state it since it really can't be explained in a simple paragraph.
October 18th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Were Africans or Europeans brought up in harsher enviroments? It stands to reason, following Watson's reasoning, that if dark skinned people have been around longer than people with lighter skin pigmentation, that they'd also have longer to adopt and if they had not yet sufficently adopt and develop after all this time then maybe it has something to do with their average inherit intelligence. Africa, it would seem to me, would be a better place to harbor the humble beginings of what we refer to as homo sapien. Most of what I've read suggests that a small portion of our species migrated North and thrived due to the necessity to adapt.
This is mere speculation of course, but I think that early homo sapiens had to develop better ways of argriculture as a result of preperation for winter. They had to utilize a bit of restraint to store meat and grain. They had to come up with more tools for survival in the cold. Where some suggest that hardship and change breeds lower survival rate, I would also point out that hardship breeds ingenuity, and ingenuity breeds intelligence (or is it the other way around?).
I don't find Watson racist. Racist would denote he had some preconcieved hatred for other skin colors without any reasoning behind it; that he merely hated difference. This is absolutely not the case. I find him unashamed and unapologetic about prying into territory some may find politically incorrect.
Science should never worry about political correctness; reality doesn't adhere to it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.