Racist Remarks

[Lonan3]

Most of us will have heard about this controversy, and I'm rather surprised that no one has yet opened a topic on it.

So....

 

In an interview with The Sunday Times, 79-year-old Nobel Laureate Dr James Watson 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 also said "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," he argued.

"Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

 

The Questions

1. Did he actually say their intelligence was 'inferior' (unacceptable) or merely 'different' (worthy of discussion perhaps)?

2. Was the Science Museum right to cancel his talk or should they have allowed him to speak

3. He has courted controversy in the past (Declaring, for example, that a mother should have the automatic right to an abortion if it became possible to determine that her unborn child was going to be homosexual) so, is it possible that this was intended to draw attention to his new book and was simply a step too far.

4. He has apologised 'unreservedly' saying ""I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. "That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

 

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I really hope we're capable of discussing this without resorting to racist statements ourselves.

[Chinahand]

When I've heard him being interviewed he comes over as on the Asperger's spectrum - hugely intelligent, but no empathy.

 

I think PZ Myers sums it up pretty well:

 

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "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, rather, our wanting to see our particular ethnic or racial group as superior to all others is not enough to make it so. There seems to be no environment on earth (except, perhaps, the coddled womb of the upper middle class lifestyle) where the average human being can afford to dispense with intelligence — and that includes Africa — and even where populations have been isolated for ten thousand years at a time, as in North America and Australia, we don't see powers of reason decaying. And of course, Africa is not significantly geographically or genetically isolated at all.

 

...

 

It's like he thinks everyone is inferior. That's a relative term, so you might be wondering, inferior to what? I happen to know that he thinks very highly of the Scots-Irish, and considers them to be the driving force behind American successes.

 

I'll give you three guesses what Watson's own background might be.

 

And now I take a very deep breath and wonder if I should continue -

 

The issues of intelligence, IQ, race etc are so so complex it is very very easy to pick evidence to fit your biases.

 

I have to be very careful what I write as I'm out of date and haven't followed this particular strain of science in enough detail but from what I understand if you take a simplistic survey of IQ results across the world there are all sorts of opportunities for racist theorising.

 

My knowledge from this is from a book called the Bell Curve Wars. I've also read review articles etc of Stephen Jay Gould's the Mismeasure of Man; which I understand is brilliant.

 

The performance of people on IQ tests does vary across the world - it correlates inversely with malnutrition, directly with education and economic development - people who claim IQ is genetically fixed cannot explain why IQ's have gone up by over 20% in the UK in the last 70 or so years etc.

 

This type of science is all about controlling variables and trying to see how the different factors may affect a General intelligence quotiant (if it even exists) - usually refered to as g - but untangling all of that is so difficult you almost can't get any useful results.

 

Underdeveloped countries have massive problems of malnutrition, lack of infrastructure, education etc - and stated simplistically I believe they do score lower in international IQ comparisions - but tests designed for and by American graduate students are of only limited use in understanding what intelligence is - if we can even define it.

 

From what I understand James Watson was starting out from a factual result - people in Africa score lower on IQ tests - and was then spinning off his own biases in why that may be so. He's now contradicting himself all over the place talking about evolving separately and not being inferior etc.

 

Its all a bit sad if you ask me. Its not his specialism, he's exposing his own biases, the way he's expressing himself is generating lots of attention for his book, but is making him look like a crank. If he genuinely wants to work on development problems in Africa this is a very unhelpful way of proceeding.

 

My own bias after working in Africa for a period of years is that people are people and the circumstances of their lives can enormously affect their life chances and ability to respond to them - I've met hugely driven and successful africans from trully terrible environments and people so squashed by similar circumstances as to be of very little help to themselves or anyone else.

 

What that has to do with some theoretical construct called IQ or "g" I have no idea, but I honestly feel it has very little relevence to development policy or goals - and if that is what Watson was going on about I firmly believe he was very wide of the mark indeed.

[thebees]

All people are clever in their own special way, I agree with CH, this is probably another JK Rowlingesque publicity stunt, for a book based on his own retarded views.

[bluemonday]

Reminds me a little of Nazi theories of racial superiority and we all know how valid they were.

 

As for allowing him to speak, although I feel his 'theory' is in many ways flawed, I don't agree with the SM banning him. Freedom of speech has been bought too dearly to throw away. Even the unpalatable should have the right to be heard - within reason.

 

Life is a roll of the dice and there go we except for a twist of fate.

[Pragmatopian]

My point of view on this is that it's not particularly meaningful to judge everyone using a scale that's culturally biased and of limited use as a measure of our functional capabilities.

[Alias]

If the scale's a measure of the functionality you're looking for then why not? Not saying on a personal basis, but why should a scientist have to forfeit his views because it offends some people? Asian people are stastically the 'smartest' people, and other traits will be the inverse.

 

To write him off as a 'racist' without even questioning by what he meant by intelligence (does he mean educated, absolute, potential etc) is just watering down the issues of both racism and genetic diversity.

[VinnieK]

The issues of intelligence, IQ, race etc are so so complex it is very very easy to pick evidence to fit your biases.

 

In my opinion IQ is one of the most blatant examples of misuse of statistics and probability theory. Firstly, there is (to my knowledge) no serious and meaningful scientific definition of intelligence, and yet IQ tests attempt to quantify and measure it. In no other science can we find examples of this kind of behaviour - of trying to construct measurements for unquantified and undefined properties and processes, and yet still the IQ test thrives and is taken seriously despite having more in common with astrology and the casting of bones to gain insight into the future.

 

Secondly, the link between what IQ tests actually examine and intelligence has not been established. Typically IQ tests are a mixture of verbal, numerical, and geometric puzzles, and whilst it's reasonable to say that most or all people of above average intelligence (and, importantly, sufficient education and previous experience with similar puzzles) should be able to do well when confronted with such puzzles, it is not then valid to infer that all people who are good at such things are then necessarily of above average intelligence (which is the reverse implication of the first statement, and does not automatically hold simply because the first does). Take, for example, 100 african kids and 100 UK kids. Say 3 of the former group manage to score well on the IQ test while 30 of the UK kids do equally well. There exists the possibility that only 3 of the UK kids are actually of above intelligence, whilst the remaining 27 are particularly good at puzzles (thanks to whatever cultural or social reason), but are no more than that.

 

Then of course you have the questions that others have raised regarding cultural and social factors such as education and what have you. These complicate the matter until a point where the IQ test becomes in no small part a farce. Take two kids with identical educations from the same region and with a similar background. It may appear reasonable (ignoring the previous two points) to assume that any differences in performance on an IQ test will be indicative of higher intelligence, but this is not so: say kid A did better than kid B, and that his mother or father buy him puzzle books to keep him entertained - even this most banal of factors has the potential to distort the results of the IQ test. Yes it may be that kid A is simply more intelligent, but it could equally be the case that he has simply become experienced with similar kind of puzzles as feature amongst the test questions.

 

In short IQ tests are little more than a form of numerology dressed up in some pseudo-scientific garb, and Watson really should know better than to accept their legitimacy at face value.

 

Its all a bit sad if you ask me. Its not his specialism, he's exposing his own biases, the way he's expressing himself is generating lots of attention for his book, but is making him look like a crank. If he genuinely wants to work on development problems in Africa this is a very unhelpful way of proceeding.

 

It is distressingly common that scientists of a certain age start branching out and try to establish themselves as public intellectuals in fields far beyond their own expertise, often once they're too old to continue with serious science (it must be said that the age at which this happens varies from individual to individual). Usually they plump for cod philosophy or superficial conjectures regarding science, society and public policy, the latter of which I suppose mentalist race theories might fit in with.

[Bananaman]

In my opinion IQ is one of the most blatant examples of misuse of statistics and probability theory.

 

 

On a similar vein - I'm 5'11" and 15 stone 4lb. According to the BMI I'm obese. Not calling my self slim (for starters I'm sure he'd get upset) by any means but I bet I could get a few laps on most people in a race around a car park.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm

 

What a load of tush!

 

I know it's a change of subject but I felt it must be said.

 

Feeling happy and all back four'd up ( 'cos I'm old aswell)

 

 

Oh cock forgot to put the link in

[Gladys]

Surely, intelligence is innate? It can't be learned or tutored (knowledge can, but not intelligence) and that is where IQ tests fall down, you can learn how to do them. The other night, doing a bit of late night Googling I completed two IQ tests, the first gave me a score of 127 the next gave me a score of 135. Now how did I rack up 8 points on the quotient? No other reason than I had done the first and my mind started thinking the way it had to to answer the questions. I was no more intelligent for the second test than I was for the first, and by no means am I reaching the genius level of intelligence (140), in any case (judging by some of the situations I have found myself in, I am probably struggling to move out of the imbecile category!). Over the years I have done a number of puzzles, I know how to analyse and answer them, but that is as a result of learning, if you like, not innate intelligence.

 

So put your standard western IQ test in front of your standard black African, is it any wonder the score is low? However, put me, or any one else here, in the same environment as the standard black African and see how I fare against him; I suspect his 'intelligence' in that environment will be far superior to mine!

 

There is no scientific measure of intelligence; it is hard to define and then quantify. The best indicator is a twinkle in the eye which recognises the underlying abstract concept behind most ordinary situations we are faced with, rather than a blind acceptance. That is not a measurable characteristic.

[Bananaman]

Now how did I rack up 8 points on the quotient?

 

 

Maybe you were like I am tonight and a bit brave after a glass of wine or two and actually posted on these forums - you went with your gut feelings and went for it?

 

Feck I'm getting deep - I 'll stop posting now for another 9 months.

[Mr. Sausages]

I saw a program a couple of years ago about the person with the highest IQ in Britain. Not only black, but a woman to boot!

 

Having said that, I saw another show recently about child geniuses with IQs of 170, which they said was the highest possible score in an IQ test. Although they potentially had good futures ahead of them, none of them were particularly happy, and because they were puny white kids (with a lower ratio of fast-twitch muscle fibre) they'd probably never win an olympic gold medal in the 100 metres.

[Lonan3]

I don't want to play 'devil's advocate' in the debate, but there are a few things that I'm having trouble understanding. The first, is all the references to IQ and IQ testing (his own IQ is 115 - fairly average). Watson certainly didn't mention it in the original article (which can be found HERE ).

Secondly, the paragraph in question is a very small portion of the whole interview, and probably worth reprinting to enable rational discussion as it's buried deep within the article.

 

He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters 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”.

[Albert Tatlock]

Surely, intelligence is innate? It can't be learned or tutored (knowledge can, but not intelligence) and that is where IQ tests fall down, you can learn how to do them...

 

...There is no scientific measure of intelligence; it is hard to define and then quantify. The best indicator is a twinkle in the eye which recognises the underlying abstract concept behind most ordinary situations we are faced with, rather than a blind acceptance. That is not a measurable characteristic.

There is scientific evidence that intelligence can be 'developed' in the first 18 months of life, in that the brain's pathways (synapse formation etc.), and arguably intelligence and thought processes, can be influenced by parents and environment. Some scientists believe that this is extended to several years, by emphasising the teaching of foreign languages or maths etc. when under the age of 6 or 7.

 

That 'twinkle in the eye' as you descibe it, and how we deal with situations is, IMO, a good description of applying learning and intelligence. For example, Einstein wasn't particularly good at school and wasn't super intelligent, but he applied a 'quantum leap' to his thinking: i.e. jump ahead, and say: 'what if this were true, then how would I prove it and what would I look for?' and then work backwards to prove it using conventional mathematics, historical knowledge, and everyday techniques. We only hear of Einsteins successes, but he also had a lot of failures.

 

In terms of everyday life, the same is true for good Project Managers i.e. a good project manager will consider many risks and possibilities (often those with a low probability but nevertheless high impact) well in advance and be prepared in is mind to deal with them (Plan A, B, C etc.) - whilst a 'bad' Project Manager (even with the same intelligence, but lacking 'commonsense' and following 'administrative' methods) won't take that leap ahead - and as a result will end up being faced with numerous difficulties.

 

IMO you can equally apply 'quantum leap thinking' and past events to many arguments and discussions, for example: the amount of legislation being produced on the island (there is a trend for increase going back two decades - so chances are with the same people involved it is likely this will continue), the island's planning process and its likely outcomes (the history of past events, and the fact that the same people still control the process indicates that, arguably, it will still be a mess in 4 years), or the path we are on regarding the erosion of civil liberties in the UK (again, past events and the same people are still involved in eroding them, so it is likely that this path will continue). Applying that logic by taking a 'quantum leap' into future legislation/events shows a variety of probabilities for the future - all capable of being backed by historical events and trends. In other words, that thought process allows you to see the sometimes 'obvious' paths that sometimes can be missed by 'serial thinkers' (some of whom don't seem to look back at what's happened nor think ahead about the possible outcomes or what people have been allowed to get away with before) - and who justify the truth in the saying 'if there's one thing we learn from history, it's that we learn nothing from history'.

[P.K.]

I lack the attention span to read VinnieK's posts but I think his point is that quoting IQ as factual is unsound as we do not know how to accurately measure it.

 

I had to take an IQ test for the police force (strange but true!) and you could only take the test the once. In the event of failure you couldn't re-take it because, of course, you can't change your IQ. However there is no doubt that things like practice on the sorts of questions you get, lifestyle changes etc can improve your ability to do the tests! So your IQ doesn't change but your score certainly can.

 

Add cultural differences to the mix and you're pissing in the wind. I heard from somewhere the average sub-saharan IQ was in the sixties but, of course, the measurement is unsound. I'm always amused by the story that when Cook arrived off Australia apparently the natives out fishing completely ignored the Endeavour. The biggest construction they had ever seen full of whitey and they act like it's not there. I wonder if it's an "urban" myth? Anyway I thought the Aborigines were in the sixties as well but with their amazing attitude to the world how can westerners really know what they are thinking of?

 

IQ tests prove nothing.

[Mr. Sausages]

... the erosion of civil liberties in the UK ...

 

The more I read your posts, the more I'm reminded of that sketch in the Fast Show where the nutter at the party relates every subject to Jesus.