Racist Remarks

[Albert Tatlock]

... 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.

Thanks - your reply emphasises my point well.

 

By following that thought process, much legislation over the past five years could have been predicted (and was by many) - but ignored by most (who are only now becoming aware of its consequences) and who continue to choose to ignore or remain oblivious to that which is coming onto force in the next five years.

[Mr. Sausages]

Which is a bit like how some people predicted the birth of Jesus...

[VinnieK]

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

 

Not explicitely, no, but he does state:

 

"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really"

 

These tests, if not referring to IQ testing (unlikely, in my opinion), are still going to suffer from the same problems I raised before, since these are inherent to all attempts to measure intelligence and aptitude - A-Levels, GCSEs, and indeed even degrees have similar problems in differentiating between intelligence (still undefined in any significant, measurable way) and rote learning, coaching and aptitude based on familiarity and experience.

 

Also, it's difficult to understand what kind of point he's trying to make when he raises the issue of our social policies towards - what does he suggest in their place? A considerable amount of the problems Africa suffers from are due to a combination of Governmental corruption and unfair trade policies in the West that preach open and free markets but are in fact bolstered by subsidy and protectionist measures that undermine African industry and agriculture. It's difficult to see how these are related to intelligence levels.

 

Attention must also be drawn to the fact that he makes no mention of education and nutrition on the potential for differing intelligence levels. He quite clearly suggests that if this difference exists it is by virtue of evolution - an in-built biological inequality. He offers no evidence for this (indeed, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Health recently stated that Watson's views are inconsistent with the research literature on the subject), instead presenting what is speculation fuelled by the result of somewhat questionable testing mechanisms as a serious conclusion, despite having done nothing to establish a link between these two elements of his argument, or to explain how it is better than alternative (and indeed more established) theories on the matter.

 

Finally, Watson himself has turned around on the subject, being quoted as having said:

 

1) "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said." 2) "If I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it."

 

Link ahoy!

[Albert Tatlock]

Which is a bit like how some people predicted the birth of Jesus...

You're mixing up fantasy with history. I'm talking of 1. what's happended, 2. what is happening - and what is likely to happen (based on the facts, and the people who are still in power, surrounding 1. and 2.). A bit like predicting your reply.

[Lonan3]

Which is a bit like how some people predicted the birth of Jesus...

 

No one predicted the birth of Jesus. A few OT prophets predicted a Messiah; the biographers of Jesus altered his life story to make it look like it was him.

[P.K.]

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.

VERY dodgy ground Albert. For example "Brainstorming" is an 'administrative' method (often followed by "Blamestorming" when the whole lot goes tits up) i.e. administrative methodologies and processes that are designed to get a project to a successful conclusion sometimes despite the project managers and sponsors.

 

I've done lots of this and I can assure you that in a way you are right. However a few things you should always be aware of in "Blue Sky Thinking" (I hate that expression) is that they have nothing to do with IQ. There is also no way you can force someone to have a good idea, all you can do is create a climate that will encourage them. Good ideas don't always come with experience either BUT with that comes another problem. A lot of companies downsize with impunity. They figure if they cut too much they can then make up the shortfall by hiring youngsters off the street at a cheaper rate - win/win. Unfortunately with age comes experience and with experience comes the ability to make the right decisions more often.

 

Like a lot of these things you have to hit the right balance.....

[Mr. Sausages]

Whoosh!

[Albert Tatlock]

Whoosh!

Exactly as predicted.

[Chinahand]

I agree that there is no mentioning IQ, but the statement "our policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" - to me points to IQ tests - and as I've said the reality is that if you test a representative sample of the population of Gambia or where ever in Africa it does score on average lower than a representative sample of the UK, Japan, Germany or whatever developed country you wish to pick.

 

The fact that this is a meaningless comparison doesn't stop him racially stereotyping with the comment about black employees which he then tries to unwind it a bit by talking about talented people of colour, and then he makes an incredibly ignorant statement about geographical separation - Africa is not geographically separated from the rest of the world and in the time period relevent to population genetics is fully mixed genetically with Europe, Asia etc.

 

The ease with which people latch on to skin colour as a significant marker and ignore all the hugely complicated and subtle genetic, environmental and social influences that cross so called race lines is really frightening. I'm reading Dawkins' ancestors tale at the moment and its full of fascinating insights into how genetics, environment etc cross fertilize - the idea that there are homogenous races called blacks and whites is just simplistic - take the gene for lactase - its common throughout Europe, rare in Asia and mixed in Africa - being more prevelent in the pastoralist "tribes" - though the Massi don't have it - they have to curdle their milk in blood in order to be able to digest it!

 

We cannot unpick all these hugely complex issues and say one group is less intelligent than another - mainly because the idea that one factor - skin colour or shape of the eyes is an indicator of genetic or social homogenity is just false!

 

The whole thing comes across as a misuse of data to confirm his own biases - one moment he's talking about Africa, the next about African American employees etc.

 

I presume he's not read the IQ studies of the kids of Black GI's born in 1950s Germany and raised in an environment with much less systematic racism than in the US and much better levels of development than Africa - quess what IQ scores in the average range for Germany at the time!

 

When the Victorians conquored the world they used vast numbers of low IQ peasants work in factories etc. There was great fear of the low IQ peasant - and the result was eugenics and attempts to keep peasant dominated countries migrating into developed areas like the UK and the US - the Irish, the Poles, the Italians were all singled out at various times. The fact that these low IQ peasants became educated, and productive and you and me shows that their lack of IQ wasn't predetermined or unalterable.

 

Nowadays racists use similar ideas to justify their own theories - they aren't based on good science.

 

Going back to his point about the prospects for Africa - policy makers have to find ways to economically use the vast numbers of unproductive peasant farmers in Africa. This is a huge challenge, but the idea that only the Victorian Europeans, or the Japanese, Koreans and about 45% of the Chinese, can do it seems to me really really silly.

 

Development policy has to be developed based on the the reality of the third world - that is vast numbers of ignorant, uneducated people. Fine by me. But the idea that these people will remain permanently backward due to genetics, geographical isolation or what ever is just not supported by data - its bias hiding behind sloppy science.

 

Watson should know that - but it looks like he doesn't care - great way to sell a book, no way to make development policy better.

[maninmannin]

Development policy has to be developed based on the the reality of the third world - that is vast numbers of ignorant, uneducated people. Fine by me. But the idea that these people will remain permanently backward due to genetics, geographical isolation or what ever is just not supported by data - its bias hiding behind sloppy science.

Nice one.

 

However I suspect it's not "sloppy" science but deliberately contentious. There's no such thing as bad publicity..

[Declan]

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.

 

IQ tests don't measure intelligence - they measure IQ or rather ability to do IQ tests. This ability is bound to improve with practice. The current theory (at least it was current 10 years ago when I studies psychology) is that is much more multifaceted than what the tests analyise. The example is the professor of English who is completely incapable of learning how to service an engine. But I think a better example would be Wayne Rooney, he may not be able to string a sentence together, but in the way he instinctively knows how the ball will move if he does x and y and what the people around him are doing and going to do, I can't honestly say that this isn't intelligence.