2024-03-29, 02:06 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Whites Smarter than Blacks?  (Read 8288 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« on: 2007-10-17, 03:15 »

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

An interesting dilemma.  As a scientist you're supposed to stick to the facts.  Now if your facts, accurate or not, run afoul of social sensitivities and politics, what do you do?  I find this interesting as, to me at least, the outraged reactions and cries of racism illustrate that science is subject to political pressures that it's supposedly immune to.  It seems that which social sensitivities can be trampled on depend greatly on what is socially and politically acceptable for the time.  One may publish books and papers attempting to assassinate God - something that would have been unthinkable a mere 200 years ago - but one cannot publish a study that indicates that genetic background has an influence on human intelligence because of racial sensitivities - something that would have been very acceptable prior to the Civil War.

I think the scientific community needs to come to terms with an uncomfortable problem, that is, that human nature must be factored into scientific thinking and the realities of human thought and sensitivities can and do influence and interfere with scientific objectivity.  Pure research is impossible so long as motive and reluctance are omitted from inclusion as factors in the scientific process.  Yes, there is bias, yes there is agenda.  To think otherwise is self-delusion - all human activities are the result of some level of agenda, conscious or not, and no area of study can ever be completely objective.  Admitting to it will allow for more honest results in research, though I think there are many scientists with questionable ethics who are less than honest with their observations.  Understanding public reaction of, shall we say, uncomfortable data may also help the scientist understand that some research, honest in its intentions or not, can lead to unforseen consequences.

Then again, some very intelligent people can also make very unintelligent choices.  Perhaps this researcher should have seen this coming?  As Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does".  There are plenty of dumb white people in the world.  Genetics only goes so far as an excuse.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tekhead
 
Elite
*
Posts: 1110

« Reply #1 on: 2007-10-17, 16:54 »

Where's the proof? Testing? All I see is words, unless I skimmed over it.

If this is all based around IQ tests, then it's not really a sound argument.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2007-10-17, 19:27 »

Well that's the problem isn't it?  How many times in the past has someone used some kind of dubious evidence to "prove" one race superior to another?  And, once "proven", that's an excuse to subjugate and enslave, is it not?  How many times in man's history has barbarism been justified by "natural right" or "divine right" or whatever rationalization one invents in order to ignore their conscience?  If they can't use religion, they'll use science.  Instead of the divine right of kings, you have Darwin and natural selection.  The policy of superiority was used by the Nazis to attempt genocide, and blacks were regarded as less than human to their white slave owners.  How fast do people forget the lessons of history.  Those who want to dominate will always find some reason to excuse behavior that they know is wrong.  The use of so-called science to support eugenics is nothing new, though it never ceases to amaze me how much effort people will exert in order to use very twisted and corrupt reason to delude themselves into silencing their own conscience.

I would question why someone would want to put forth this kind of research to begin with.  For practical purposes, it is of little use.  Everyone is born with different gifts, and intelligence varies so widely from one individual to another that attempting to categorize by race and genetics seems of little point to me, especially in a world where there is so much interracial breeding.  How one is raised and educated would also have great impact on their abilities as well, as not all creatures learn the same things the same way.  I certainly would be suspect of the motives of the researcher, hence my earlier point about honesty in intention when it comes to scientific research.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Dr Sean
 

Ogre
**
Posts: 50

« Reply #3 on: 2007-10-17, 22:30 »

I'm not really wondering his motives, because reading that article, he seems  rather strange, or maybe just a very extreme man. Though I am interested in how this will end.
Logged
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #4 on: 2007-10-18, 00:38 »

Two words:

Dan Quayle.

Thus disspelling (or should that be "mis-spelling" Slipgate - Ninja ) this research in its entirety.
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2007-10-18, 15:39 »

Scal, you have to remember that, to someone who thinks that way, that is, that one race is superior to another, they see nothing wrong with it.  I suppose it's this man's sensibilities that I question more than anything else.  He may have won a Nobel for discovering DNA, but if they're willing to give one to Al Gore and Jimmy Carter...  Well wisdom never was a prerequisite I suppose.

Looking at further articles, it seems he's made a number of very odd and controversial statements in the past:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_o..._re_eu/britain_controversial_scientist_2
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071018100412.61u395et&show_article=1

On the surface the following statement would seem to have some scientific validity:

Quote
There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically

This is where the can of worms opens for scientific honesty, as I mentioned in my first post.  Logically speaking, it would be natural to expect differing traits based on geography because of environmental differences affecting the development of differing peoples over time.  It is observable that peoples from differing geographies have differing physical traits, and thus it would be natural to expect that intelligence would vary as well since the brain is a physical organ and does have a bit to do with intelligence.  I find that no more controversial in concept than advancing the notion that mammals in colder climates will have a different thickness of fur and insulating fat than those that live in warmer climates.  As a statement of general hypothesis it makes sense.  I also think that the assertion that Race A is more or less intelligent than Race B is unprovable and untestable.  There are far too many variables at play.

Unfortunately for men like Watson, science doesn't take place in a vacuum, and he's overlooking a very important principle of biology.  Genetic variation within a species only governs predisposition, not end result.  Supposing this supposition of his is correct, then it would simply mean blacks were predisposed to be less intelligent on average, not that they actually are less intelligent.  The brain is not a static organ, and what one may lack naturally they can usually acquire through exertion.  Some humans are born with higher physical strength than others.  Those born with less can acquire greater strength even than those born with a higher strength by working out with heavy weights.  The same applies to the brain.  Some people born with a capacity for high intelligence never use it.  Others born with a lower aptitude can overcome this with diligence.  Conversely, a poor education will give anyone low marks on an IQ test, regardless of their actual learning and reasoning potential.  Perhaps this is something he should have considered before drawing his conclusions.

The part that troubles me most in all of this is this line:


Quote
He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

This kind of statement does come off as racist, or at best, stereotypical and ignorant.  Let's say one is in a predominantly black inner-city ghetto where crime is high and education is substandard.  Of course employees in this area will be difficult because of the living conditions and educational back ground, and of course the employees will be black because that's the predominant racial group in the area!  That proves nothing except that poor education and high crime make for uneducated and difficult people.  Why shouldn't they be difficult if their life has been nothing but difficult for them?  You go anywhere in the world where those conditions are prevalent and whatever race is predominant in that area will reflect the same or similar behavioral traits.  That's not a racial trait, it's an environmental conditioning process.  Remove people from squalor, teach them well, and give them a sense of purpose and value and see how much better they do, provided they want to of course.  I thought people would have understood this principle by now.

Now the bit about aborting homosexual babies is a bit amusing in the sense that typically those who support abortion are politically of the same leaning as those who support homosexuality.  Rather interesting twist on the whole "pro-choice" thing.  Again, eugenics comes to mind, but it does put leftists in an interesting ethical dilemma when trying to figure out how to address that particular scenario.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2007-10-25, 16:16 »

And the conclusion of the story...

Quote
ames Watson, the Nobel laureate who sparked an international furor last week with comments about intelligence levels among blacks, has retired from his post at a prestigious research institution.

Watson, 79, and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York announced his departure Thursday.

Watson was chancellor of the institution, and his retirement was effective immediately.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305003,00.html

So he apologizes, gives the customary "I didn't mean that" retraction, and then resigns.  If he didn't believe it, why did he say it in the first place?  Why spark the controversy?

Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #7 on: 2007-10-25, 21:56 »

Because he's a pr*ck?
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #8 on: 2007-10-31, 03:03 »

Oh this gets even better!

Quote
Federal campaign filings show that Mr. Watson has donated more than $70,000 to candidates and their political causes, including a total of $3,000 to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign on May 17 and June 25. Two days later, a Senate committee report showed that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer earmarked $900,000 for the lab.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...icle?AID=/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001

The hypocrisy of politics never ceases to amaze me, but that this ties into a bunch of New York political elites...  So much for having any shred of objectivity in THAT lab.  If anyone ever makes the mistake of thinking I am anti-science, let me say that I fully support the scientific method, as it was intended to be followed.  It's politics and political agendas, and money polluting the scientific process that I dislike.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
ReBoOt
Mean ol Swede
 
Team Member
Elite
****
Posts: 1294

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2007-11-06, 08:48 »

uhm...wtf? i've met very intelligent "black" ppls i dont belive there's anything with this gene bullshit that whould make white smarter.
It rather depends on your surrounding, if you have decent schools, religion and so on.

I sure wont say im white im smarter!
This is bullshit period.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2007-11-06, 17:25 »

Ofcourse, a statistical difference won't be disproven by presenting either (even a remarkable lot of) stupid whites or smart blacks. Also, it might be argued that a) those surroundings arise wherever people are smarter (or even, rather more obviously unconvincingly, richer and therefore smarter), or b) that there is some (other) connection between race and surroundings.

I wouldn't say it is "bullshit" (and certainly not be adding "period"). It is however plain to me that this type of research is flawed from the outset. 1) there seems to be no particular point in finding the facts of the matter here (what would be the profit that could be made of it? where are the economical advantages of "knowing"? how can the results play any helpful role in anything but political agendae?); 2) there is, at this time, too much ignorance and interference to produce any kind of reliable results. There's simply too much pressure from forced "political correctness" (you'll be hard-pressed to find any non-racist scientist willing to risk admitting that there is any kind of inequality -- I'm sure you'll even find a curious few who outrightly deny any difference in skin-colour between anyone whatsoever), "political incorrectness" (racists will obviously have their own agenda colouring their findings, and Phoenix already indicated the huge soms of money involved, destroying any merits there might have been to the project), the simple fact that there is relatively little uncontroversially known about any kind of connection between genes and second-order phenotypical traits,   and finally, "intelligence" or "being smarter" is far from being clearly defined, and there will be no practical way of settling disputes over the inclusion of "emotional intelligence" or "street smarts" in addition to "IQ"-type intelligence.

I'll be a find old jackass for a moment, and say: yes, for a given understanding of "smarter" (disregarding, momentarily, the merits of sticking to that understanding), I am white, and I am smarter than some blacks, and yes, this is because I am a typical caucasian. I guess the only reason that I liked typing that, is because I rather enjoy being politically incorrect. I have to grant, however, that as soon as one holds there to be an important difference between nature and nurture, and disconnects any type of connection between skin-colour from nurture, the "because"-clause of the above sentence is unwarranted and must be omitted. That leaves a rather bland set of "facts", which lack any possible explanatory power. Moreover, I fail to see the point of such a claim -- it seems, even when true in any sort of near-non-trivial sense, to be an empty gesture.

What this, like any other taboo, is fantastically good for, however, is to provide "shock-value" for (stand-up) comedy.
Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #11 on: 2007-11-06, 20:08 »

I can trump that, Tab.  As the resident Avian I believe I can offend everyone here equally by declaring mankind to be dumber than a box of rocks irrespective of race.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Dr Sean
 

Ogre
**
Posts: 50

« Reply #12 on: 2007-11-07, 03:54 »

I think the majority of people are stupid.
Logged
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #13 on: 2007-11-07, 04:50 »

Everyone is sporking stupid.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #14 on: 2007-11-07, 10:15 »

All truisms are pointless.
Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: