|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2007 : 11:19:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The conviction I lack is with the assertion that this research can somehow be put to good, or even benign, use. |
I don't really know how useful such reseach would be. But the point is that if it could be useful and is only being avoided due to social taboos then that is a bad thing for science and for human progress. If it is neglected simply because researchers have limited time and have more promising things to study then that is perfectly OK.
| Sure, if the result is that all human ethnic groups are more or less of the same average intelligence, then woo hoo. That's great news. But if the result is that Europeans are more or less intelligent than Africans and Asians, won't there then be empirical justification for all sorts of racism? |
Not really. Not unless the differences were to turn out to be far more substantial than what is even remotely likely. Not studying the issue is more likely to give succor to racists IMO as it makes the refutation to their claims social and political rather than fully scientific. In this climate any quack researcher (or nobel laurate as the case may be) can spout off and their comments can gain a veneer of undeserved credibility.
| Groups of humans who are convinced of their superiority over other groups of humans have a poor history of behaving well toward them. The down side of such empirical knowledge is very down and our history is replete with examples. |
The down side of atomic theory is very down as well. Heck, that's true of just about any major field of research at one time or another.
| And what's the up side again? You said we won't know the up or down side until we do the research, and I completely disagree. The down side is evident in the worst of the worst in human history. The upside you say might be a better grasp of how the mind works... |
We don't know that researching racial differences in intelligence is likely to cause us to repeat the worst of the worst of human history. Frankly that seems far fetched to me.
I think it's very reasonable to be unconvinced by this cost/benefit scenario. As to the question of what it would take to convince me? It's so elusive I can't even think of an example.
|
I think that by focusing on and magnifying the negative aspects and minimizing the intangible positive aspects you've presented a skewed cost/benefit analysis.
The human mind and intelligence in general are growing and promising areas of research and I'd hate to see that potential stifled or delayed by sacred cows that limit what conclusions or discoveries are to be deemed socially acceptable. |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 11:56:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
....
The human mind and intelligence in general are growing and promising areas of research and I'd hate to see that potential stifled or delayed by sacred cows that limit what conclusions or discoveries are to be deemed socially acceptable.
|
What are you talking about here? Are you saying humanity is evolving greater intelligence? Can you post anything to support that? And why would proving that one ethnicity is genetically more intelligent than the other somehow aid the evolution of greater overall human intelligence? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 12:09:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
....
The human mind and intelligence in general are growing and promising areas of research and I'd hate to see that potential stifled or delayed by sacred cows that limit what conclusions or discoveries are to be deemed socially acceptable.
|
What are you talking about here? Are you saying humanity is evolving greater intelligence? Can you post anything to support that? And why would proving that one ethnicity is genetically more intelligent than the other somehow aid the evolution of greater overall human intelligence?
|
Um... no... where did that come from? I'm talking about the subfields of neuroscience and psychology and such.
I have posted a thread on the singularity recently so maybe that got you thinking, but that's not what I was referencing here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 21:04:52 [Permalink]
|
From All Things Considered:DNA Scientist Suspended after Africa Comments
James Watson, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who co-discovered the structure of DNA, has been suspended from his administrative duties as chancellor for the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
The move comes after Watson's suggestion that African natives were less intelligent than people in the West ran in a British newspaper.
The comments provoked uproar in Britain, prompting Watson to cancel a book tour there and return to the United States. Listen to the segment at the above link. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 23:40:53 [Permalink]
|
| So he can't remember saying it? Stupid white men having no memory... |
 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 16:47:40 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting. . . . he's apparently got a history of making racial and sexual comments. Poor judgement to speak your thoughts these days. Does anyone think it's not appropriate for him to lose his career over these most recent comments? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:01:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
I think that by focusing on and magnifying the negative aspects and minimizing the intangible positive aspects you've presented a skewed cost/benefit analysis.
|
BTW, what are the intangible positive aspects anyway? The tangible negetives are pretty stark -- potential empirical evidence of inferior intelligence between ethnic groups. What are the positives? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/22/2007 07:09:55 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:39:29 [Permalink]
|
The guy has since come out to restate his misconstrued remarks...
It has been shown that people have higher IQs when they are older, which points to education as a key factor in intelligence. So it is no stretch to conclude that non-industial populations which dont have access to continual education will naturally score lower on IQ exams, this does not mean that they are inherantly less-intelligent in anyway, only that they don't live in a place which requires constant adapation to new things, like cell phones, computers, graduate school and whatnot.
While, not everyone scored higher as you would expect some older folks to lose some mental ability, it is clear that the more education you have the higher your IQ will be.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX035689.html
Data is from this study in Scotland, where all children were givin IQ tests in 1932 and 1947, they were then retested with the same test in the last decade to determine the effects of all sorts of life infulences on IQ. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:14:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
The guy has since come out to restate his misconstrued remarks...
It has been shown that people have higher IQs when they are older, which points to education as a key factor in intelligence. So it is no stretch to conclude that non-industial populations which dont have access to continual education will naturally score lower on IQ exams, this does not mean that they are inherantly less-intelligent in anyway, only that they don't live in a place which requires constant adapation to new things, like cell phones, computers, graduate school and whatnot.
While, not everyone scored higher as you would expect some older folks to lose some mental ability, it is clear that the more education you have the higher your IQ will be.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX035689.html
Data is from this study in Scotland, where all children were givin IQ tests in 1932 and 1947, they were then retested with the same test in the last decade to determine the effects of all sorts of life infulences on IQ.
|
If it's based on education level, then it's not really a true innate IQ test, is it? On the other hand, the brain is like a muscle, don't exercise it and it weakens, so . . . . hmmm. This is an old argument about IQ testing, I know, but it sure seems like it's very difficult to measure innate intelligence. There are so many factors, like education, like culture, like nutrition, social stability and so on. As I said earlier, it seems as though there's no good way to accurately compare average intelligence of Africans to that of Europeans. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/22/2007 07:15:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 08:42:16 [Permalink]
|
Tangential to the subject of this thread is the is the question of whether race, in a biological sense, even exists.
Does Race Exist?
The concept of race is one of the most intellectually and emotionally charged subjects, not only in society but in science as well. NOVA Online asked two leading anthropologists, Dr. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan and Dr. George Gill of the University of Wyoming, who fall on either side of the debate about whether race exists, to state their points of view… |
I chose this as an Evil Pick in our Skeptic Summary some time ago. This might be a good time to go back to it and look at the arguments for and against.
Just so's ya know, I think Watson is a bit of a whack job…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 10:36:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Not tangential to the subject of this thread is the is the question of whether race, in a biological sense, even exists.
Does Race Exist?
The concept of race is one of the most intellectually and emotionally charged subjects, not only in society but in science as well. NOVA Online asked two leading anthropologists, Dr. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan and Dr. George Gill of the University of Wyoming, who fall on either side of the debate about whether race exists, to state their points of view… |
I chose this as an Evil Pick in our Skeptic Summary some time ago. This might be a good time to go back to it and look at the arguments for and against.
Just so's ya know, I think Watson is a bit of a whack job…
|
I think he's whacked too. He'd have to be to make the statements publicly, even if he believed them. Credit for honesty???
Anyway, I think before you ask the question of whether race exists, you have to define what you mean by race. Humanity is all one species since every 'race' of human can breed with every other - so race does not mean species. But there are definite, consistent and predictable differences between the human ethnic groups. You can't cross two native Norwegians and get someone that looks Korean.
In that respect, we're like dogs, though dogs have much greater variability in phenotype (the greatest of any species, so I read somewhere). I presume it's possible to cross a Great Dane and a Chihuaua in the lab. I wonder what the result would be. Anyone know if that's been done? My neighbors have a Labradoodle - Labrador Retreiver and a Poodle - very nice dog, btw. I digress.... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/22/2007 10:37:37 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 10:36:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
I think that by focusing on and magnifying the negative aspects and minimizing the intangible positive aspects you've presented a skewed cost/benefit analysis.
|
BTW, what are the intangible positive aspects anyway? The tangible negetives are pretty stark -- potential empirical evidence of inferior intelligence between ethnic groups.
|
Why do you think that is a negative? If it is the case then is is the case whether we study it or not, the only difference is that by refusing to look at it we maintain our ignorance. You are essentially saying that as long as we don't know anything about the effect of race on intelligence then there is no basis for racism. But that has never worked. Bigotry feeds on ignorance and in a climate where scientists are forced to censor their results the bigot is justified in discarding scientific evidence.
The thing is the scenario where one race has clearly superior or inferior overall native intelligence to another race isn't particularily likely anyway. I suppose we tend to give it more credit than it's due because of our own biases and experiences.
For all I know it could be a blind alley. The important thing is not to censor areas of research based on political correctness. The whole point of science is that it tells us what is rather than what we'd like to believe. If social dogma is to dominate the question of the effect of race on intelligence then we've taken a step towards irrationality IMO. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 11:19:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by dv82matt
I think that by focusing on and magnifying the negative aspects and minimizing the intangible positive aspects you've presented a skewed cost/benefit analysis.
|
BTW, what are the intangible positive aspects anyway? The tangible negetives are pretty stark -- potential empirical evidence of inferior intelligence between ethnic groups.
|
Why do you think that is a negative? |
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. And how do you combat descrimination founded on the basis of reproducible scientific fact? How do you insist or convince a company to hire from a minority group when it's been proven that minority group has on average lower intelligence? | If it is the case then is is the case whether we study it or not, the only difference is that by refusing to look at it we maintain our ignorance. |
Exactly. I'm making the argument that maybe, in some cases, it's better not to know. | You are essentially saying that as long as we don't know anything about the effect of race on intelligence then there is no basis for racism. |
There is currently no scientific basis for claiming one ethnic group is inferior to another. If you prove on average a certain ethnicity is less intelligent, then we'll have achieved a quantum leap in the justification for prejudice. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that will have major consequences. | Bigotry feeds on ignorance and in a climate where scientists are forced to censor their results the bigot is justified in discarding scientific evidence. |
Bigotry can do just fine with knowledge too.
| The thing is the scenario where one race has clearly superior or inferior overall native intelligence to another race isn't particularily likely anyway. |
So? Does that make a difference to you? What if it was very likely, would you be less idealistic about no-limit scientific research? Even if this is true, is it relevant? | I suppose we tend to give it more credit than it's due because of our own biases and experiences. |
I'm not giving the reality of it all that much credit. I've known a lot of smart people in my life from all kinds of ethnic origins - and dumb people too, but far fewer. Anecdotally I'd say there's nothing there, but scientifically, my anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. Even if science finds a small difference that people will never notice through direct experience, that difference will trump the anecdote every time.
For all I know it could be a blind alley. The important thing is not to censor areas of research based on political correctness. The whole point of science is that it tells us what is rather than what we'd like to believe. If social dogma is to dominate the question of the effect of race on intelligence then we've taken a step towards irrationality IMO.
|
So you don't have any positives relating to this specific research. You're more concerned with the practice of science itself. Don't limit science to be 'politically correct' and so forth. Can you think of any situation where it might be better not to know, or is all knowledge always intrinsicly good to have? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 12:42:20 [Permalink]
|
Of course, the religious right (or at leasst their "science" branch) has cashed in on this:
This is discussed over on Denialism blog.
I, of course, had to have my two cents, as in the last two current comments. I've also been able to sign up for the Uncommon Descent blog, so I can give Jason the what-for.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 13:17:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Because the ethnic group found to be of average lower intelligence is going to be descriminated against. There is no question about it. |
The corollary to this is that under the status quo the ethnic groups perceived to be of lower intelligence will continue to be discriminated against. There is no question about this either.
| And how do you combat descrimination founded on the basis of reproducible scientific fact? How do you insist or convince a company to hire from a minority group when it's been proven that minority group has on average lower intelligence? |
Point out that the average is not indicative of any particular individual's intelligence so if one is screening individuals for intelligence then race is not a useful factor.
Make laws enforcing equal treatment if need be. But we do that already.
| There is currently no scientific basis for claiming one ethnic group is inferior to another. If you prove on average a certain ethnicity is less intelligent, then we'll have achieved a quantum leap in the justification for prejudice. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that will have major consequences. |
In that case there is also little scientific basis for disproving the racist's claims of superiority. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that also has major consequences.
| Bigotry feeds on ignorance and in a climate where scientists are forced to censor their results the bigot is justified in discarding scientific evidence. |
Bigotry can do just fine with knowledge too. |
I disagree that bigotry flourishes equally well in a climate of free and open inquiry as it does in an environment of enforced ignorance.
| The thing is the scenario where one race has clearly superior or inferior overall native intelligence to another race isn't particularily likely anyway. |
So? Does that make a difference to you? What if it was very likely, would you be less idealistic about no-limit scientific research? Even if this is true, is it relevant? |
Of course it is relevant. If it was very likely I'd rethink my position.
| I'm not giving the reality of it all that much credit. I've known a lot of smart people in my life from all kinds of ethnic origins - and dumb people too, but far fewer. Anecdotally I'd say there's nothing there, but scientifically, my anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. Even if science finds a small difference that people will never notice through direct experience, that difference will trump the anecdote every time. |
The measurements we have for general intelligence are too coarse for a statistically significant result to be likely. Really differences are more likely to be discovered in specific aspects of brainfunction such as response times to various stimuli which don't correlate very well with general intelligence.
| So you don't have any positives relating to this specific research. You're more concerned with the practice of science itself. Don't limit science to be 'politically correct' and so forth. |
That's correct. I'd leave it to the experts in the field to decide whether there was merit in pursuing it.
| Can you think of any situation where it might be better not to know, or is all knowledge always intrinsicly good to have? |
I think knowledge is intrinsically useful. But I can certainly imagine crisis situations where it is better to suspend or slow scientific inquiry for a limited time to prevent it being used to pursue immoral goals. But that is just a stopgap measure, eventually we have to deal with reality. An environment where legitimate scientists are unwilling to look at questions of race opens the door to agenda driven research. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Watson Says Africans Less Intelligent
