Black people are dumbFollow

Which does not disprove the overall observation. That there are genetic traits that do tend to follow racial lines that provide advantages or disadvantages in specific activities. There's some very specific reasons why we tend to see a heck of a lot more black track and field runners and a heck of a lot more white swimmer. And it's not cultural.

As to the "it's too broad/general". Of course it is. It was a general statement. What's surprising about that? It's not like Watson said "All white people are smarter then all black people". Nor would any sane person say that all black people are better runners then all white people. He was pointing exactly to a general trend born out in testing that does seem to indicate that black people perform more poorly as a group on tests designed to test intelligence then white people.

You can take that to mean whatever you want. However, the base observation is accurate (and I note that you failed to respond at all to that part of my post). All Watson did was voice an opinion about a possible genetic cause for data we already have. Doubting his opinion (and it was just an opinion) does not change the base data itself, but oddly seems to be the primary motivator for attacking his original statement. It's not about his view on genetics, but the very fact that he might suggest that there really is a difference in performance that tracks along with race that most people find offensive.


And yet, that's what the data from every single study done on the subject indicates. You're all attacking the explanation as though it's the cause of the condition it's attempting to explain.





I'm pretty sure Watson is aware of this. He's presumably far more aware of what genetically constitutes "race" then you or I.




Um... An advantage to one group is a disadvantage to another, right? What's the difference between saying that blacks are more resistant to malaria and saying that non-blacks are more susceptible to it? None really. It's just semantics...



You're assuming its a zero sum game though. That intelligence can simply be "higher" in a given group without some tradeoff of other attributes. Obviously, none of us can say for sure. Genetics becomes extremely complicated when you're looking at naturally occurring trends and how different genes interact and we've only begun to scratch the surface of the subject.

You're also assuming that every group of people would improve any given genetic advantage at the exact same rate. This is part of what Watson was talking about. He suggested that it was absurd to assume that different groups of people would all evolve over time identically. This is clearly not true since the very reason we even think of different human races is because we can see clearly differentiated traits among groups of people who were separated significantly for long periods of time. If we accept those differences (which we must), then the only question is whether or not intelligence is a genetically influenced trait. If it is then (as Watson suggests) it would almost certainly be present at different levels, and would reasonably be expected to be different in different groups that were genetically separated for long periods of time. Since those groups *also* happen to largely be what creates different attributes that we already define as "race", we should expect to see those same differences among those same racial lines.


It's basic genetic theory. Nothing really complex about this. No different then saying that two lines of birds separated genetically for long periods of time will evolve different traits. He's simply making the assertion that if intelligence is genetically influenced then it's almost certainly going to be present differently along those groups we already define by racial groups. It just happens to be politically incorrect to point this out is all. It's not like anyone with even a passing knowledge of genetics can't reasonably noodle out the same conclusion.

Edited, Oct 19th 2007 7:41pm by gbaji

I still don't understand the value in proving that any race is genetically inferior to another in any respect.

That can't be it, because gbaji is so anti-PC. He's like, the Howard Stern of the interwebs.

I never used the word "inferior". That's your word, not mine. I'm saying "genetically different". Which I think is pretty darn obviously true.

Back to IQ, Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples (Psychological Science, Oct '06) states that the tested IQs of black Americans has been on a sharp rise over time, narrowing the "IQ gap" with whites by upwards of 7 points in the last three decades. Although all IQ scores rise over time among groups (the "Flynn effect"), those among blacks have outpaced the average gains by whites at a predictable rate. See also Black-White Gap In IQ Scores Closing (Issues in Higher Education Aug '06). According to research at Washington University in St. Louis, black students show four times the IQ gain shown by white students while in college (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Dec '97).

In 1951, testing of black and white infants actually concluded that black (American) infants were smarter than white infants although not by a notable amount (Socio-economic status and race as factors in infant intelligence test scores, Child Psychology 1951). This advantage was born out in three different tests. See also Longitudinal Assessment of the Intelligence of Black Infants (National Inst. of Child Health and Human Development, '79)
In 1986, The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic Differences and Malleability (Child Development, April 1986) was published in which IQ scores among black infants adopted into white families were compared with those of other groups. Among its findings:

Granted, we're talking about African-Americans in these studies and not "legitimate" sub-Saharan Africans. Which was a point studied in Absence of a relationship between degree of White ancestry and intellectual skills within a Black population (Human Genetics, 1977) which found a lack of correlation between the intelligence scores of African-Americans and the 'purity' of their African ancestry vs those who experienced some European interbreeding. In other words, you can't explain away higher scoring blacks by suggesting that they must have some European blood in them. It's also interesting because in IQ tests done on sub-Saharan Africans (in this case, from Zimbabwe), the Africans scored two standard deviations lower than Europeans, however African-Americans only scored one deviation lower. African–White IQ differences from Zimbabwe on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Personality & Individual Differences, Jan '03)

Cross-cultural Effects on IQ Test Performance: A Review and Preliminary Normative Indications on WAIS-III Test Performance (long title, huh? From Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology in Oct '04) found that black South Africans who were tested in African and who had advantaged education opportunities (i.e. not stuck as blacks in the S. African public education system) scored similarly to white Americans.

If African-American test scores are not linked to the directness of their African ancestry and if African-American test scores have shown a continual improvement which far surpasses the rate of white improvement, and if infants of African descent are no less intelligent than white infants, it would seem unlikely that there is a strong genetic component to African intelligence (as a whole) vs that of other races. Rather, environment seems to play a role which dwarfs any minor effect genetics may have.Darwin would be even sadder to see you using only half of his concept. Groups tend to diverge when they are geographically isolated and when the divergence is of a survival benefit. You are, although you deny it, asking people to accept that (a) every group of sub-Saharan Africans, no matter how interbreeding or isolated, evolved along the same genetic path in regards to intelligence and that (b) in none of these groups was greater intelligence enough of a survival benefit for it to flourish in the gene pool. But only in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now that would make Darwin sad.Actually, that was Watson's word.

Although it may be easy to frame this as a "political correctness" issue, the fact is that there are a lot of reasons from a critical standpoint to doubt that there are continentally broad and notable genetic difference in intelligence potential among sub-Saharan Africans versus whites or whoever else. Extraordinary evidence is needed for these claims, not half-cocked theories about Darwinism and insinuations that any resistance is due to political correctness.

Edited, Oct 21st 2007 2:24pm by Jophiel

Kachi, it's good to see you over here in the sandbox.

Now, when I bring this thread up in the mooglefuсker forums, I'll have someone else who can say "Yep, I saw it. Daimen is an imbecile."