Posted on 10/17/2007 1:36:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Watson doesn't run the lab:
Under the leadership of Dr. Bruce Stillman, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the Royal Society (London), some 330 scientists conduct groundbreaking research in cancer, neurobiology, plant genetics and bioinformatics. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is one of eight National Cancer Institute-designated basic research centers in the U.S. and the only such center in the tri-state area.
If intelligence resides in our genes, genetic research should, eventually, be able to help those who are less intelligent.
Hmmmm
South Africa is pretty darn hospitable as is Rhodesia where whites were able to do very well with food production after 1000s of years of locals doing nothing beyond hardscrabble. North America is pretty hospitable as we know ...so why no great civilizations here?
Northern Europe is pretty inhospitable in winter....why did they flourish?
Your argument is not completely without merit but when all things together I believe it contributes to higher collective IQs and I believe stats prove that.
I blame lagging mean Negroid IQs on geographic isolation after the Sahara went bad and left those to the South sorta stranded and little outside stimuli. After 10,000 years we cannot expect ALL hunter gatherer types to just surge and catch up with more advanced cultures all at once in a 3-400 years though yes give the right opportunities many will.
Many things determine culture and it's a circular path of cause and effect between so many factors.
It starts out by accident but can become design. As a father of 5 I can promise you that personalities are hereditary so I'm sure intelligence can be.
Btw....pre-Roman Gauls get a bad rap as savages because they get compared to Romans which is a tall order. They were much more advanced that simple stone-bronze aged hunter gatherers
I'm 50 and my generation is about then last of the non-PC on this stuff. We were never really taught all the cultural relativism you have been.
Dr. Watson is not the President of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and was not speaking on behalf of the institution.The Board of Trustees, administration and faculty vehemently disagree with these statements and are bewildered and saddened if he indeed made such comments. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory does not engage in any research that could even form the basis of the statements attributed to Dr. Watson.
We are talking past each other, perhaps I should have said “better suited to their beliefs and ‘perceived’ needs”.
That stated, he 'just' found out the structure, not how DNA works (which is still being worked on). It is somewhat improbable that he plays a major part in the actual research of his laboratory today.
And personally would view the uncoding of the human (and other species') genome(s) to be of more impact on its own--the genome might conceivably not have been able to be sequenced if the structure was not first found--than that DNA is coiled in a double helix.
As for your post to Constantine, it isn't readily apparent that Mr. Anand is Caucasoid (being Indian, he isn't Caucasian, a inhabitant of the Caucasus region, or in the United States a colloquial term used for people of European descent). He's chubby; that makes determining his facial bone structure difficult. Especially from a relatively small picture. Furthermore, being skilled at chess is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. It does push players to consider steps in advance, but in terms of strategy, there are far more useful games today. Again about Indians, many of the smart Indians here are from southern India, and are of more Dravidian than Caucasoid appearance.
These things didn't exactly wash up on the shore one day in civilized countries, either. Development doesn't just happen, gifted individuals make it happen.
There are brilliant black people. But since you are condemning HIS analysis of intelligence, then YOU define intelligence so that it encompassed all races equally.
How many times have you heard of a black being promoted over a whole slew of white police officers when one of the primary decision tools is the score on a particular test?
How many blacks vs whites drop out of college because they are not academically up to the task? I can tell you that it is significantly more. You cannot blame all of it on the public elementary and high schools.
How many great civilizations came out of central and southern Africa? None.
How many African countries run primarily by black Africans are considered modern, industrial countries? Again, none.
Like it or not, people ARE different and PEOPLES are, too.
As a whole, if you go into a schoolroom with and equal number of white kids and black kids, you can be guaranteed that the black kids will not do as well academically.
The people here pride themselves as being politically incorrect, but most of you have been too indoctrinated and are too scared to admit the truth.
Flame away, I can take it.
Now collecting flowers for Algernon...
So there's been enough time for natural selection to produce pale white Nordics and dark black Africans, tall Central Africans and short pygmies, people with Melanin to protect them from the sun, and Eskimos with body fat to protect them from the cold.....but there hasn't been enough time to produce any differences in behavior or abilities? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially given the fact that you admit there are vast ranges of intelligence within groups. There are very stupid people and very smart people, and all points in between, among people who are living around one another and mating with one another, but you find it impossible to conceive that groups separated for eons could be different from one another in IQ, temperament, or anything of the kind.
There is not a very noticeable variance in intelligence--again, from observation.
Not many people share your observation.
The tendency in populations of African descendants and European descendants is for the European descendants to take the leading role. However, it is a long stretch to conclude that this is because of genetics. Rather, it is traceable to history. In non-African places, Africans were imported as slaves. In Africa, Europeans arrived with more advanced technology which allowed them not only to thrive, but suppress the natives. This happened relatively recently. European were given leadership roles, because Europeans formed the colonies. Is it surprising (from a non-genetic view) that in the Americas, European descendants still have a leading role?
You're begging the question. Why was it Europeans who colonized Africa and not the other way around? Are there any examples of sub-Saharan blacks building tall masted ships and setting sail to conquer the Danes, or the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons, or the Dravidians, or the Chinese? Why didn't they enslave whites? It certainly isn't because they didn't approve of slavery. They'd still be practicing slavery today in Africa if not for Western intervention.
People generally covet power and don't relinquish it willingly unless they have to (see South Africa).
I've seen South Africa (from afar) and it's going straight to hell, like Zimbabwe before it.
So far, especially in Latin America, those of less European descent have allowed for a tiny European elite to rule over them. But the European advantage was conferred by history and the technology (much of it bootlegged from Asia) used to establish European rule, not by particularly 'intelligent' genes.
So why didn't the people conquered by the Europeans possess that technology? You're arguing in a circle. John uses physics, chemistry, and electronics to develop a ray gun that allows him to control the mind of Bill. Bill doesn't develop such a ray gun. In fact, he hasn't yet invented the wheel, even though he's been around as long as John. Yet, you'd say John isn't smarter, he just happened to have that ray gun.
Hopefully in the future the 'races' won't exist, and humanity will be more homogeneous,
Don't bet on it. The future belongs to East Asians who haven't bought into the idea that race doesn't matter.
but if they do, it is conceivable that 'Afroids' might be ruling over 'Caucasoids' at some point.
How could that be possible unless they have superior technology? Any indication that Zaire is about to eclipse Japan in nanotechnology?
but much of European technology is descended from Asia. Columbus may not have made it to the Americas without Arab technology for his galleons, a Chinese compass and paper--and if you are a proponent of 1453, Chinese maps of the world, a southwestern Asian (Middle Eastern) astrolabe. Even your mention, the steam engine, was invented by the Greeks, who had a civilization that is traceable to both Levant and Egyptian (see, African) civilization.
I've never said that European civilization was the be-all and end-all of world history. I love other cultures, particularly Asian ones (see my Freeper page). As for Egypt, you're pulling the Afro-Centrism fantasy out of the hat again. Egypt is on the continent of Africa, but it is not sub-Saharan. The great Egyptian civilization of antiquity was Mediterranean, not "African". Everyone involved in Egyptology knows this. This is why there are NAACP-type protests every time some Egyptian antiquities are displayed in America. The accompanying drawings and reconstructed busts of King Tut and others never appear "African", because those people weren't black Africans.
The point is, European technology--or civilization--did not develop in isolation. Europe--particularly southern Europe--southwestern Asia, India, China, northeast Africa, and smaller states in between, took and transferred technology among their peoples. Peoples outside this group--such as sub-Saharan Africans, and until recently northern Europeans were comparably primitive since they did not have the populations to come up with more advanced technology.
Nonsense. Sub-Saharan African tribes traded with one another, fought one another, conquered one another just as the races north of the Sahara did, yet they never developed.
You ('you' in a general sense) should look at history, upbringing, nutrition, etc. for why some people are more intelligent than others rather than immediately come to the conclusion that disparities in their genomes are the primary cause.
I've never said, nor would I ever say, that genetics are the only cause of IQ disparities. However, they are an important one. A sure fire way to get in big trouble at any university is to announce that you're planning to do research into race disparities in IQ. Everyone will react with horror, and you'll have a ton of trouble getting grant support. The reason for this is that it's taken as a given that the more research is done on this subject, the more problems there will be for racial egalitarians. If the facts were on the side of Watson's critics, they'd be begging for more research to be done in this area and presenting their findings. Instead, they shut down (and shout down) research, because it would literally take academic fraud on a grand scale to refute the idea that there is a genetic basis for intelligence and that there are racial differences in IQ and temperament.
And to show that racist 'science' is not new, nor is it exclusively targeted at Africans, read the writings of this esteemed historian about a group of people. You will find some striking similarities to some of the comments leveled at those of African descent on this thread, and that you have probably heard/read before. And this historian is noted for taking a particularly kindly view in comparison to his peers toward the subject 'race.'
And yet the Germans and the Japanese and other supposed barbarians had something that could be called a civilization. More recently, both Germany and Japan were flattened by a world war (Germany was twice flattened) and within a few years they were both booming. In contrast, sub-Saharan African regions were colonized but never destroyed. The colonialists brought in medicine, technology, written language, and concepts of governance that the natives had never dreamed of in thousands of years of existence. When the colonialists left, these regions began sliding backward. How do you explain that?
You’re right that being a pointy-headed college professor doesn’t make anyone sharp. However, as it relates to this subject, I would note a few things:
1) Pointy heads who have never done a lick of research into IQ, race, or other such subjects almost universally pontificate on the egalitarian side on this issue.
2) Pointy heads who do research on racial/IQ issues must do so within a pointy headed academic world which usually forbids, or at least discourages, research into these areas. That makes me think that these pointy heads are a little more committed to the truth than the ones who are trying to shut them down.
3) Pointy headed scientists such as Gould or Lewontin, who sneer at the idea that there is a genetic basis for intelligence or that there are racial disparities in IQ, never produce any actual research on this issue themselves. If there was an equal body of scientific evidence to counter the work of Watson, Shockley, and others, don’t you think we’d see it?
What we’re seeing here is the same type of smear that was heaped upon Larry Summers. Virtually everyone involved in research into these fields knows that males do indeed have superior spatial reasoning abilities to females, on average. That’s why no one ever produces legitimate research indicating otherwise. Instead, they simply shout down anyone who speaks the truth on this issue, and run him out of town for being a “sexist”.
related:
Nobel Scientist Condemned For ‘Racist’ Claims
The Telegraph (UK) | 10-17-2007 | Stephen Adams
Posted on 10/17/2007 1:20:53 PM EDT by blam
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1912541/posts
"Physical, mental, and moral peculiarities go with blood and not with language. In the United States the negroes have spoken English for generations; but no one on that ground would call them Englishmen, or expect them to differ physically, mentally, or morally from other negroes." -- Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog" [Erik Trinkaus, Pat Shipman, The Neandertals pp 46-47]
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, no way in Hades am I going to send a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Fascinating article! Thank you!! RD
you’re very good at this.
> These things didn’t exactly wash up on the shore one day in civilized countries, either. Development doesn’t just happen, gifted individuals make it happen.
Interestingly, the Maori probably didn’t need wheels or metals or a written language. For what they were trying to achieve, they did admirably well with the technologies that they did have.
For example, they discovered “greenstone” — a type of jade. It is harder and stronger than steel, and takes an extremely keen edge and holds it: yet it can be easily shaped and carved. Perfect for weaponry and tool-making.
Their weaponry is fascinating: designed to kill people with a view to eating them later. And they developed their own, very sophisticated, team-based martial arts surrounding the use of these weapons.
One such weapon, the taiaha, was more than a match for a musket-with-bayonet-fixed. Part quarter-staff, part bayonet, part heavy club, part slashing blade: in skilled hands a taiaha is, to this day, a fearsome weapon — in the same way that a samurai sword is a fearsome weapon.
They basically developed those technologies that would help them to do what they needed doing. Wheels and metals were simply not required.
I could be wrong, but I believe that the Incas did not discover the wheel either.
LOL, so basically people with degrees are pointy headed and unworthy of respect unless they agree with you, in which case they’re right because they know THE TRUTH.
People don’t know the truth because there’s a big cover-up.
Does this sound reasonable to you? :p
Where did I say that? In fact, there are areas where I disagree with Watson, such as abortion.
But that does bring up an interesting analogy. I've had people who were sort of neutral on the abortion issue ask me how they can know which side is telling the truth. After all, the pro-lifers say abortion takes a human life, while many pro-abortionists insist that it doesn't. So which side is telling the truth?
I tell them that a good way to figure this out is to see which side tries to hide things, and which side tries to bring them to light. For example, do abortion supporters invite the press into abortion centers to videotape abortions? You know, so that the public can see that there's no real harm done by an abortion? Do they show us the ultrasounds before the abortion? Do they show us the aftermath? Of course not. It's pro-lifers who want to show those things, and the pro-abortion side grows enraged whenever a photo or a video of an abortion is shown. The pro-aborts go to court to keep laws from being enacted which require abortionists to show women considering an abortion an ultrasound.
Likewise, when pro-lifers assert that a new human life begins at conception, because a new complete DNA is created, the pro-aborts try to blur the issue. They'll argue that sperm are also alive, or that a cell from your finger is also alive, or that it's a "philosophical" question, not a scientific one, to ask when a new life begins. The pro-aborts never produce scientific evidence to support the claim that a new human life begins at birth, or viability, or anything like that. They just try to confuse the issue.
This is remarkably similar to the IQ/race debate. The first response of the academic community to people like Shockley or Herrnstein or Murray is to shout them down; To express outrage that anyone would make the assertions they're making or present the evidence they're presenting, and to demand censorship of such material. Then, they'll try to confuse the issue. Gee, how can we say what intelligence really is? How can we know it's of any value? How do we know what a race is? Whose to say what race we belong to? There are differences within races so even if there are differences between them, who cares? This is akin to the pro-aborts arguing that we can't really define life, or define personhood, or say that an embryo is as valuable as a teenager, or the notorious "Gosh, an early embryo doesn't look human so it must not be human".
No one ever offers counter research. No one ever says, we're going to lay this issue to rest once and for all...we're going to fund a multi-million dollar research project that will prove once and for all that there is no genetic component to IQ, and that there are no racial differences in behavior or ability. We're bringing in the top geneticists from around the globe and this will be a definitive, peer reviewed study.
Do they do that? Noooooo! They summon the Kommissar for Racial Equality and threaten to have the offending scientist stifled. They call their friends in the media who report on the "shockingly racist" comments of Watson or the "disturbingly sexist" utterings on Summers. This is sometimes followed by protests, sit-ins, and other breast-beating expressions of rage, while professors who haven't produced a single sentence of counter-research vent and rant about how horrified they are that someone like Charles Murray is allowed to speak or publish. After all, all the beautiful people know that there can't be any genetic component to IQ, there can't be any racial or gender differences in ability, because....because...well, because it would be racist, sexist, and classist if there were.
Whose = Who’s.
Typo! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.